Post on 19-Jun-2015
description
Russia’s nanotechnology growth: a study of cross-country and cross-regional collaboration
networks
Evgeny A. Klochikhina and Philip Shapiraa,b,c
a. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, MBS, University of Manchester, UK
b. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, USAc. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State
University, USA
Background
• After the USSR collapsed, some liberals proclaimed ‘the end of history’ with an emerging paradigm of global economy, society and values (Fukuyama, 1992)
• Although not recognized as market economies immediately, post-communist states were considered as part of the world capitalist system by the merit of their structural reform and establishment of recognized market mechanisms
• However, many institutional, social and cultural frameworks remain in transition countries (including Russia) that have substantial impact on their contemporary development and policies
Research questions
• How Russia and China can exploit their science and technology (S&T) history to promote indigenous innovation development and resolve the weaknesses of the former state planning system?
• Are there any particular complementarities between the Russian and Chinese innovation that can contribute to their socioeconomic development?
• What are the current and emerging opportunities for mutual leaning between the two countries?
• What is the role of technology-based growth strategies in this process?
Nanotechnology
• Can it be implemented bypassing the major system weaknesses and path dependencies?
• Can it help resolve the major challenges and break the existing lock-ins in the construction of effective national innovation systems in transition economics?
Context
• Nano – next transformative technology like electricity or Internet?
• Who will get the most benefits from nano revolution: the poor or the rich, the smaller or the larger?
National nano initiatives
• USA is the first to launch a National Nanotechnology Initiative in 2000
• More than sixty countries joined global nanorace (Shapira and Wang, 2010; Sargent, 2008)
• Various starting points (Court et al., 2004):Front runners: China and IndiaMiddle ground: Thailand, the Philippines, South
Africa, Brazil, and ChileUp and comers: Argentina and Mexico
Russia China Brazil USA
Launch of the national nano program
2007 2001 2004 2000
Significance of nano component in STI policy
Highly important One of the areas to support
One of the areas to support
Important
Policy design Highly centralized Dispersed among diverse programs and institutions, center and regions
Balanced: national and state programs plus autonomous policy objects
Balanced: centralized coordination plus much autonomy left for the agencies
Scale Several fields (mostly nanomaterials)
‘Across the board’ (but mostly nanomaterials)
Focused ‘Across the board’
Regional spread Across the country
Concentrated in several key regions
Several university centers and most developed cities
Concentrated in major clusters
Commercialization mechanism
Rusnano Tianjin Nanotech Industrialization Base; Shanghai Nano Promotion Center; Suzhou-Nanopolis
Nanotech is included in the Industrial, Technology and Trade Policy (2004)
Issue left to policy objects (so far)
Regular evaluations Annual, carried out by MES
Varied (basically, part of larger S&T evaluations)
N/A Triannual, independent evaluations
ELSI component No Vague No Yes
Top-5 nanopubs producing countries, 1990-2010
Source: Arora et al. (2012)
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
China
USA
Japan
Germany
South Korea
Year
Num
ber
of P
ubli
cato
ins
Russia and China - nanopubs
19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020110
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
RussiaChina
Year of publication
Num
ber o
f nan
o pu
blic
ation
s, th
ousa
nds
Source: own calculations based on Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science
Russia and China - nanopatents
Source: own calculations based on Thomson Reuters ISI Derwent Innovations Index
1996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920100
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
RussiaChina
Basic patent year
Num
ber o
f bas
ic p
aten
ts
Methodological framework: six impacts
• Institutional development, knowledge flows, and network efficiency
• Research and education capabilities• Industrial and enterprise development• Regional spread• Cluster and network development• Product innovation and market growth
Nanopubs: cross-country collaboration
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Russia's top five international collaborators, nanotechnology, 1996-2011
GermanyUSAFranceUKJapan
Year of publication
Num
ber
of c
olla
bora
tive
pape
rs
Source: own calculations based on Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science
Patents: cross-country protection
Interdisciplinary networks – Russia
Interdisciplinary networks – China
Nano patents: how close to market?
Note: calculations based on the number of basic patents, i.e. applications may have been submitted 1-2 years before the basic patent was eventually granted, which explains why the effects of 2008 crisis are seen only in 2009.
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
50
100
150
200
250
Industry
Individuals
Russian Academy of Science (basic res)
Universities
Research institutes (applied R&D)
Basic patent year
Num
ber
of b
asic
pat
ents
Industry-science links: evidence of technology transfer
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
1
2
3
4
5
6
Share of industry-RAS co-invented patents
Share of industry-university co-invented patents
Share of industry-research institutes co-invented patents
Year
Perc
ent
of t
otal
pat
ents
Cross-regional collaboration
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Average annual growth by region
Total number of publications by region (2001-2011)
Moscow, Russia 15,1 16,4 15,5 17,7 17,2 22,5 20,1 21,3 22,4 23,6 22,6 4,7 10386St Petersburg, Russia 9,9 9,8 9,6 11,3 13,6 13,4 10,7 12,9 18,0 19,4 16,2 6,5 6203Moscow Oblast, Russia 31,2 31,0 29,4 30,6 28,2 36,5 31,7 34,6 45,0 40,8 43,3 4,3 3000Novosibirsk Oblast, Russia 15,5 12,8 14,1 12,4 21,4 18,3 20,6 16,0 16,9 20,9 20,5 5,6 2758Sverdlovskaya Oblast, Russia 30,4 33,8 28,6 25,8 26,4 27,7 20,5 28,5 16,8 17,5 18,7 -2,4 1215N.Novgorod Oblast, Russia 7,7 18,8 21,3 24,4 18,2 38,2 27,4 28,1 31,7 30,2 28,9 23,5 983Tomsk Oblast, Russia 26,1 18,8 18,4 22,6 27,5 12,1 9,1 20,4 20,0 21,6 28,4 9,6 684Tatarstan, Russia 22,2 15,2 15,2 11,7 24,1 18,0 20,0 20,0 19,0 20,3 22,9 5,3 599Bashkortostan, Russia 23,1 30,6 27,5 29,5 46,5 29,3 28,2 28,4 36,8 16,2 17,6 3,0 587Saratov Oblast, Russia 57,1 12,5 0,0 10,5 9,4 13,6 10,6 17,3 35,3 25,0 16,7 -15,1 388Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia 30,4 14,3 23,1 14,3 25,8 32,3 22,5 31,4 20,5 50,0 18,4 13,1 377Primorsky Krai, Russia 0,0 7,7 21,4 23,1 32,0 14,3 16,7 29,0 7,1 18,2 19,0 25,2 288Voronezh Oblast, Russia 0,0 28,6 63,6 42,9 55,6 40,7 33,3 26,5 31,3 39,5 20,0 -2,2 252Udmurtiya, Russia 16,7 36,4 30,0 50,0 46,7 55,0 26,3 60,0 51,7 50,0 12,5 16,2 224Rostov Oblast, Russia 44,4 25,0 33,3 21,4 60,0 25,0 28,1 21,4 23,3 36,7 14,7 7,0 216Perm Krai, Russia 14,3 9,1 30,0 8,3 23,1 7,7 40,0 35,7 42,1 42,9 14,3 59,4 151Ivanovo Oblast, Russia 50,0 14,3 11,1 12,5 40,0 28,6 16,7 15,0 25,0 13,0 23,5 15,8 127Irkutsk Oblast, Russia 0,0 0,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 11,1 27,8 6,7 38,1 33,3 38,5 27,0 124Leningrad Oblast, Russia 87,5 66,7 66,7 50,0 33,3 80,0 71,4 60,0 95,7 100,0 89,5 8,5 124Ulyanovsk Oblast, Russia 20,0 18,2 37,5 11,1 50,0 50,0 33,3 33,3 50,0 20,0 12,5 29,6 112Tver Oblast, Russia 25,0 50,0 40,0 33,3 0,0 50,0 66,7 55,6 38,5 68,8 50,0 -4,9 107Volgograd Oblast, Russia 0,0 0,0 100,0 72,7 75,0 25,0 20,0 13,3 25,0 9,5 6,9 -16,2 106Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia 100,0 60,0 50,0 60,0 72,7 60,0 80,0 75,0 10,0 50,0 25,0 25,7 90Kabardino Balkaria, Russia 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 64,3 22,2 71,4 0,0 55,6 -4,8 84Kaluga Oblast, Russia 0,0 100,0 100,0 8,3 25,0 26,7 100,0 71,4 83,3 55,6 30,0 29,9 81
Regional spread
Source: own calculations based on Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 360
10
20
30
40
50
60
Distribution of nanotechnology publication output across Russian regions in 2001-2011
20112001
Share of papers by region in total nano publications output, %
Num
ber
of r
egio
ns in
eac
h pe
rcen
tile