From Phileas Fogg to Yuri Gagarin
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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 1970- Russia in this Russia
1990s: Russia’s millenium: tomorrow:
industrial How to turn Russia two major paths
competitiveness more in modernisation
deteriorates innovative ?
State-led,
military-
oriented
reform
vs
?
Private firm
dominated,
civil society-
oriented
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 Country’s share (%) of world’s GERD in 2007
(circle size corresponds to total GERD, USD mln.)
High 5%
Israel USA 34,13%
Japan 14,04%
Germany 7,88%
France 5,06%
China 4,43%
4%
South Korea 3,13%
Japan Russia 1,35%
Finland
Gross expenditure on R&D as share of GDP in 2007, %
South Korea India 0,88%
Finland 0,79%
USA Israel 0,72%
3%
Turkey 0,43%
South Africa 0,25%
Germany
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
France
Canada
2%
Change of the country’s share in world’s
Czech Rep. China GERD between 1997 and 2007
Russia Hungary China 103%
Belarus Estonia Turkey 79%
1% Ukraine
South Africa South Africa 40%
India
Poland
Israel 38%
Chile Turkey South Korea 23%
Kazakhstan
Finland 13%
Japan 5%
0%
India 1%
-0,5% 0,0% 0,5% 1,0% 1,5% 2,0%
Change of the share of GERD in GDP between 1997 and 2007, Germany 0%
Low
percentage points Russia -5%
Low High USA -9%
France -16%
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, W orld Bank -40% 0% 40% 80% 120%
Source: Prazdnichnykh & Liuhto, PEI 2010Russia’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 Companies in top 1,000 R&D investors
2005 2009 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
The company Company's own R&D department 47 %*
doesn’t have
R&D department, Foreign companies - suppliers of
equipment or parts 38 %
49%
The company has an Russian companies - suppliers of
R&D department, equipment or parts 28 %
51%
Company's own departments, except
R&D 25 %
Russian engineering, design and other
specialized companies 16 %
Russian institution of science and
Presence of innovation strategy technology or university 15 %
Documented as a separate strategy, Foreign engineering, design and other
The company doesn't 8%
specialized companies
have innovation
В компании strategy,
нет 5%
исследовательского 24% Acquisition of patents, licenses and
подразделения, Documented as a part 6%
know-how from Russian companies
of overall strategy,
49%
20% Acquisition of patents, licenses and
В компании существует know-how from foreign companies (with 5%
исследовательское or without Russian presence)
подразделение, Foreign institution of science and
Innovation strategy 51% technology or universi ty 3%
exists only in top
managers' minds,
51% 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 2010Russia’s innovation / R&D activity today (6)
Figure 6
Obstacles to innovation
Main obstacles to innovation activities for mid-sized and large
Rankings of obstacles to innovation for EU- companies
companies in Russia
Lack of funds available within the Non-innovative
company 62% * Innovative companies*
companies*
Too large cost of innovation activity 33% 1 Lack of funds available within 1 No demand for new products
the company and services
Difficult to get external financing 33% 2 Difficult to get external 2 Lack of funds available within
financing the company
Uncertainty of demand for a new product
23% Uncertainty of demand for a Difficult to get external
or service 3 3
new product or service financing
Lack of qualified human resources 19%
4 Difficult to find suppliers 4 Difficult to find suppliers
Lack of technology information 12%
5 Too large cost of innovation 5 Uncertainty of demand for a
Lack of market information 8% activity new product or service
6 Lack of qualified human 6 Too large cost of innovation
Difficult to find suppliers 6% resources activity
Restricting standards and industry 7 No demand for new products 7 Restricting standards and
regulations 6%
and services industry regulations
No demand for new products and
services 5% 8 Restricting standards and 8 Lack of qualified human
industry regulations resources
Ineffective innovation management 5% Lack of market information Lack of technology information
9 9
Board of Directors doesn't recognize
innovation as priority 4%
10 Lack of technology information 10 Lack of market information
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 OfficeRussia’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 High
Cost to hire engineers and technicians 2% 8% 12% 32% 20% 14% 13%
Too high, inacceptable Acceptable
Education quality in vocational schools and 8% 17% 26% 25% 16% 6% 2%
technical colleges Low High
Quality of higher education in natural 4% 13% 18% 24% 18% 19% 4%
sciences and engineering Low High
Quality of math and science education in 6% 11% 14% 24% 23% 18% 5%
school Low High
Source: Prazdnichnykh & Liuhto, PEI 2010
Source: Bauman Innovation and OPORA – Russian Innovation Survey 2009-2010Russia’s innovation / R&D activity today (8)
Figure 8
Intellectual property protection
Intellectual property protection in general 31% 24% 14% 14% 10% 4%3%
Weak Strong
Intellectual property protection:
21% 15% 18% 24% 13% 7% 3%
patents for invention and prototypes
Weak Strong
Intellectual property protection: 18%
8% 10% 16% 22% 18% 7%
registered trademarks
Weak Strong
Intellectual property protection:
13% 18% 19% 27% 12% 10% 2%
authors’ rights
Weak Strong
Intellectual property protection:
business secrets and know-how
12% 11% 18% 27% 13% 13% 4%
Weak Strong
Source: Prazdnichnykh & Liuhto, PEI 2010
Source: Bauman Innovation and OPORA – Russian Innovation Survey 2009-2010Russia’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 Location of main technology
Areas of cooperation
abroad (during last three years) partners
Germany 36%**
Upgrading products and *
53% USA 23%
services
China 16%
CIS countries 10%
Developing new
products and services
43% Finland 9%
Yes
No Italy 8%
48%
Japan 8%
49% Designing and
implementing new 42% France 5%
production processes
India 5%
Sweden 5%
Upgrading production
processes 42% Other Europe 14%
Other non-Europe 5%
* The sum exceeds 100%, since multiple ** The sum exceeds 100%, since up
options were allowed to two options were allowed
Source: Prazdnichnykh & Liuhto, PEI 2010
Source: Bauman Innovation and OPORA – Russian Innovation Survey 2009-2010Finnish-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 universitiesSome 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.You can also read
