Elite universities and higher education institutions used to be distinguished in the previous years, as well as various forms of their special support. This is strongly exempli fied in the Moscow State University which is financed from a special expenditure item in the federal budget for science. The Concept of a leading higher education institution was de veloped by the former RF Ministry of Education for the purpose of supporting elite higher education institutes. From 15 to 20 higher education institutes of federal priority were scheduled to receive a status of leading institute, and another 80 to 85 institutes were ex pected to be distinguished as “leading by research sector”. The selected higher education institutes would receive additional budget financing. The leading institutes are supposed to conduct both research and innovative activity. Skilled scientists and professors should be employed at such higher education institutes, and qualified personnel should be trained beyond the overall average. The leading higher education institutes should have developed relationships with other domestic and foreign organizations, they should represent a cen ter of cultural and social development on its territory. A total of over 50 formalized criteria were identified for selecting leading higher education institutes.
The status of “higher education institute” is similar to the approach that was used in creating public scientific centers early in the ‘90. The idea is the same: maintain the strongest organizations by granting them a special status and additional financing. The experience related to the public scientific centers shows that once such status received, organizations do their best to retain it, and new participants are unlikely to be included into the list of the selected. Such approach is justified only in crisis, when the existing struc tures need to be maintained and preserved.
The concept of “leading higher education institute” was finalized by the period of administrative reform, when the Ministry of Education ceased to exist. The new Ministry of Education and Science revived the concept of “research institute” which is currently con Section 3.
The real sector sidered within the framework of the general concept of integration, including the Strategy.
The Concept of “research institute” suggests voluntary integration of varying “depth” as based upon interaction between universities and academic institutions, as well as public scientific centers. A total of three “depth” degrees of integration is provided for: full inte gration of science and education with creation of juridical person, especially a research university; partial integration (scientific and research institutes under higher education in stitutes, basic departments, basic laboratories); contractual integration (for instance, be tween legally independent scientific and research institutes and a higher education insti tute)17. Criteria of distinguishing higher education institutes as research universities remain unclear. The previously granted statuses are expected to be revised (university–academy– institute). From now on, a higher education institute may receive the status of university provided that it is conducting advanced research.
Since various types of integration of academic organizations and higher education institutes have long been existing and particular experience has been obtained, one can argue that cooperation is normally developing until a certain limit is reached without transi tion to new qualitative forms. No deep integration takes place, when, for example, organi zations can integrate into horizontal or vertical associations. This is partially due to quite moderate financing of integration programs and existing legal and regulatory problems which are interfering with deep integration. Even the new budget classification still contains separate financing of science in general and scientific research conducted at higher edu cation institutes. These expenditures are also administered by various agencies.
Creation of integration structures in the form of “research university” requires amendments to the applicable law, because the notion of “research university” is not exist ing in Russia from the legal point of view. A package of draft laws on integration and edu cation has been prepared, and initial practical steps on testing a mechanism of deep inte gration have been taken. The RF Government is preparing a Regulation on integrating the Novosibirsk State University into the scope of the Siberian Department of the RAS18, and subordination of another university, the Moscow Physicotechnical Institute, under the scope of the RAS is under consideration. A Department on Integration of Science and Education was set up within the framework of the RAS in January 200519.
Thus, the statement that fundamental research is a RAS’s prerogative right is prevail ing in resolution of the integration issue as well. Indeed, the RAS would like to expand pri marily such form of integration as basic departments (there are 360 departments available for the time being, of which scientific personnel of academic institutions account for nearly 8%), as well as establish an Academic Association of Universities which have a close rela tionship with the RAS institutes20, open its own “academic” universities and reassign some of the existing ones. Emergence of “academic” universities should promote solution of HR problems in the academic sector of science, though such approach has its obvious defi ciencies. First, single purpose training schedules are very likely to be drafted, since it is well known which institutions students are going to be employed at. Second, this a de partmental approach with all the costs it implies. Third, since the Academy has no experi ence in managing large educational organizations, it may have an adverse effect on the quality of organization of educational process.
Strategy of the Russian Federation in Science and Innovation Development for the Period Ending in 2010, the RF Ministry of Education and Science. November 2004, Annex 4 “Forms of Integration of Science and Education”.
Poisk. No. 48. November 26, 2004. P. 2.
Poisk. No. 2–3. January 21, 2005. P. 3.
Speech of V. Kozlov, RAS Vice president, at a meeting of the Council for Science, Technologies and Education under the RF President // Poisk. No. 44. October 29, 2004. P. 4.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks Late in 2004, the Ministry of Education and Science announced, along with the inten tion to establish research universities, that “national universities” would receive a special support. The “national universities” is a sort of modified idea of granting a “leading” status to some institutions. Nearly 100 universities may become “national” ones as well as be the first to receive budget financing. Perhaps, this method is suggested to select public higher edu cation institutions for identifying organizations which would receive state budget financing.
3.5.4. Optimizing Budget Financing of Research and Development Reorganization of science is closely associated with the issues of optimization of budget funds utilization. Reorganization of budgetary process and development of per formance based budgetary procedures concern both science and innovations.
A new budget classification will come into force with the budget of 2005, which ap pears to be less transparent than the former one. The new classification allows for only in direct calculations and assessments as compared to the former special item 06, “Funda mental Research and Scientific and Technical Progress Promotion”, which regardless of its well known deficiencies, reflected clearly enough the size and the trends in financing the Russian civil science, a share of program financing, consistency with the obligations to public scientific funds, etc. now, the first section of the state budget – “General Public Is sues” – includes expenditures on financing fundamental and applied research. In addition, another 9 sections of the budget contain an “Applied Research” item. Thus, the budget on science is dispersed, and the first question is how to calculate adequacy of funds’ budgets with public obligations on their financing It is well known that the budget of the Russian Fund for Fundamental Research (RFFR) must account for 6% of civil science expenditures, the budget of the Russian Hu manitarian Scientific Fund (RHSF) – 1%, the budget of the Promotion Fund for Small En terprises in Science (the Promotion Fund) – 1.5%. The current situation is opposite to the previous periods when actual amount of financing of the funds was determined in percent age of total financing specified in 06 item : experts have defined planned volumes of civil science financing considering that the money allocated to the funds comply with the obli gations approved.
Allocations for fundamental research grew up to account for 22.3%, which is beyond the average incremental growth in financing allocated for civil science, though growth in allocations for applied research can be assessed only roughly. Thus, public academies, primarily the RAS, which are expected to undergo less reorganization, received the biggest share of financing.
In general, the percentage of civil science expenditures continued to decline, while the percentage of military research and development grew up.
The biggest growth, 44.5%, is expected in regard to Federal Targeted Programs (FTP). The budget growth is basically related to the programs like “National Technological Basis” and “Federal Space Program”. A series of FTP are scheduled to be terminated and, unfortunately, biomedical research, which is considered top priority worldwide, is likely to be reduced. In particular, a program on developing remedies against most dangerous pathogens was suspended.
Changes in budget classification in 2004 were accompanied by developing a per formance based method of budgeting, i.e. determining goals, tasks and measures for performance measurement of the subjects involved in budgeting. The Ministry of Educa tion and Science, which is responsible for development of science and innovations in the Section 3.
The real sector structure of federal goals, developed its own vision of goals and methods of their fulfill ment. Two goals were determined for the sector of science and innovations :
• create conditions for development and efficient utilization of scientific and technologi cal potential ; and • create conditions for animation of innovative activity.
Such wording provides no opportunity to assess the degree of achievement of the goals set. In addition, unclear goals make it impossible to determine mechanisms of their implementation. We believe that goals should be more specific as follows:
• develop and improve performance of the research and development sector as a “knowledge generator”; and • create innovation sensible medium and promote innovative activity.
Such wording is correlating with the goals and tasks set forth in the Strategy and the Middle Term Program of Social and Economic Development of the Russian Federation (2005–2008). It is obvious that all these documents should be interrelated and non contradictory.
A composition of indicators designed to assess achievement of goals is still over loaded with resource and structural measures which could give occasion for requesting more budget funds. The indicator of internal research and development costs in percent age of GDP is the most dramatic example. It is a resource based indicator. In addition, there is no doubt that this indicator is essential for making comparisons on international level, but it has nothing to do with the scope of the ministry, because it represents aggre gate characteristics of economy’s research intensity. For instance, the Ministry of Educa tion and Science bears no responsibility for changes in financing parameters for defense research and development which represent a significant share of internal research and de velopment costs. Including this indicator into a composition of performance based meas ures of the ministry would have the effect similar to that previously occurred with the indi cator of fixed share of civil science allocations from the disbursement section of the budget, which should account for at least 4%. This regulation was introduced by the Fed eral Law “On Science and Public Scientific and Technological Policy”, but never was ob served. At the same time, this was a basic claim to the Government. The regulation re mained in force after changes in the budget structure, GDP volume, but the requirement for 4% allocation for science remained unchanged. The 4% regulation was withdrawn from the Law on Science pursuant to the amendments that came in force from January 1, 2005.
The second material deficiency of the proposed system of indicators is that some of them are outdated and requiring changes in calculation method, while the others are fairly generalized. Their sole advantage is associability, as they are collected by public statistics agencies on an annual basis. Indeed, it is difficult to introduce indicators which require a brand new forms and methods of calculation. However, attempts to build up a system of performance measurement on the basis of outdated and easy to collect indicators would be at least ineffective and normally risky for modernization.
It should be noted that all quantitative measures for the science sector are efficient only relatively, since many aspects constituting the essence of scientific work can not be formalized. This is why the foreign system of indicators designed for performance based budgeting is accompanied by the peer review system, i.e. expert appraisal of the initiatives originated by the ministry or agency operating in the sector of research and development.