From Phileas Fogg to Yuri Gagarin: · From Phileas Fogg to Yuri Gagarin: ... Prologue: “ … Has the world grown smaller? Certainly, returned Ralph. I agree with Mr. Fogg. The world

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 in the 1970-1990s: Russia’s

industrialcompetitiveness

deteriorates

Russia in this millenium:

How to turn Russia more

innovative ?

Russia tomorrow:

two major pathsin modernisation

??

State-led, military-oriented reform

vs

Private firm dominated, civil society-

oriented reform

Russia’s modernisation path(s)

Modernisation is not self-evident pathfor Russia, though it would be highly needed

Source: Liuhto 2009

Russia’s innovation / R&D activity today (1)

Figure 1

Expenditure on R&D

BelarusHungary

Germany

Israel

India

Kazakhstan

Canada

China

Poland

Russia

USA

Turkey

Ukraine

Finland

France

Czech Rep.

Chile

EstoniaSouth Africa

South Korea

Japan

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

-0,5% 0,0% 0,5% 1,0% 1,5% 2,0%

Country’s share (%) of world’s GERD in 2007

Change of the country’s share in world’s GERD between 1997 and 2007

-16%-9%-5%

0%1%5%

13%23%

38%40%

79%103%

-40% 0% 40% 80% 120%

FranceUSA

RussiaGermany

IndiaJapan

FinlandSouth Korea

IsraelSouth Africa

TurkeyChina

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, World Bank

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.)

Change of the share of GERD in GDP between 1997 and 2007, percentage points

Gro

ss e

xpen

ditu

re o

n R&

D as

sha

re o

f GDP

in 2

007,

%

0,25%0,43%0,72%0,79%0,88%1,35%

3,13%4,43%5,06%

7,88%14,04%

34,13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

South AfricaTurkey

IsraelFinland

IndiaRussia

South KoreaChina

FranceGermany

JapanUSA

High

Low

HighLow

Source: Prazdnichnykh & Liuhto, PEI 2010

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 RussiaSources: DIUS (2009); Fortune (2009)


Figure 4

Sample characteristics (innovation), %

Source: Bauman Innovation and OPORA – Russian Innovation Survey 2009-2010

В компании существует исследовательское подразделение,51%

В компании нет исследовательского

подразделения,49%

*

* The sum exceeds 100%, since up to three options were allowed

Presence of R&D department

Presence of innovation strategy

The company has an R&D department,51%

The company doesn’t have

R&D department,49%

Documented as a separate strategy,5%

Documented as a part of overall strategy,20%

Innovation strategy exists only in top

managers' minds,51%

The company doesn't have innovation strategy,

24%

Main sources of innovation

3 %

5 %

6 %

8 %

15 %

16 %

25 %

28 %

38 %

47 %

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 %

Foreign institution of science and technology or universi ty

Acquisition of patents, licenses and know-how from foreign companies (with

or without Russian presence)

Acquisition of patents, licenses and know-how from Russian companies

Foreign engineering, design and other specialized companies

Russian institution of science and technology or university

Russian engineering, design and other specialized companies

Company's own departments, except R&D

Russian companies - suppliers of equipment or parts

Foreign companies - suppliers of equipment or parts

Company's own R&D department



Figure 6

Obstacles to innovation

Main obstacles to innovation activities for mid-sized and large companies in Russia

4%

5%

5%

6%

6%

8%

12%

19%

23%

33%

33%

62%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Board of Directors doesn't recognize innovation as priority

Ineffective innovation management

No demand for new products and services

Restricting standards and industry regulations

Difficult to find suppliers

Lack of market information

Lack of technology information

Lack of qualified human resources

Uncertainty of demand for a new product or service

Difficult to get external financing

Too large cost of innovation activity

Lack of funds available within the company

*

* The sum exceeds 100%, since up to three options were allowed

Source: Bauman Innovation and OPORA – Russian Innovation Survey 2009-2010; Community Innovation Survey 2004-2006, Central Statistics Office

Rankings of obstacles to innovation for EU- companies

Innovative companies* Non-innovativecompanies*1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Lack of funds available within the companyDifficult to get external financingUncertainty of demand for a new product or serviceDifficult to find suppliers

Too large cost of innovation activityLack of qualified human resourcesNo demand for new products and servicesRestricting standards and industry regulationsLack of market information

Lack of technology information

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

No demand for new products and servicesLack of funds available within the companyDifficult to get external financingDifficult to find suppliers

Uncertainty of demand for a new product or serviceToo large cost of innovation activityRestricting standards and industry regulationsLack of qualified human resourcesLack of technology information

Lack of market information

* See Community Innovation Survey 2004-2006 for explanations



Figure 7

Barriers to innovation: human resources and education

Availability of engineers and technicians

Cost to hire engineers and technicians

Low High

Too high, inacceptable Acceptable

6%

4%

8%

2%

8%

11%

13%

17%

8%

21%

14%

18%

26%

12%

18%

24%

24%

25%

32%

23%

23%

18%

16%

20%

17%

18%

19%

6%

14%

10%

5%

4%

2%

13%

3%

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


Low High

Low High

Low High



Figure 8

Intellectual property protection

12%

13%

8%

21%

31%

11%

18%

10%

15%

24%

18%

19%

16%

18%

14%

27%

27%

22%

24%

14%

13%

12%

18%

13%

10%

13%

10%

18%

7%

4%

4%

2%

7%

3%

3%Intellectual property protection in general

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

Weak Strong

Weak Strong

Weak Strong

Weak Strong

Weak Strong




Figure 10

Cooperation with foreign companies in area of technology and innovation

42%

42%

43%

53%

Upgrading production processes

Designing and implementing new

production processes

Developing new products and services

Upgrading products and services

Technological cooperation with partners abroad (during last three years) Areas of cooperation

*

48%49%

YesNo

Location of main technologypartners

5%14%

5%5%

5%8%8%9%10%

16%23%

36%

Other non-Europe

Other Europe

Sweden

India

France

Japan

Italy

Finland

CIS countries

China

USA

Germany **


* The sum exceeds 100%, since multiple options were allowed

** The sum exceeds 100%, since up to two options were allowed


Finland is R&D superpower in industrial cooperation with Russia


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

Finnish-Russian innovation cooperation:Some examples

(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 onFinnish-Russian cooperation (1)

( 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.

Some policy considerations based onFinnish-Russian cooperation (2)

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.

Documents

From Phileas Fogg to Yuri Gagarin: · From Phileas Fogg to Yuri Gagarin: ... Prologue: “ … Has the world grown smaller? Certainly, returned Ralph. I agree with Mr. Fogg. The world