So, while judging the “innovation enforcement” measures from the perspective of the scale of outreach, they prove more effective than promotion of “non-coercive” communication, even in such traditional forms of the latter as training of cadres for corporations. Whether the “enforcement” proves efficient and is going to have a long-lasting effect on development of science and innovation, or the effects fade right once the “pressure” on subjects of innovation activity is over, is another story.
The first fruits of the cooperation between Russian universities and corporations implemented in the frame of the Resolution of the RF Government of 9 April 2010 demonstrate that corporate partners have gradually identified directions and forms of cooperation with universities which proved to have contributed to development of much-needed technologies. Cooperation is a hard thing to push ahead not only in Russia, but elsewhere: the record of promotion of the Advanced Technology Program in the US demonstrated that it took the corporate sector nearly a decade to grow pro-active as far as their collaboration with the university community is concerned.
The third stage is implementation of R&D projects put forward by technological platforms.
This particular stage has not been activated as yet, as the process of shaping up of technological platforms exposed an array of still unresolved problems.
The first of them lies in the methodological backing to the process, which is secured by two agencies: the RF Ministry of Economic Development and the RF Ministry of Education and Science. But the technical platform coordinators lack clarity as to which agency is responsible for what and to where inquiries regarding modus operandi should be placed. Specifically, it is not clear yet who will be considering technical platforms’ proposals on formation of the agenda of the future government program on development of science and technologies.
The other problem is the uncertainty with sources of financing of technological platforms projects. Presently, there are no strictly set procedures of financing of technological platforms. It is assumed that there would be a plethora of such sources, including federal target programs, ROSNANO, public corporations, RAS’s fundamental research programs, allocations under the aegis of various initiatives by the RF Ministry of Education and Science on cooperation between corporations and universities, to name a few.
As of December 2011, the ministries in question were not ready to finance even the organizational and technical operations of a technical platform (including drafting a strategic development program and a roadmap). Furthermore, an argument against special allocations in that regard is that where businesses and other cash-rich organizations partake in the platforms, they would be fond of sponsoring their operational logistics.
In all likelihood, the future support of technological platforms projects will be provided on a common basis. Somewhat more favorable regime may emerge only because collective projects developed on their basis would prove more ready-to-implement, thus having the greatest chance for getting funding.
tional Economy and Civil Service under the President of Russian Federation, National Research University ‘The Higher Scholl of Economics”, Center for Sociological Research MITSAR. M.: 2011.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks In general, two scenarios of development of support of technological platforms projects can be envisaged:
1) technological platform is a special status, which suggests a higher quality of projects. Besides, their subjects will be considered priority ones. In such circumstances technical platforms projects would find it easier to receive funding in the frame of the existing financial instruments;
2) technological platform is a combination of status and an additional budget funding to be allocated in the frame of an adjusted state program of development of science and technologies for 2013-2020. In such circumstances it is RFTD which may become the operator of allocation of respective funding.
The earlier selected platforms experienced a certain evolution in 2011: the composition of their participants became more balanced, thanks to some influx of business representatives, albeit 11 platforms have thus far displayed a low level of the corporate sector’s contribution thereto. There emerged leaders among the platforms, that is, those ones which have outpaced the others in the advancement along the above stages of formation and deployment. In this regard the “Medicine of the future” platform is particularly noteworthy. It has become the informal leader among its peers since the very onset. Its structure and performance allows assumption of how far a most efficient structure could progress. The platform is a consortium of 160 organizations, of which a half is corporations, 25%- educational institutions and 20% - academic ones1. In the course of the project’s evolution there unfolded 9 scientific-technical councils which cover more detailed directions of research in the frame of the platform’s overarching agenda. Furthermore, there already is a 120 project-strong base, of which 35 projects have already earned support in the frame of FTP “Research and development across priority directions of development of the scientific -technological complex of Russia for 2007-2013” and “Farma-2020”. Notably, the platform focuses on implementation of the cluster policy:
specifically, task forces on development of innovation clusters were established in a number of regions, including Moscow, St. Petersburg, Samara, Ekaterinburg, among others.
* * * The analysis of the development of science and innovation in 2011 allows the following conclusions:
1. Last year, innovation rhetoric and support of innovation on the government level proved very intense. The budget funding of R&D was on the upsurge, implementation of initiatives at Skolkovo was gaining momentum, the normative-legal environment for science and innovation activity was being modified, and new development institutions were unfolding. Importantly, the business sector’s attention to sponsoring R&D was on the rise and that can partly be ascribed to Government’s measures on promotion of the cooperation with the public research sector, primarily at universities.
2. By the end of the year, new legal acts had come in effect, which lifted a number of general economic barriers to advancement of innovation activities, including legal acts that concerned various forms of venture investment.
All the data on the technological platform “Medicine of the Future” are cited by the presentation: V.I. Dovgy.
“Russian technological platform “Medicine of the Future”: development record and new opportunities” made at an international workshop “Russian and European technological platforms: boosting cooperation”. Moscow, NRU HSE, 7 December 2011. http://issek.hse.ru/announcements/38687293.html Section Social Sphere 3. Meanwhile, the last year witness growing inequality in terms of assignment of budget funds, with main priorities being the university science and megaprojects, such as Skolkovo and megagrants on creation of laboratories led by prominent researchers from overseas. In the future, there may well emerge a string of other cash-intensive priorities, including cadres training overseas and creation of megascience units. Given that the public sector of science has remained unreformed, the innovation system may slip out of balance.
4. Measures on “forcing” business to get engaged in innovation have become increasingly widespread. Their efficiency appears ambiguous. The phenomenon of “forcing” corporations into innovation and collaboration with universities makes one recall recent plans to force young researchers to stay in the academic sector for several years in exchange for certain public benefits (such as the so called “departmental housing”, or a paid-for internship overseas, etc.). At the time, the idea was present only in draft concepts and strategies and, fortunately, was not adopted. It was academics themselves who opposed the idea in the first place, as an unmotivated researcher is a threat to equipment, a cause for an inaccurate fulfillment of experiment, etc. That is to say, an incorrect “enforcement” can cause a considerable damage.
5. New initiatives (developments in Skolkovo, shaping up technological platforms) in many ways are based upon customization of foreign experiences. But once borrowed, the instruments in question undergo a certain transformation in the Russian economic environment, which often ends up quite unpredictably. Meanwhile, the country sees new domestic developments unfold, and they are worth examination and a wider spread.
6. The State has remained the principal controlling and regulating agent, with bottom-up initiatives (such as scientific funds) left with no chance for advancement. That results in loose ties in the innovation system, while the “innovation lift” has thus far existed only in the form of a segmental set of development institutions.
7. In all, the level of the State’s involvement in development of the research and innovation activity has remained high and tended to further increase. Consequently, the innovation sphere focuses, primarily, on public financing, and such “uniqueness” of the economic structure blocks Russia’s integration in the global innovation system.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks Section Institutional Issues Section 6. Institutional Issues 6.1. Public Sector Status and Privatization Process 6.1.1. Public Sector Share of the Russian Economy The quantitative federal property data1 from official sources (Table 1) proves with assurance that in 2011 the total number of property assets registered with the federal property register decreased by more than 12% against the peak (1.562 million items) in the beginning of 2011. As of the beginning of 2012, however, it outstripped the value reported two years ago.
Table The number of organizations using federal property, and property assets registered with the federal property register in the period between 2008 and 2011 (units) Business entities (JSCs and LLCs) Total number of federal property aswith federally held share (interest) sets registered with the registry Federal State Unitary special right in the Computerized Date* Enterprises (FSUEs) (“golden share”) Federal Property Total on paper without interest Accounting System holding (CFPAS) as of January 1, 2008 5709 3801/3647** 127 … … as of January 1, 2009 3765 3503/3338** 136 701325 (December 31, 2008) as of January 1, 2010 3517 3066/2920** 117 1276572 (December 31, 2009) as of January 1, 2011 … 3077 120 1562018 (December 31, 2010) as of January 1, 2012 … 2930*** 111 1371266 (December 31, 2011) * – according to the quantity of federal property assets registered with the registry in the CFPAS as of December 31 of the relevant year;
** – only JSCs as denominator;
*** – as of December 28, 2011, including 2794 JSCs, 25 LLCs and 149 JSCs with the special right of the Russian Federation to participate in management (“golden share”) (without a federally held interest in 111 of them), 2822 JSCs with state participation are managed through the Federal Agency for State Property Management.
Source: Forecast Plan (Program) for the Federal Property for 2009 and the Guidelines of Federal Property Privatization for 2010 and 2011, the Forecast Plan (Program) for the Federal Property for 2010 and the Guidelines of Federal Property Privatization for 2011 and 2012, the Forecast Plan (Program) for the Federal Property and the Guidelines of Federal Property Privatization for 2011–2013; the data of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Russia on the basis of the federal property register, www.rosim.ru.
The aggregate quantity of business entities with state participation also decreased by 4.8% in 2011, however, it decreased by much more in 2008 and 2009, whereas a small growth was reported in 2010. As a result, the number decreased for the first time below 3,000 as of the In 2011, given the Forecast Plan (Program) for the Federal Property Privatization for 2011-2013 approved at the end of November 2010. No new annual privatization program was approved by the Russian Federation Government, as it did in the 2000s. In the meantime, it is these documents that traditionally contained the data on the quantity of federally held enterprises (FSUEs) and joint stock companies with a state-held interest as of the beginning of the calendar year. Therefore, there is no sufficient information that would allow an impartial judgment to be made as to the dynamics of these components of the public sector in 2011, however, the federal property registry’s data allows evaluation of the trends in the movement of the total number of the registered companies and business companies with a state-held interest.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks beginning of 20121. The number of JSCs which are subject to a special right of state participation in management thereof (“golden share”) (about 100 companies) was also minimum throughout the entire 2000s.
The turn back in the upward trend, which developed as early as the mid-2000s, towards share holding which allows the state to realize a comprehensive corporate governance at business entities, became a new phenomenon in the corporate sector with state participation in 2011 (Table 2).
Table Dynamics and quantity structure of business entities with state capital participation (save for JSCs which are subject to a special right (“golden share”) without interest holding) in 2008 – Business entities (JSCs and LLCs) with federally held share (interest) As of Total state-held interest January interquan- 100% 50–100% 25–50% 2–25% less than 2% 1 est, % tity q. % q. % q. % q. % q. % 2008 3674 100.0 1989 54.1 269 7.3 645 17.6 421 11.5 350 9.2009 3367 100.0 1850 54.9 202 6.0 503 14.9 305 9.1 507 15.2010 2949 100.0 1688 57.2 167 5.7 377 12.8 296 10.0 421 14.2011 2957 100.0 1840 62.2 136 4.6 336 11.35 265 9.0 380 12.2012* 2819 100.0 1617 57.4 112 4.0 272 9.6 254 9.0 564 20.* – as of December 28, Source: the data provided by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Russia on the basis of the federal property register, IET’s estimates.
As of 2011 year-end, the state could have a minority or majority controlling interest in more than 61.4% of all the entities (the level as of the beginning of 2008) against 67% in the preceding year.