From Phileas Fogg to Yuri Gagarin:
...
Prologue:
“ … Has the world grown smaller?
Certainly, returned Ralph. I agree with Mr. Fogg. The world has grown smaller,
since a man can now go round it ten times more quickly than a hundred years
ago. …
You have a strange way, Ralph, of proving that the world has grown smaller.
So, because you can go round it in three months.
In eighty days, interrupted Phileas Fogg. …
It's absurd! cried Stuart, who was beginning to be annoyed at the persistency of
his friend.”
Jules Verne, Around the World in Eighty Days, 1873
© Kari Liuhto 27.10.2011, Moscow
Russia’s modernisation path(s)
Russia in the 19701990s: Russia’s
industrial
competitiveness
deteriorates
Russia in this
millenium:
How to turn Russia
more
innovative ?
Russia
tomorrow:
two major paths
in modernisation
State-led,
militaryoriented
reform
vs
?
Private firm
dominated,
civil societyoriented
reform
Modernisation is not self-evident path
for Russia, though it would be highly needed
Source: Liuhto 2009
Russia’s innovation / R&D activity today (1)
Figure 1
Expenditure on R&D
Gross expenditure on R&D as share of GDP in 2007
and relative change in 1997-2007, percentage points
(circle size corresponds to total GERD, USD mln.)
High 5%
Country’s share (%) of world’s GERD in 2007
USA
Japan
Germany
France
China
South Korea
Russia
India
Finland
Israel
Turkey
South Africa
Israel
4%
Gross expenditure on R&D as share of GDP in 2007, %
Japan
Finland
South Korea
USA
3%
34,13%
14,04%
7,88%
5,06%
4,43%
3,13%
1,35%
0,88%
0,79%
0,72%
0,43%
0,25%
Germany
0%
France
2%
Czech Rep.
Russia
1%
Ukraine
Hungary
Belarus
Estonia
South Africa
Poland
Chile
Turkey
Kazakhstan
0%
-0,5%
20%
30%
40%
Change of the country’s share in world’s
GERD between 1997 and 2007
China
India
Low
10%
Canada
0,0%
0,5%
1,0%
1,5%
Change of the share of GERD in GDP between 1997 and 2007,
percentage points
Low
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, World Bank
Source: Prazdnichnykh & Liuhto, PEI 2010
2,0%
High
China
Turkey
South Africa
Israel
South Korea
Finland
Japan
India
Germany
Russia
USA
France
103%
79%
40%
38%
23%
13%
5%
1%
0%
-5%
-9%
-16%
-40%
0%
40%
80%
120%
Russia’s innovation / R&D activity today (2)
Russia’s innovation / R&D activity today (3)
Russia’s innovation / R&D activity today (4)
Companies in Fortune Global 500
2005
2009
Companies in top 1,000 R&D investors
2005
2009
Brazil
3
6
3
3
Russia
3
8
2
1
India
5
7
1
12
China
16
37
3
5
Europe *
175
180
294
333
USA
176
140
423
378
*
Europe excluding Russia
Sources: DIUS (2009); Fortune (2009)
Russia’s innovation / R&D activity today (5)
Figure 4
Sample characteristics (innovation), %
Presence of R&D department
Main sources of innovation
47 %*
Company's own R&D department
The company
doesn’t have
R&D department,
49%
Foreign companies - suppliers of
equipment or parts
The company has an
R&D department,
51%
38 %
Russian companies - suppliers of
equipment or parts
28 %
Company's own departments, except
R&D
25 %
Russian engineering, design and other
specialized companies
Presence of innovation strategy
The company doesn't
have
innovation
strategy,
В компании
нет
исследовательского 24%
подразделения,
49%
Innovation strategy
exists only in top
managers' minds,
51%
Documented as a separate strategy,
5%
Documented as a part
of overall strategy,
20%
В компании существует
исследовательское
подразделение,
51%
16 %
Russian institution of science and
technology or universi ty
Foreign engineering, design and other
specialized companies
Acquisition of patents, licenses and
know-how from Russian companies
Acquisition of patents, licenses and
know-how from foreign companies (with
or without Russian presence)
Foreign institution of science and
technology or universi ty
15 %
8%
6%
5%
3%
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 %
* The sum exceeds 100%, since up to three options were allowed
Source: Bauman Innovation and OPORA – Russian Innovation Survey 2009-2010
Source: Prazdnichnykh & Liuhto, PEI 2010
Russia’s innovation / R&D activity today (6)
Figure 6
Obstacles to innovation
Main obstacles to innovation activities for mid-sized and large
companies in Russia
Lack of funds available within the
company
Rankings of obstacles to innovation for EU- companies
Non-innovative
companies*
Innovative companies*
62% *
Too large cost of innovation activity
33%
1
Lack of funds available within
the company
1
No demand for new products
and services
Difficult to get external financing
33%
2
Difficult to get external
financing
2
Lack of funds available within
the company
3
Uncertainty of demand for a
new product or service
3
Difficult to get external
financing
4
Difficult to find suppliers
4
Difficult to find suppliers
5
Too large cost of innovation
activity
5
Uncertainty of demand for a
new product or service
6
Lack of qualified human
resources
6
Too large cost of innovation
activity
Uncertainty of demand for a new product
or service
23%
19%
Lack of qualified human resources
12%
Lack of technology information
Lack of market information
8%
Difficult to find suppliers
6%
Restricting standards and industry
regulations
6%
7
No demand for new products
and services
7
Restricting standards and
industry regulations
No demand for new products and
services
5%
8
Restricting standards and
industry regulations
8
Lack of qualified human
resources
Ineffective innovation management
5%
9
Lack of market information
9
Lack of technology information
10
Lack of technology information
10
Lack of market information
Board of Directors doesn't recognize
innovation as priority
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
* The sum exceeds 100%, since up to three options were allowed
* See Community Innovation Survey 2004-2006 for explanations
Source: Prazdnichnykh & Liuhto, PEI 2010
Source: Bauman Innovation and OPORA – Russian Innovation Survey 2009-2010; Community Innovation Survey 2004-2006, Central Statistics Office
Russia’s innovation / R&D activity today (7)
Figure 7
Barriers to innovation: human resources and education
Availability of engineers and technicians
8%
21%
18%
23%
17%
10% 3%
Low
Cost to hire engineers and technicians
High
2% 8%
12%
32%
20%
14%
13%
Too high, inacceptable
Education quality in vocational schools and
technical colleges
Quality of higher education in natural
sciences and engineering
Quality of math and science education in
school
8%
Acceptable
17%
26%
25%
16%
Low
4%
High
13%
18%
24%
18%
19%
Low
6%
6% 2%
4%
High
11%
Low
Source: Prazdnichnykh & Liuhto, PEI 2010
Source: Bauman Innovation and OPORA – Russian Innovation Survey 2009-2010
14%
24%
23%
18%
5%
High
Russia’s innovation / R&D activity today (8)
Figure 8
Intellectual property protection
31%
Intellectual property protection in general
24%
14%
10% 4%3%
14%
Weak
Intellectual property protection:
patents for invention and prototypes
Intellectual property protection:
registered trademarks
Intellectual property protection:
authors’ rights
Intellectual property protection:
business secrets and know-how
Strong
21%
15%
18%
24%
13%
7% 3%
Weak
8%
Strong
10%
16%
22%
18%
18%
7%
Weak
13%
Strong
19%
18%
27%
12%
10% 2%
Weak
12%
Strong
11%
Weak
Source: Prazdnichnykh & Liuhto, PEI 2010
Source: Bauman Innovation and OPORA – Russian Innovation Survey 2009-2010
18%
27%
13%
13%
4%
Strong
Russia’s innovation / R&D activity today (9)
Finland is R&D superpower in industrial cooperation with Russia
Figure 10
Cooperation with foreign companies in area of technology and innovation
Technological cooperation with partners
abroad (during last three years)
Location of main technology
partners
Areas of cooperation
36%**
Germany
Upgrading products and
services
53%
*
23%
USA
16%
China
CIS countries
Yes
No
Developing new
products and services
43%
48%
49%
Designing and
implementing new
production processes
42%
9%
Italy
8%
Japan
8%
France
5%
India
5%
5%
Sweden
Upgrading production
processes
42%
Other Europe
Other non-Europe
* The sum exceeds 100%, since multiple
options were allowed
Source: Prazdnichnykh & Liuhto, PEI 2010
Source: Bauman Innovation and OPORA – Russian Innovation Survey 2009-2010
10%
Finland
14%
5%
** The sum exceeds 100%, since up
to two options were allowed
Finnish-Russian innovation cooperation:
Some examples
INTER-ENTERPRISE JOINT INNOVATION ACTIVITY
* Flagship: Nokia in Skolkovo
INNOVATION FINANCE
* TEKES-FASIE
* Rusnano-Finnish Industry Investment Ltd
NETWORKING
* FinNode Russia (match making)
* Technopolis (technopark)
* Finnish-Russian Innovation Centre (regional cooperation)
PR- ACTIVITIES
* EU-Russia Innovation Forum (mainly bilateral annual event - third time in June 2011)
JOINT RESEARCH
* Academy of Finland and the Russian Foundation for Humanities (2006-2009)
* Various universities and their Russia-units
EXCHANGE OF RESEARCHERS
* Various universities
Some policy considerations based on
Finnish-Russian cooperation (1)
(1) Establish a Joint EU-Russia Innovation Centre both in Russia
and in the EU.
(2) Support the internationalization of innovations.
(3) Turn the innovations conducted in the military sector into
civilian use.
(4) Improve intellectual property rights (IPR) and the investment
climate.
(5) Institutional innovations are needed.
(6) Design a service innovation policy.
Some policy considerations based on
Finnish-Russian cooperation (2)
( 7) Enhance management innovations.
( 8) Create innovation competition.
( 9) Establish innovation journalism to share best practices.
(10) Do not concentrate on radical innovations.
(11) Teach creativity and entrepreneurship in universities.
(12) Avoid political stagnation.
From Phileas Fogg to Yuri Gagarin –
but what after Gagarin ?
Epilogue:
50 years ago, the Soviet cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin,
flew around the world in less than two hours.
Lesson: reaching “the impossible” is possible but
it takes time and requires foreign cooperation / competition.