ISSN 1995-459X print E-ISSN 2312-9972 online ISSN 2500-2597 online English
Editor-in-chief Leonid Gokhberg
|
2014. vol. 8. No. 4
|
Strategies
|
6–23
|
The article aims to discuss the practical problems and inconsistencies of industrial policy in Russia since 2000, to analyze positive and negative experiences, and to draw up some lessons which are essential for a new technology-industrial policy. The evolution of approaches to industrial policy in Russia is considered, which results particularly in convergence between innovation and industrial policies. Basic state interest groups are revealed, whose interaction determines the industrial policy design. The authors compare two recent significant industrial policies: in automotive industry and nanoindustry. On this basis, we highlight some prerequisites for successful policies. The following main lessons are drawn: First, global experience shows that the requirements for industrial policy and its opportunities change significantly with time. Such policies in any given country and at any particular point of time need new ideas and solutions; it is extremely difficult to replicate the success of different countries’ industrial policies. Second, examples of successful industrial policy typically aim to enter a foreign market, become globally competitive, and attract foreign investment. The implementation of industrial policy without definite and sufficient conditions for the free entry and exit of major players and without the participation of foreign partners is doomed to merely simulate progress, to have strong informational asymmetry, and to create antagonist images of what is actually happening in the economy in the eyes of the society and the public authorities. Third, the problem of correctly assessing the scientific and technological potential is of great importance for implementing technological-industrial policy. Numerous assessments appear to be unreliable since they do not take into account changes in business demand for technology. The tendency to use the legacy of past decades sometimes becomes a political problem, blocking new approaches and the development of international technology co-operation. Fourth, a negative attitude towards particular policies should not be regarded as a ‘taboo’ against studying related issues. Due to the fact that for a long time in Russia it has been as if ‘there were no kind of industrial policy’, the country now has a low quality of both industrial policy and research. |
Innovation and Economy
|
24–38
|
Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) are seen to be a core sector of the so-called ‘knowledge economy’, and already play an important role in developed economies. They a both innovate themselves and provide their clients with knowledge and learning opportunities. This paper examines the status of KIBS in Russia, and explores some key issues in their role in innovation using data from surveys of KIBS firms and their clients in Russia. We note that KIBS are often highly customized, and many new services prove difficult to replicate. KIBS are closely tailored to solving the problems of specific customers, and thus these services typically involve KIBS consumers in a co-production process. Both the formal supplier and the formal user of the service are engaged together in service production, allowing for mutual knowledge transfers and learning. Using KIBS is shown to affect customers’ propensity to innovate, confirming the importance of this sector for the innovation system. Survey data suggest that the impact on innovation is, as a rule, positive and strong. The propensity to innovate in turn stimulates further consumption of KIBS, which is therefore the start of a self-sustaining growth mechanism of innovation activity. Similar consequences are conceptually associated with knowledge transfer in the course of co-production: consumers get both specialized and general knowledge, improving their skills and increasing the innovative capacities. This enables customers to better understand their own needs and encourages them to consume more customized KIBS in the future, and producing KIBS companies get the opportunity to become effective elements of innovation systems. Authorities should consider the possibility of fostering innovative development by supporting the sector in question. |
|
40–53
|
Social innovation is acknowledged as one of the most promising tools of civic engagement and cross-sector partnerships to address social problems. It benefits society by improving its ability to organize and act and represents a new model of interaction between the state and civil society in addressing social problems. The article assesses the capacities and actual input of the Russian third sector (non-government not-for-profit organizations, or NGOs) in developing social innovation. It considers the essence of social innovation, discusses the critical role of the third sector as a favorable environment for the production of such innovation, and describes structural characteristics of third sector organizations which allow them to play a subjective role in developing and promoting innovative solutions in the social sphere. Based on empirical data on the state of Russia’s third sector and civic participation in NGOs, certain conclusions are made about the potential of the sector as a driver of innovation. We argue that the domestic third sector cannot be regarded as institutionally mature and ready for the production and dissemination of social innovation. In this respect, it is much inferior to European and American counterparts. Innovative initiatives developed by individual citizens as well as by NGOs are rather fragmented. Additional efforts are required to enhance their viability and replicability. Nevertheless, in spite of some inconsistencies, the dynamics of the third sector development and supportive public policies are in general going in the right direction. Policies in this field aim to create favorable conditions for NGOs and thereby strengthen their capacities in facilitating innovative changes in the social sphere. |
Science
|
54–63
|
Trends of stagnation in highly developed innovative systems are actively debated nowadays. The paper analyses the important role played by fundamental research in preventing such a negative scenario. It explains the essence of the so-called ‘European paradox’, whereby Europe, despite a higher scientific potential than the US, is much less efficient in innovation. Evidence from Austria shows the current system of fundamental research has several drawbacks. These weaknesses could prevent it from being a driver of breakthrough innovations. One problem is the contradictions in career development mechanisms in academia and the lack of accumulated research competencies in the form of large academic entities that are funded on an ongoing basis. Compared with other countries, Austria has little attraction for highly qualified specialists and, respectively, for the dynamic high-tech sectors. In order to remedy the situation, it is recommended to particularly develop projects that aim to find answers to the ‘grand challenges’, in parallel to curiosity-driven research. In addition, we recommend creating organizations with sufficient administrative capacities and autonomy to attract qualified staff and funding with a view to implementing innovation over a long term horizon (10-20 years). |
Master Class
|
64–83
|
Theoretical and applied studies about monitoring technology trends are carried out by organizations at global, national, sectoral, and corporate levels. Demand for them comes from the government, business, academic institutions, as well as the general public. Qualitative methods (expert interviews, surveys, workshops, etc.) play a significant role in large practical projects. At the same time, there is a need to validate expert assessments with quantitative methods, which involve searching for implicit signs of technological change based on analysing large volume of information. Approaches that have been developed in the framework of theoretical research are based on integrating qualitative and quantitative methods, with an emphasis on the latter. They aim to create a well-grounded methodology for identifying global technology trends, define the necessary criteria, and use automated tools for processing large amounts of data. The paper presents an analytical review of international practices for monitoring global technology trends, as well as the key theoretical approaches and methods, which have been developed in this field. Next, it analyses the purposes of technology monitoring projects, examines the types of organizations implementing them, the methodology and results of such projects; explores the key areas of theoretical research on technology monitoring, and studies the criteria for determining the trends, as well as possible classifications of them. In addition, it presents the main stages of technology monitoring, studies the methodological trajectories of this process and information sources that can be used by various researchers. Finally, the paper analyses the combinations of methods that serve as the basis for identifying different types of technology trends. |
Events
|
84–88
|
The HSE annual international academic conference is acknowledged as one of the globally renowned forums on Foresight studies. The following topics were discussed: - broader definition of innovation and its impact on the implementation of innovation policy;
- assessment of the actual and potential effects, posed by forward-looking activities on the development of innovation systems;
- embedding Foresight outputs into the mechanisms of public and corporate governance.
|
|
|