Authors:Valentina A. Markusova, Vladimir A. Minin, Alexandr N. Libkind, C. N. Margriet Jansz, Michel Zitt, and Elise Bassecoulard-Zitt
The tremendous social and political changes that culminated in the Soviet Union's dissolution had a great impact on the Russian science community. Due to the Russian transformation to a market economy a new model of R&D emerged on the basis of the higher education system (R&D in universities). This paper is part of a project, the main goals of which were to analyse the impact of competitive funding on R&D in provincial universities, the distribution of funding by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, and the level of cross-sectoral and international collaboration. This paper gives a descriptive overview of R&D conducted at the 380 provincial universities, looking at 9,800 applications, 1,950 research projects, 19,981 individuals, and more than 29,600 publications for the period 1996–2001. Our data demonstrated a positive tendency in demographic statistics in the provinces. A map of intra-national collaboration taking place in 1995–2002 in provincial universities situated in different economic regions was designed. Our data show a strong collaboration within the regions, which is an important factor of sustainability. Publication output grew by a factor two or two-and half in six years. The share in output on mathematics was the highest at about 45%, physics and chemistry had equal shares of about 20% each. Researchers from the Ural and Povolzh'e regions were more active in knowledge dissemination than their colleagues from the other nine economic-geographic regions. Bibliometric analysis of more than 1,450 international collaborative publications for 1999–2001 demonstrated a strong shift in collaboration partners from Former East Block and former USSR countries to Western Europe, USA and Japan. Among the regions, Povolzh'e, Ural, Volgo-Vyatsky and Central Chernozem'e demonstrated a stronger tendency to collaborate. This collaboration depends heavily on financial support from foreign countries.
The economic and social transformation of countries of central and eastern Europe has deeply affected their S&T systems. However,
conceptual and methodological problems in monitoring transformation of their S&T systems are not trivial. In this paper we
analyse conceptual and methodological issues involved in measuring S&T activities in the socialist and post-socialist period
across the most important S&T indicators (R&D, US and national patents; innovation surveys; bibliometrics). Our conclusions
are that: i) the process of methodological harmonisation of S&T indicators has progressed considerably and we have provided
some evidence in that respect; ii) the use of similar or identical indicators (business R&D, innovation counts, patents, citations)
when making inter-country or inter-temporal comparisons should be approached with caution because of the significant differences
between the socialist and post-socialist periods as well as between post-socialist R&D systems and R&D in other market economies.
This latter applies especially to the interpretation of business R&D data in the post-socialist period.
Science is the core sector of present-day knowledge production. Yet, the mechanisms of science as an industry are poorly understood.
The economic theory of science is still in its infancy, and philosophy of science has only sparsely addressed the issue of
economic rationality. Research, however, is costly. Inefficient use of resources consumed by the scientific industry is as
detrimental to the collective advancement of knowledge as are deficiencies in method. Economic inefficiency encompasses methodological
inadequacy. Methods are inadequate if they tend to misallocate time and effort. If one omits the question of how inputs are
transformed into outputs in self-organised knowledge production, this means neglecting an essential aspect of the collective
rationality of science. A self-organised tendency towards efficiency comes to the fore as soon as science is described as
an economy in which researchers invest their own attention in order to obtain the attention of others. Viewed like this, scientific
communication appears to be a market where information is exchanged for attention. Scientific information is measured in terms
of the attention it earns. Since scientists demand scientific information as a means of production, the attention that a theory
attracts is a measure of its value as a capital good. On the other hand, the attention a scientist earns is capitalised into
the asset called reputation. Elaborating the ideas introduced in Franck (1998) and (1999), the paper describes science as a highly developed market economy. Science conceived as capital market
covers the specific conditions under which scientists, while maximising their reputation, optimise output in the eyes of those
competent to judge. Attention is not just any resource. It is the resource whose efficient use is called intelligence. Science,
as an industry transforming attention into cognitive output, is bound to miss the hallmark of rationality if it does not pass
a test of collective intelligence. The paper closes with considering the prospective outcome of such a test.
in Chinese biotechnology innovation during the studied period. It is different from most of the developed marketeconomies, where firms are the main innovation actors. China is in transition from formal central planning to marketeconomy during this
has increased tremendously as a result of its marketeconomy and opening up policy. China is fervent to achieve the status of global powers and is making conscious attempts to use science and technology as levers for economic growth. The reinforce
. Also according to our findings, the gap between inbred and non-inbred seems to close when its practice is limited to a possible minimum.
It should never be forgotten that universities play a central role in an innovation-driven modern market
Authors:Liming Liang, Lixin Chen, Yishan Wu, and Junpeng Yuan
similar analysis. Second, we haven't been able to discern the possible but significant difference between the triple helix model as working in mature marketeconomies and the one working in transitional economies. Our next goal would be to look for such
later. Foreign investment in China has increased tremendously as a result of its marketeconomy and opening up policy. China is fervent to achieve the status of global powers and is making conscious attempts to use science and technology as levers for
this provides an additional opportunity to increase knowledge about the peculiarities of the process of transformation of centrally planned economies into marketeconomies.
This paper is an attempt to quantify CIS countries’ scientific
Authors:Md. Dulal Hossain, Junghoon Moon, Hyoung Goo Kang, Sung Chul Lee, and Young Chan Choe
changed global circumstances and country's entrance in free marketeconomy. As a matter of fact, some aspects of the S&T policy in the 1990s are being re-examined for possible revision. As a result, NSTP outlines various clauses for encouragement and