At the same time, introduction of new criteria of classifying organizations as extra budgetary funds led to changes in composition and number of extra budgetary funds.
Unlike previous years when extra budgetary funds were supposed to be established only under federal executive authorities or commercial enterprises or associations of enter prises, in 2004 extra budgetary funds had to be exclusively non profit organizations in ac cordance with the new requirements. As a result, the RF TDF’s operation was frozen, which may have an adverse effect on innovation activity and applied cross disciplinary research, while having in mind that the cross discipline principle is the key development of science.
3.5.9. Private and Public Partnerships The issue of promoting private and public partnerships (PPP) became more rele vant in 2004 than in the previous years. The term “private and public partnership” means using mechanisms to promote private business participation in innovation activity. PPP promote pooling resources, sharing profits and risks, creating a competitive environment and utilizing efficiently budget funds.
The practice of private and public partnerships in various advanced countries shows that such mechanism can be used whenever the government and businesses have complementary interests while being unable to act independently and separately. Among the PPP forms which are most commonly used in research and technology and innovation fields are cofinancing research and development projects at a pre competitive stage (in dustrial enterprises are encouraged to be involved on the basis of getting entitled to utilize the findings of the research for business purposes); co financing at initial stages of com mercialization (seed financing); establishing joint research centers in the fields which tradi tionally fall within the scope of the state (healthcare, environmental protection, national de fense). Since PPP provide for a fairly complex management, it is essential to initially identify zones of responsibility of the state and the private business, as well as provide for risk free mechanisms of their revision for each party.
Of most interest is the PPP practice established in the Southeast Asian countries, where an innovation breakthrough took place. PPP was one of the basic initial mechanisms that was used along with building a material infrastructure of innovation activity and licens ing patents of foreign technologies. Implementation of two concurrent processes – mas tering the methods developed in mature economies and creating conditions for creating domestic environment for innovative development and ensuring a leading role of the pri vate sector in the national system of innovations – resulted in increased financing of the research and innovation sectors by the private business. To date, the ratio of public and RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks private involvement in the research and development sector is 1:1,5 (Singapore, Malaysia) to 1:3 (Korea, Taiwan)34.
Basic provisions on development of private and public partnerships in the Russian sector of research and innovations were developed last year. The ongoing mega projects, development of infrastructure of the national innovation system and regulation of rights to findings of research and technology activity received top priority. The latter is fairly impor tant, and a corresponding draft government regulation was developed as early as in Janu ary 2004, yet not adopted due to lack of consensus with the RF Ministry of Finance. The approved draft regulation ”On the Procedure of Execution of Rights to Outcomes of Re search and Technology Activity Obtained Through Federal Budget Financing” contains a provision stating that “an organization shall retain rights to findings of research and tech nology activity obtained through federal budget financing as subsidies and subventions for grants and financial support. Such financing shall be provided under the condition of af fording a right to the Russian Federation to uncompensated non profit utilization of such findings with a view to performing works or supplying goods for public purposes”. The same government regulation provides a legal initiative for the development of Russian laws similar to the Buy Doule laws and other laws and regulations aimed at improving the regu latory and legal framework related to protection and utilization of findings of intellectual ac tivity obtained through federal budget financing, on the basis of securing rights to these findings for the originators with simultaneous creation of conditions of commercialization.
Another federal law is also suggested for development, which would typify the American Stevenson Widler law.
According to the American practice, the laws should be adopted at one time because of their interdependence. In the United States, both laws were intended to promote com mercialization of research and development financed by the government. The Buy Doule law is applied to the patent rights to research and development findings obtained through public financing, while the Stevenson Widler is applied to regulate research and develop ment ownership in the case of research jointly conducted by public research laboratories and external partners.
Any delay in adopting laws on intellectual property rights is interfering with efficient utilization of such property. According to the Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Pat ents and Trade Marks, a share of research and technology findings in Russian economic turnover is 0.4% against 70% at the developed countries.
One of the PPP options utilized in practice is mega projects35 or major innovative pro jects implemented by teams comprising scientists and industry representatives. The pro jects were selected primarily on the basis of joint interests of science and business, as well as high economic efficiency of a particular project as judged by representatives of the for mer Ministry of Industrial Science. The mega projects are based on the idea of risk sharing between the state and businesses in development of new technologies. To date, a total of 12 projects are being financed.
Experts are wary of the mega projects in terms of their implementation. First, there was lobbying in their selection. Second, one question remains to be answered: whether these projects are innovative or it is a mere financing of modernization of production In other words, it remains to be seen whether public financing of such projects is substanti ated, or they are supposed to be financed by business instead At the Threshold of Knowledge Economics (Global Practice in Research and Innovative Development) / Edit. А. А. Dynkin, А. А. Dagayev. М.: IМEМО, RAS, 2004. P. 86, 90, 93–94.
For more details on the mega projects refer to: Dezhina И., Saltykov Б. Promotion Mechanisms of Research and Devel opment Commercialization. Scientific Works, No. 72 Р. М.: IET, 2004. P. 107–108.
The real sector Foreign experience testifies to the fact that subject matter is always considered in al locating budget funds to applied research and development as part of a PPP. Projects considered for financing must comply with national priorities or be highly potential in terms of social impact. In this case, private sector’s profit from development of such projects should not be evident in the period of assessment.
Neither field of research nor its social significance are essential in the Russian ver sion of selecting mega projects. Initial findings were expected to be assessed at the end of 2004, while total effect of the program on mega projects unless 2006. These terms, how ever, were extended, and the initial findings still remain to be published. Upon introduction of a new budget classification, the item of expenditures on mega projects was divided be tween two ministries. Now, 72% of total financing of mega projects goes through the Min istry of Education and Science, while the remainder funds – through the Ministry of Indus trial Energy36. It remains to be specified how the development of the program on mega projects will be coordinated in general.
A Seed Innovation Fund or “Fund of Funds” which was established in 2000, can be considered as a form of PPP, whose funds may form the basis for establishing sectoral and regional seed funds. To date, efficiency of the Seed Innovation Fund has been poor in terms of the funds established (two funds were established in total). Not much success has been achieved in the experience of seed financing in supporting promising innovation projects through the mechanisms of seed fairs supported by the Ministry of Education and Science. As a result of 5 seed fairs, less than 1% of the participants could find investors and nearly 6% of them are conducting negotiations.
In 2004, there was a down ward trend in seed financing of high tech on the part of Russian investors at the background of dominating foreign investments. Total volume of seed investments also declined as compared to 2003. Due to undeveloped conditions for seed financing in Russia, there is a widely applied scheme under which research and de velopment is financed in Russia and further commercialized in other countries. Promotion of private and public partnerships is therefore becoming one of the topical measures in creating a favorable innovation environment.
3.5.10. Shaping Infrastructure of Innovation Activity In 2004, both financial and physical infrastructures developed, which are primarily designed to support small innovation business. However, the number of small enterprises registered in industry as “science and scientific service“, remained steadily negative. Small innovation firms are concentrated not only in the “science and scientific service” sector used for statistical recording, but also in other sector of economy. According the estimates of the Fund for Small Business Promotion in Science and Technology, nearly 120 thousand small enterprises are operating in the industrial sector. Supposing that at least nearly 1/of them were innovative ones, the assessment of total number of small innovative forms should be doubled. However, these figures are tentative. The problem of inadequacy of statistical base in the field of science is getting greater, since the lack of clear picture of an object may compromise any attempts in making a reform.
In 2004, the IET conducted a pilot survey of 25 successful small innovative enter prises. The firms included into the survey were selected among the winners of the “Russian Innovations Contest” which is regularly held since 2001 by Expert magazine under the auspices of the RF Ministry of Industry, Science and Technologies and the RF Ministry of Berdashkevich А. On Organization of Financing in Science and Education in 2005 // Innovations 2004. No. 8. P. 5.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY in trends and outlooks Nuclear Industry. The survey was intended to study the conditions for development of small innovative business37.
Analysis of companies’ profiles showed that a small science intensive company can grow on the basis of one of the following four basic options: where scientists and engi neers quit their research institute and retain the right to their research work (1) or already patented technology (2); where former researches return to science intensive business on the basis of initial capital they gained in other type of business (3); by creating an alliance of scientist and businessman (4).
Option 1 is most common, i.e. this is a classic situation of “technology push”, when the process is started from the development rather than market demand. Option 4 is most infrequent, when businessmen who are interested in starting manufacturing science intensive products perform the following actions: marketing research, search for develop ers, provide research and development and finally private production. Option 4 is opposite to option 1. In this case the demand is dictating the order of technological research works (demand pull), and this approach normally appears to be success. Thus, so far the from research towards market approach remains dominating rather than visa versa. In this case, new research works may not always result in innovative advance and improved com positeness, since they may find no demand. Even the “technology” term differs in meaning for scientists and businessmen: the former define the term as new knowledge, while the latter define it as a debugged production line.
The survey revealed that innovation infrastructure established with participation of the state for promoting small innovation businesses is inconsistent: representatives of small firms focused on the importance of the existing innovation promotion funds rather than physical infrastructure. So far, such elements of infrastructure as technological parks and innovation and technology centers (ITC) are considered by managers of small compa nies more as nice premises for rent rather than structures enabling to promote small en terprises renting these premises. There is a good reason for scepsis in regard to the ability of industrial infrastructure: it is well known that many technological parks and ITC were es tablished exclusively for the purpose of receiving additional budget allocations without market evaluation of the potential of an infrastructure being created.
In 2004, an issue of creating new elements, clusters, of the innovation structure was brought up. The clusters have been gaining a wide usage worldwide as a form of network interaction due to growing interdisciplinarity and interdependence between all participants of innovative process. The clusters normally mean a network of independent enterprises, scientific organizations, universities, services for interaction of science and production, professional consultants and brokers, as well as customers united in a single production chain producing any value added38. It is agreed that the clusters can improve significantly labor productivity. At present, innovation clusters are being spontaneously developed in a limited number of regions. The clusters can be formed both by initiative of regional authori ties and business. The Ministry of Industrial Science jointly with the RF TDF also launched an experiment on establishing two new industrial clusters in Saint Petersburg and Zeleno grad, but the initiative was suspended due to reorganization of the Ministry of Industrial Science and frozen operation of the RF TDF39.
Dezhina I., Saltykov B. Promotion Mechanisms of Research and Development Commercialization. Scientific Works, No. 72 Р. М.: IET, 2004. P. 94–103.
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.