Makarov Valery L. (CEMI, Moscow)
E-mail: [email protected];
Web: http//www.cemi.rssi.ru/
1. Indicators of Knowledge Economy
2. Who measures knowledge.
3. Difficulties for cross countries’ comparisons
4. Growing competitive structure
(Case of economics research institutions)
4. Examples of Empirical Studies.
5. Theory: Economics of Knowledge vs Standard Economics.
6. Knowledge management.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Centers of Knowledge Production. Concentration of intellectual capital.
New institutional structure in the epoch of Knowledge Society.
Generation of demand on Knowledge – direct function of state.
Tacit Knowledge – competitive advantage of Russia.
Investments into Knowledge production grow
faster then investments into production at large.
(3.4% per annum vs. 2.2% average)
in 90-s years for OECD countries
(See. OECD (2001))
• 90% scientists and engineers live at present.
• 90% quantity of knowledge is produced at the
period of last 30 years.
OECD Russi
a
countries
Sector of knowledge
Higher education,
R&D
Software
All levels of education
R&D
Software
i=1
4,7
1,6
i=2
>10
4,7
• Natural (physical) units: number of pages, papers, articles,
patents, inventions, new products, innovative firms etc.
• Expenditures on R&D, higher education, computer software;
• Cost of public goods.
• Citations;
• Publications in mass media;
• Hits in Internet;
• Indicators of patents and inventions application;
• Value added in companies of high technology and science
consumption sector
PPi ,Progressive Project institute, USA
Annually issued started by 1999 года
The 2002 State New Economy Index.
21 indicators across 50 states of US as a base for Integrated index
Centers of Knowledge production
Production of Knowledge is located in few centers.
Consumption of Knowledge is distributed evenly across states
according to PPi measurement.
OECD department, number of international associations,
government and private institutions
0
Sweden
Mexico
Netherlands
Switzerland
Spain
Canada
RUSSIA
Korea
Italy
England
France
Germany
Japan
USA
800
Russia 1999 data
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
RUSSIA
Netherlands
Netherlands
Spain
Canada
Korea
Italy
England
France
Germany
Japan
USA
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Receipts from
technologies
billions of dollars
40
Payments for
technologies
30
36,5
20
16,2
10
13,3
12,5
0,13
0,67
1,7
0
USA
Germany
Poland
Russia
1999
1999
1999
2000
1,7
First phase: collection of data, second phase: empirical analysis, third phase: developing theory
1. Porter M. E. and Stern S., (2000) measure knowledge by quantity of patents. The tree findingd of
the paper are:
•
Annual flow of the patents is proportional to the stock of the patents in the country.
•
There is negative relationship between total (international) stock of patents and national
productivity of R&D. It means that total international stock of knowledge press national
R&D in contrast to common intuition.
•
Small but positive effect o the patents’ flow on TFP (Total Factor Productivity)
2. Keller W. (2002) Geographic Localization of International Technology Diffusion” American
Economic Review: The paper based on data of OECD countries, including expentitures on R&D
and TFP for manufacturing industries at the period from 1970 to 1995.
Two conclusions:
• High technologies (expenditures of which are concentrated in 5 countries: USA, UK, Japan<
Germany, France) expand to other countries back proportional to (physical) distance (with
correction to intercontinental dummy) Speed and amount of technology diffusion grow with time.
3. Bloom N., Griffith R., and Van Reenen J. (2002) “Do R&D tax credits work Evidence from
a panel data of countries 1979 – 1997” Journal of Public Economics 85, pp.1 –31. :
The paper gives an empirical proof that investments of private sector to R&D depend on tax
holidays.
The paper based on data of 9 OECD countries for the period of 19 years (1979 – 1997).
The result: 10% of tax free adds 1% for R&D investments in short run and 10% in long run.
40
30
36,2
20
10
15,2
20,9
13,4
0
USA
Germany
Poland
Russia
1999
1991
1999
2000
 Pazhitnov - $ 15 000
 Computer Center of Russian Academy of Sciences - $ 4 mln.
 Company Nimtanda > $ 1 bln
Average Q for Russian companies less then 0.3
Paragraph International Q = 40
Introduced by Polanyi, M. (1966)
The Tacit Dimension, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Specific features of Russian culture: tacit knowledge must be competitive
advantage of Russia.
Follow traditions, transfer of knowledge on personal basis, less division of labor.
Informal (groups, family, firms, clubs) education.
Tacit knowledge of institutions
• Design teams in military industrial complex.
• Submarines, nuclear ice break ships
• Bill Gates: Knowledge Workers.
Measurement, capitalization of institution’s tacit knowledge
Human capital:
• Competence
• Experience
• Skill
Structural capital
• Processes
• Information systems
• Data bases
Customers’ capital
• Relations to clients
• Brands
• Trade marks
• Publications 480 (7% of total)
• Authors 750 ( 460 has one paper)
• Patents 44 + 5
• Grants of National Foundation 122
• Dissertations 15 (1997-98)
85% - Acad. Sci, 15% Universities
See, for example, Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S.,
Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics
Of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage Publications.
• Number of sites of (applied) knowledge production, grows rapidly.
Distribution of publications says about it. Significant part of studies does not go
to publications.
• Greater variety of institutions, involved into knowledge production. They are
communicate with each other widely.
• New institutions appear in relation to a problem or substance, not in relation
to standard classification.
• Emerged links are soft and volatile, its depend on a problem.
• In general the system of knowledge production, distribution, consumption is
growing exponentially in terms of quantity of links.
Laboratory – mediator –
– consumer of knowledge
Explicit division of labor
Market of knowledge is
Knowledge consumer participates
in creation of knowledge
Market of products (knowledge
itself) substitutes by market of
services
organized by mediator
The concept “Knowledge Society”
perfectly fits into the new system
 State universities: National Academy under Federal government;
Moscow State university (Economics Department, Moscow school of
economics); Higher School of Economics; Plechanov’s Academy;
Financial Academy; State institute of management;
 Russian Academy of Sciences: 7 research institutes including CEMI;
 Government research institutes: Institute of macroeconomics, SOPF,
bureau of economic analysis, center of reforms, center of strategic
analysis and monitoring institute under ministry of economics of RF;
research group under ministry of finance of RF.
 Non-government research bodies: New Economic School under
CEMI, RESEP, CERIR, Gaidar institute, Illationov Institute,
Shanin’s School, Institute of open economy under UCOS, EERC,
research department in ALFA bank and others.
1. Leading Russian companies are going to be major
players in Knowledge Economy. (Major investors in
particular)
2. The government should provide:
• incentives to develop high technology business
including its export
• (taxes, tariffs, insurance, etc)
3. Protection of small business by big corporations, by
local governments