Nanotechnology policy in Russia
This paper was presented at the R&D Management Conference in Sweden, June 2011. A full paper is available at http://works.bepress.com/eklochikhin/2/.
Published on: Mar 3, 2016
Transcripts - Nanotechnology policy in Russia
Nanotechnology policy in Russia: can an emerging technology push a country onto a new development trajectory? Evgeny Klochikhin, PhD candidate, Manchester Business School, UK R&D Management Conference, Norrkoping, Sweden, 28-30 June 2011
Hypotheses• Nanotechnology is capable of breaking institutionally (and culturally) the development lock-in and supporting trends towards self-sustained growth To what extent does nanotech create new vs. existing institutional arrangements? What is the role of public policy in this process? How does policy design/objectives correspond with policy implementation/impacts?• Nanotechnology promotes socioeconomic/sociotechnical (and political) development across the board and in the context of the entire national innovation system What are the specific impacts of nanotech on the society? Does nanotech change the structure of the economy?
Comparative case studies• Russia: lost much of its science and technology might after the collapse of USSR; has to re-build national innovation capabilities today using ample financial resources from oil and gas• China: chose a route of ‘soft’ transition from communism to market economy; manufacturing power of the world; took decision to develop endogenous innovation capabilities (MOST 973)• Brazil: unstable growth but ample resources; turbulent political situation; successful biotechnology development; emerging innovation power• United States: first country to introduce national nanotechnology initiative; No.2 in public funding after the EU today ($2,1 bn vs. $2,5 bn); supports NST across the board; one of few nano-powers to pursue nanotech-related social science research
Theoretical foundations• National innovation systems (Lundvall-Nelson vs. Edquist): government, business and academia• Technological systems (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991): actors, networks and institutions• Functional approach to policy analysis (Bergek et al., 2010): knowledge development and diffusion; influence on the direction of search and the identification of opportunities; entrepreneurial experimentation and management of risk and uncertainty; market formation; resource mobilization; legitimation; development of positive externalities
Methodological challenges• Delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology• Delineation of nanotechnology policy• How to capture and analyze fuzzy policies?• Retrospective analysis requiring much self- reflection of policy makers (subjectivity)• Dynamics? Prescriptive approach?• Functional vs. structural
Data• General socio-economic data including GDP, GDP per capita, population, trade balance and structure, FDI – World Bank• Research and development data including R&D expenditure as percent of GDP, number of patent applications – World Bank and Russia’s Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat)• Nanotechnology-related data including market size estimates, number of involved scientists, quality and number of research facilities, bibliometric data, company indicators – literature and document review
Russia’s NIS 2000 2005 2009GDP (billions, constant 2000 US$) 259,71 349,85 397,95GDP per capita (constant 2000 US$) 1775 2443 2805Gross R&D expenditure (as % of GDP) 1,05 1,07 1,24- Including private sector R&D expenditure (as % of GDP) 0,2 0,22 0,24High-technology exports (billions, current US$) 4,19 3,69 5,11*Technological trade balance (millions US$) 20 1000,8Civil-use high-technology goods exports (as % of world 0,45** 0,25*market)Patent applications (residents) 23377 23644 27712*Researchers per million population 2912 2740 2602R&D personnel (people) 887729 813207 742433including:- private sector 590646 496706 432415- public sector 255850 272718 260360- higher education (e.g. universities) 40787 43500 48498- non-profit sector 446 283 1160
Russia’s nanotechnology TIS• Stakeholders: government, universities and public labs – what role for private sector?• Networks: Nanotechnology Society of Russia, Rusnanoforum, Foundation for Infrastructure and Education Projects and others• Institutions: federal programs, RUSNANO, annual Nanotechnology International Forum
Benchmarking252015 Russia USA10 China50 GDP, tln GERD, % of GDP Nano-related GERD, bn es per mln, thousands R Nano patents, thousands publications, thousands Nano
Functional analysisFunctions Positive Negativea. Knowledge development and diffusionb. Influence on the direction of search and theidentification of opportunitiesc. Entrepreneurial experimentation andmanagement of risk and uncertaintyd. Market formatione. Resource mobilizationf. Legitimationg. Development of positive externalities
Policy issues• What centers of research (e.g. Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg) and areas of specialization (e.g. nanochemistry, nanomaterials) need to be supported more seriously than the others?• What is the right balance between policy incentives for internal R&D capabilities and investment from abroad?• How to make the most of the former Soviet scientific potential?• How to engage more private sector in the country’s innovation activities?• What are the ways to increase public engagement in the nanotechnology development in Russia?• What measures should be taken to improve the innovation competitiveness of the country and change the export structure?
ConclusionNanotechnology is yet to prove that it iscapable of breaking institutionally thedevelopment lock-in in Russia