Russian Science Policy in Post-Soviet Period

Irina DezhinaInstitute for World Economy and

International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences

dezhina@imemo.ru

Contents1. Major characteristics of R&D sector in Russia2. Evolution of government reforms (1992-till present).3. Successes and failures in support of science as a public

good: new forms of financing integration of research and education organizational changes

4. Successes and failures in support of science as a source of innovations:

involvement of business infrastructure for commercialization

5. Evaluation of innovation policy in Russia: InnoTrend Chart6. Major flaws in government regulation.7. Directions for improvement.

R&D in Russia: Major Characteristics

62% of financing comes from the federal budget. Its share is slowly growing.

73% of organizations conducting R&D are state-owned (are federal property).

77% of all personnel in R&D work in state-owned R&D organizations.Russian R&D sector is mostly government-owned and government-financed.

Organizations Implementing R&D by Type of Ownership

73,4

4,9

20,5

0,6

0,6

73,8

11,8

11,8

1,5

1,0

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0

Federal

Priv ate

Public-Priv ate

Joint Russian-Foreign

Other

percent

1995 2005

Federal Expenditures on Civilian R&D in Russia

Financing 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (plan)

Approved budget, billion rubles 30,3 40,2 46,2 56,0 71,7 89,0 110,0

Approved budget, billion USD 0,94 1,37 1,66 1,96 2,72 3,65 4,51

Increase to the previous year, % (current USD)

-45,7 21,2 18,1 38,8 34,2 23,6

Foreign Financing of Russian and Eastern European Science

EASTERN EUROPE AND RUSSIA: 2003

9,0

10,7

3,3

4,6

4,8

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

Hungary Russia Poland Czech Republic Slovakia

%

RUSSIA

10,312,0

9,47,67,6

9,08,0

8,6

16,9

0,02,04,06,08,0

10,012,014,016,018,0

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

perce

nt

Business Enterprise and Government Expenditures on R&D (data for 2003)

62

30

40

54

23

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

%

OECD countries Eastern Europe Russia

Business enterprise expenditures Government expenditures

Researchers in Russian Science

  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number of researchers per 10 000 of economically active population

74 78 75 74 72 69 58

Researchers, in percent to the year 1991

47,8 48,5 48,1 47,2 46,6 45,4 45,2

Researchers, in percent to the previous year

101,4 99,1 98,2 98,8 98,0 97,4 99,4

Age Structure of Russian Researchers

Year Younger then 29

30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and older

Total

2000 10,6 15,6 26,1 26,9 20,8 100

2002 13,5 13,8 23,9 27,0 21,8 100

2004 15,3 13,0 21,9 27,8 22,0 100

2006 17,0 13,1 19,0 27,8 32,1 100

Researchers in Russia and USA: Distribution by Age Groups(Russia – 2004; USA – 2003)

21,9 22,3 22,0

27,8

13,015,3

26,727,8

7,1

16,1

0,05,0

10,015,020,025,030,0

younger then29

30-39 40-49 50-59 older then 60

perce

nt

Russia USA

Changes in Financing and R&D Labor Force

43,3

91,5

16,623,3 19,4 22,7

30,6

44,547,248,151,855,2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1992 1996 1997 2001 2002 2005

In %

to 1

991

Financing from the federal budget Number of researchers (headcount)

New Policy Encouraging Mobility “Brain drain” is now seen as part of

international mobility The discussion is around ways to

collaborate with diaspora with the aim to attract some emigrated researchers back to Russian science

Possible way to attract researchers back to Russia: to develop different types of initiatives in research and education stimulating “partial” return

Who Constitutes Potential Brain Gain?

Tenured faculty at universities Researchers completing their second-third

post-doc Researchers working under temporary

contracts (70-80% from total diaspora) “Aging” researchers (around 65 years old)

– because of limits established in European countries

““Mirror” Laboratories in Russia Mirror” Laboratories in Russia (Case of Nizhny Novgorod State University)(Case of Nizhny Novgorod State University)

Foreign laboratory

“Mirror” laboratory

Russian researcher from diaspora or foreign researcher

• Foreign co-leader• Russian co-leader

Leadership

Research tasks

• Own research• Joint research projects

• Joint research projects• Own research

R&D personnel• Staff• Training of researchers from “mirror” laboratory

• Staff• Invited researchers

Financing• Federal budget• Domestic and foreign grants• Joint grants

• Federal budget• Goal-oriented projects, Federal goal- oriented programs• Domestic and foreign grants• Joint grants

““Mirror” Laboratories: Mutual Mirror” Laboratories: Mutual InterestsInterests

Foreign laboratory

“Mirror” laboratory

• Access to high quality

research expertise

• Integration in international

R&D Projects

• Raising quality of education

• Attraction of youth to science

• Promotion of mobility

• Access to additional sources

of financing

• Access to high quality

workforce

•Minimization of expenditures

on R&D

•Additional sources of

financing

• “Personal factors” –

recognition in home country,

linkages with relatives and

friends

Research Productivity

32

3839

47

74

0,16

1,17

1,27

0,620,68

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Russia Slovakia Poland Hungary Czech Republic

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

Personnel in R&D per 10 000 economically active population (2003)Publications per researcher during 1996-1999

Patents Granted by USPTO / Million population(average for 2001-2005)

324,12

278,03

164,38

146,45

77,64

1,34

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

USA

Japan

Finland

G7

Western Europe

RUSSIA

Policy Towards Science

Science as a subject for regulation

Science as a public goodScience as source

of innovations

Major Tasks for Transition Period

Government tasks during reforms

Saving best science Restructuring Creation of new institutions

PaymentsStatus

Organizational reform

Infrastructure Legal

basis

Funds

Periodization of Reforms 1992-1996: preservation of science during

economic crisis; creation of new organizational and institutional framework.

1997-2001: frequent changes in science & innovation policy. Development of innovative infrastructure.

2002-2007: development of strategic vision for science & innovation policy. Attempts to start structural reforms in science, create favorable environment for innovations.

Successes and Failures in Supporting Science as a Public Good

Successes

Grants

Program financing

Integration of researchand education

Support of young scholars

Failures

Grants- small scale

Outdated schemesof block funding

Flaws in expertsystem

Lack of coordination

Fragmentedmeasures

Forms of Financing of R&D in Russia

Types of financing, % to total 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Block financing 67,4 70,3 73,7 73,2 69,7

Program financing 24,9 21,6 18,1 19,9 23,1

Government foundations (grant financing) 7,7 8,1 8,2 6,9 7,2

Changes in Forms of Financing Introduction of Budgeting Oriented on

Results Grown Share of Program Financing:

75% of Ministry of Education and Science Budget

Share of government foundations stays the same: 8,5% (by-law, total for 3 foundations) of the total civilian expenditures on R&D from the federal budget

Russian Science Foundations: General Principals of Operation

“Bottom-up” approach: applications are initiated by groups of researchers

Peer review evaluation of proposals (only domestic experts)

Financing of individual projects rather than institutions

Accountability in the budgets of projects Obligation to give a full report of results

after project is completed

Major Government-Supported Science Foundations in Russia

Foundation Year of Establish-

ment

Budget

Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR)

1992 6% of expenditures on civilian science from the federal budget. Approx. 153 million euro in 2007

Russian Foundation for Humanities (RHF)

1994 1% of expenditures on civilian science from the federal budget. Approx. 25 million euro in 2007

Fund for Assistance to Small Innovative Enterprises

1994 1,5% of expenditures on civilian science from the federal budget. Approx. 38 million euro in 2007

Current State of Integration of Research and Education

Integration

1071 universities 451 RAS institutes

406 universities conduct R&D

17.1% teachers do research34% Academy researchers teach

350 basic chairs at universities

Universities receive 3,8% of civilian budget on R&D

Academy institutes receive35% of civilian budget

on R&D

Fundamental Research in Russian Universities and Academy Institutes(in percent to the total expenditures on fundamental research)

20002001

20022003

20042005

Univ ersities

Academy institutes

61,2 62,6 65,663,7

69,4 71,5

12,0 13,812,3 15,4

12,812,3

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

perc

ent

Problems of Integration

Innovation activity in universities is not considered as primary type of activity and it has many legal limitations.

Teaching loads are high and this prohibits lecturers from active involvement in research.

Research divisions and teaching divisions in universities are regulated differently; research activity is less beneficial in terms of material support and stability.

New Charter of the Russian Academy of Sciences Approved by the Government of RF in

November 2007, will come into force January 1, 2009. 2008 – transition period

New status New scheme of financing – through

program of fundamental research, in the form of subsidies

More freedom in innovation activity

Changes in Organization and Governance of the RAS

Former RAS Charter Suggestions developed by MOES - “Model” RAS Charter

Approved RAS Charter

President of RAS is elected by the General Assembly of RAS

President of RAS is elected by General assembly of RAS and approved by the President of RF

President of RAS is elected by General assembly of RAS and approved by the President of RF

RAS Charter is approved by the General Assembly of RAS

RAS Charter is accepted by the General Assembly of RAS and approved by the Government of RF

RAS Charter is accepted by the General Assembly of RAS and approved by the Government of RF

Academy has status of government, self-directed organization and is financed from the federal budget

Academy has status of budgetary establishment, and has the right to govern its activity

Academy is nonprofit research organization created in the form of Government Academy of Sciences. It is self-directed organization.

There is no Supervisory Board in the structure of the Academy

Supervisory Board is collective authority of the Academy. It consists from three representatives of the Academy, three – of the Government, and one from each of the following organizations: State Duma, Federation Council, and Administration of the President

There is no Supervisory Board in the structure of the Academy

There are no age limitations for any administrative positions at the Academy

There is age limit (70 years old) for all top administrative positions at the Academy

There are no age limitations for any administrative positions at the Academy

Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies and Nanotechnology Network

Budget released in 2007 – 130 billion rubles (3.5 billion EURO)

Nanotechnology network: 700 R&D organizations and universities conduct nanotechnology research

In 2007 50% of the budget allocated to MES Program “R&D on Priority Directions of Scientific-Technical Complex of Russia” was spent on research in nanotechnology

MES supported 400 nanotech projects in 2007 Out of 13 megaprojects 8 were related to

nanotechnology Growing number of universities suggest new

courses in nanotechnology

Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies: Legal Aspects

Rights

Selects R&D projects for financing

Finances educational activities

May conduct entrepreneurship activity

May create nonprofit organizations

May create own funds

Law on bankruptcy is not applicable to the Corporation

Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies: Expectations and Possible Outcomes

Government expectations include:1. Development of nanotechnology and related

research fields.2. Growing business activity including business

financing of R&D and commercialization.3. New products competitive at international

market. Possible Outcomes:1. Disproportional development of research fields

damaging to the overall development of science.

2. Wasting of budget money because of absence in Russia of high tech businesses.

3. Exporting R&D, as it is now, and not high-tech products.

Successes and Failures in Supporting Science as a Source of Innovations

Successes

PPP

Support of SME

TechnicalInfrastructure

Regulation of IP

Failures

Budgetarylimitations

FailedPrivatization

Absence of humanResources policy

UnderdevelopedLegal regulation

Development of Foresight Procedures Foresight exercise (started in 2007) is one

of the first attempts to attract business to strategic planning.

The Foresight procedures were developing simultaneously by three government agencies.

Current shortages: Lack of coordination (both among agencies and

expert communities); A few experts are acquainted with foresight

methodology. Foresight is viewed as forecast.

Public-Private Partnerships Through Megaprojects 18 large-scale R&D projects (started in 2003)

aimed to foster technological development and to bring closer together research organizations and industrial enterprises.

The initiative had to demonstrate that investments made in hi-tech in Russia may be profitable for investors.

Financing is provided on matching basis with industry.

It was expected that volume of sales is 5 times higher then allocated to megaprojects budget financing.

Examples of Successful Megaprojects: «Development and batch production of new generation

of packing and fire-protective materials for general industrial needs». The materials developed are used in atomic and thermal power engineering, railroad transport, avia-, space-, oil and gas, and chemical industries.

«Development of technologies and production of equipment for nanotechnologies». The equipment is used in organizations working in the area of bio- and nanotechnologies. The equipment is exported to EU countries, South-East Asia, and USA.

«Creation of technologies and industrial production of metal materials with two-fold excess of operating characteristics». These are dual-use high quality steels and welding materials. Their development allowed to stop import of analogous materials.

Megaprojects: Results to the Date

Three megaprojects were considered successful. Volume of sales in them 8-10 times exceeded budgetary investments.

Questionable features of mechanism: R&D are financed only from the federal budget; R&D are implemented only in government or academic

institutes or universities; The role of companies – commercialization and

manufacturing; R&D organization collaborates with one company: this is

anticompetitive approach and there are no dissemination mechanisms.

Innovative Enterprises as Share of Total Industrial Enterprises

10,6

9,6

9,8

10,3

10,5

9,7

9,9

9

9,2

9,4

9,6

9,8

10

10,2

10,4

10,6

per

cen

t

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Types of Innovative Infrastructure in Russia (2006)

Infrastructure in universities, % of total

objects

Science parks 72,7

Innovation-technology centers 24,6

Technology Transfer Offices 69,1

44

32

61

15

68

47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

science parks innov ation-technology centers TTOs

Total At universities

New Innovative Infrastructure

In 2006 the creation of several new types of innovative infrastructure was initiated by the government:

Co-financed by the government venture funds (Fund of funds and IT fund)

IT technology parks (in 7 regions) Special economic zones (4 high tech

development zones)

Development of Innovative Infrastructure

Innovative Clusters

Special economic zones IT parks

Russian Venture Company Fund for Assistance

Small number of residents Frozen constructing works

15 billion rubles (0.6 billion USD) plusthe same amount for new activities

Positive Developments in Government Approach to Infrastructure Creation

New infrastructure schemes are largely based on elaboration of foreign experience

Previous Russian experience with technology parks and venture financing was taken into account

Government investments are much larger then before – over 380 million EURO in two venture funds

Indirect regulations (tax and custom exemptions for residents) are introduced in zones. IT parks may also receive tax privileges.

Problems Affecting Infrastructural Projects Lack of projects for venture financing

because of inadequate support of seed and start-up stages

Underdeveloped legal basis for venture industry

Bias from side of business against infrastructural projects: Association of managers 2005 survey: only

11% out of 150 surveyed large and medium-size companies welcome creation of zones and venture funds.

Evaluation of Innovation Policy Using EU Metrics

Policy Measure

Document (Law, Program, Government Order,etc.) describing measure

Detailed description of measure in Policy MeasureFiche

Search for documents describing / confirmingEvaluation and monitoring of policy measures

Components of Policy Measure Fiche in InnoTrend Chart

Relevance To LisbonGuidelines

Results,Evaluation,

Impact

Mode ofFinancing

TargetGroup and

Type ofprocess

Novelty

BackgroundAnd

Rationale

Goal ofMeasure,overview

Policy Fiche

Policy Measures: Major Findings

The actual innovation policy measures are mainly aimed at specific support actions and are largely based on direct support of R&D and innovation activity.

Some set of measures (limited) represent combination of direct support with indirect measures and administrative (legal) regulations.

The discussion is on the possibility to introduce more general innovation climate measures.

Three main policy directions: 1) growing attention towards forecasts and Foresight procedures; 2) further development of indirect measures to stimulate innovation; and 3) support for innovation infrastructure.

The Positive and Negative Aspects in

Russian Innovation Policy Implementation Positive:

Formulation of several strategic policy documents

Coordination bodies established on higher federal level. Growing number of ministries and agencies are engaged in the implementation of innovation policy

Growing attention to monitoring and evaluation of innovation policy

Use of mid-term indicators in research policy setting

Development of indirect measures to support innovations and attempts to create general innovation climate

Negative: A lot of innovation policy directions

and priorities are not accompanied by concrete measures. In conceptual papers measures and mechanisms are often incomplete or too descriptive

Lack of cross government coordination

Monitoring and evaluation of policy measures implementation are underdeveloped

Policy measures are not complex and favor direct support R&D and innovation activity

Major Flaws in Government Regulation

Absence of systemic and consistent approach. No regular evaluation and correction, if necessary, of the

government initiatives. Domination of old management practices in decision-

making process (lack of inter-agency coordination, not transparent expert evaluation, no responsibility of government officials for their decisions, no enforcement procedures).

Absence of serious attention and recognition of importance of science at the government level. Science is not seen as part of innovation system.

Areas for Improvement of Government Science Policy Monitoring, analysis and elaboration of previous

experience, development of systemic evaluation

Increase of openness of science policy and its results

Strengthening of horizontal linkages among government agencies, responsible for science and innovation policy, and improvement in coordination of their initiatives