Inventive Activity of Researchers: Cross-Country Rating Assessments

Authors

  • Tatyana Ivanovna Volkova Institute of Economics of the Ural Branch of RAS
  • Ivan Aleksandrovich Usoltsev Sberbank of Russia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17059/2017-1-26

Keywords:

inventive activity of researchers, theoretical and methodological bases, methodical developments, parametrical model, cross-country rating assessments, dialectic and gnoseological method, decomposition method, method of statistical groups, process-based estimates, efficiency evaluations

Abstract

In recent years, the study of the research capacity of the country and regions has become more active not only from the point of view of their leading components (personnel, financial, information, organizational, material-and-technical ones) but also from the perspective of the assessment of productivity and effectiveness of researchers' work. In the cross-country analysis, the certain highly aggregative parameters, which values, as a rule, are not in favour of Russia, are used. At the same time, at profound studying of this topic, these estimates cannot represent correctly the real trends of inventive activity in the scientific and technological sphere of the country and its regions. Moreover, the measurement of the researchers' creative potential realization is carried out mainly through the assessment systems of their printing activity. Little attention is paid to the problem of the rating assessments of the researchers' inventive and patent activity and its products from a cross-country perspective (especially to the detailed ones) as well as to its institutional determinants. Therefore, the authors have chosen this subject-matter of the research. Its empirical basis is the statistical materials of both the national database and those which are recognized by the world scientific community. This research has both theoretical and methodological orientations. The purpose is the development of methodological and methodical tools of the research and assessment of researchers' inventive activity including methodological support of cross-country comparative assessments. The authors have based the hypothesis on their previous research: in the conditions of the decreasing level of financial security, continuous reduction of a number of researchers, institutional restrictions and contradictions, the inventive activity of national researchers is still exist, and in a number of its leading parameters is implemented at the level of the advanced countries of the world. From the point of view of the purpose and objectives of the research, we have used the parametrical model with the allocation and assessment of such parameters, methods and indicators, which provide the integrated assessment of the dynamics of inventive and patent productivity and effectiveness allowing to reach the high level of reliability. The authors have applied the following methods: dialectic and gnoseological one, structural and logical one, structurally functional one, the method of decomposition, the method of statistical groups and index method. A transition from the traditional analysis with parameters and indicators of the high aggregated level to the level of their expedient specification has been carried out. The authors have introduced the specified new key indicators grouped by the criteria: inventive activity; patent activity and effectiveness. The article proves the rationale for a dialectic combination of the process oriented estimates, efficiency evaluations and vector (reflecting development trends) estimates. The results of this research can be considered in the case of the development of management decisions by the relevant structures, which are responsible for scientific and technological, and innovation policy at all levels of the power and management.

Author Biographies

Tatyana Ivanovna Volkova, Institute of Economics of the Ural Branch of RAS

Doctor of Economics, Head of the Sector of Institutional Economics, Institute of Economics of the Ural Branch of RAS (29, Moskovskaya St., Ekaterinburg, 620014, Russian Federation; e-mail: randall@bk.ru).

Ivan Aleksandrovich Usoltsev, Sberbank of Russia

Loan Inspector, Sberbank of Russia (67, Kuybysheva St., Ekaterinburg, 620026, Russian Federation; e-mail: nino34@yandex.ru).

References

Anchishkin, A. I. (1986). Nauka — tekhnika — ekonomika. In Russian [Science — equipment — economy]. Moscow: Ekonomika Publ., 384.

Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5–2), 71–102. DOI: 10.3386/w3210.

Glazyev, S. Yu. (1993). Teoriya dolgosrochnogo tekhniko-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya. In Russian [Theory of long-term technical and economic development]. Moscow: VlaDar Publ., 310.

Makarov, V. L., Varshavskiy, A. E. et al. (2001). Nauka i vysokie tekhnologii na rubezhe tretyego tysyacheletiya. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskie aspekty razvitiya. In Russian [Science and high technologies at a turn of the third millennium. Social and economic aspects of development]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 636.

Ivanter, V. V. & Komkov, N. I. (Eds). (2007). Problemy i perspektivy tekhnologicheskogo obnovleniya rossiyskoy ekonomiki. In Russian [Problems and the prospects of technological updating of the Russian economy]. Moscow: MAKS Press, 287.

Tatarkin, A. I. (2010). Intellektualnyy resurs obshchestva i ego rol v vosproizvodstvennom protsesse. In Russian [An intellectual resource of society and its role in reproduction process]. Ekonomika regiona [Economy of Region], 3, 20–32.

Volkova, T. I. (2006). Tvorcheskiy potentsial nauki kak obekt teoreticheskogo ekonomicheskogo issledovaniya. In Russian [Creative potential of science as an object of theoretical economic research]. Izvestiya Uralskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta [News of the Ural State Economic University], 2, 3–12.

Milov, L. V. (2002). K voprosu o sotsialnoy prirode tvorcheskoy intelligentsii. In Russian [To a question of the social nature of creative intellectuals]. Vestnik RAN [Bulletin of RAS], 72(9), 800–804.

Leontyev, B. B. & Leontyev, V. B. (2015). Novyy klass sobstvennikov v innovatsionnoy ekonomike. In Russian [A new class of owners in innovative economy]. Innovatsii [Innovations], 9, 66–77.

Volkova, T. I. (1993). Individualnaya intellektualnaya sobstvennost v nauke. In Russian [Individual intellectual property in science]. Rossiyskiy ekonomicheskiy zhurnal [The Russian economic journal], 6, 137–139.

Dozortsev, V. A. (2003). Intellektualnyye prava. Ponyatie. Sistema. Zadachi kodifikatsii. Sb. st. In Russian [Intellectual rights. Concept. System. Codification tasks. Collection of articles]. Issledovatelskiy tsentr chastnogo prava [Research center of private law]. Moscow: Statut Publ., 416.

Pokrytan, A. K. (1986). Razvitie metoda politicheskoy ekonomii. D. Rikardo. Nachala politicheskoy ekonomii i nalogovogo oblozheniya. In Russian [Development of a method of political economy. D. Ricardo. The beginnings of political economy and taxation]. Moscow: Ekonomika Publ., 71–75.

Allen, K. R. (2007). Prodvizhenie novykh tekhnologiy na rynok: per. s angl. In Russian [Promotion of new technologies on the market: trans. from English]. Moscow: BINOM. Laboratoriya znaniy Publ., 455.

Kaufer, E. (1989). The Economics of the Patent System. New York: GmbH Harwood Academic Publishers, 66.

Granstrand, O. (2000). The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property: Towards Intellectual Capitalism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub, 352.

Chelenkov, A. (2009). Patentovanie nanotekhnologiy. In Russian [Patenting of nanotechnologies]. Marketing [Marketing], 6, 3–23.

Garnish, D., Owen, R. & Conway, R. (1995). Privlechenie kapitala: per. s angl. In Russian [Attraction of the capital: trans. from English]. Moscow: Dzhon Uayli end Sanz Publ., 464.

Bygrave, W., Hay, M. & Peeters, J. (1999). The Venture Capital Handbook. London: Financial Times-Prentice Hall, 351.

Gompers, P. & Lerner, J. (1999). The venture capital cycle. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press, 364.

Hellmann, T., Bottazzi, L. & Da Rin, M. (2008). Who are the active investors? Evidence from venture capital. Journal of Financial Economics, 89, 488–512. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.09.003.

Volkova, T. I. (2012). Institutsionalnyye riski v sisteme otnosheniy po vovlecheniyu intellektualnykh produktov v ekonomicheskiy oborot. In Russian [Institutional risks in the system of relations on the involvement of intellectual products in economic circulation]. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoy teorii [Journal of economics theory], 3, 7–17.

Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 92–116.

Valdaytsev, S. V. (2010). Otsenka intellektualnoy sobstvennosti: uchebnik. In Russian [Assessment of intellectual property: textbook]. St. Petersburg; Moscow: Ekonomika Publ., 471.

Kozyrev, A. N. (1977). Otsenka intellektualnoy sobstvennosti. In Russian [Assessment of intellectual property]. Moscow: Ekspertnoe byuro Publ., 289.

Volkova, T. I. & Usoltsev, I. A. (2010). Intellektualnyye produkty nauchnoy sfery. Potentsial kommertsializatsii. In Russian [Intellectual products of scientific sphere. Commercialization potential]. Ekaterinburg: Institute of Economics UB RAS Publ., 171.

Lynnik, N. (2000). Zakonov dostatochno. Nuzhno ikh ispolnyat. In Russian [There are enough of laws. It is necessary to perform them]. Intellektualnaya sobstvennost [Intellectual property], 11, 27–30.

Krasnov, L. V., Shuyskiy, V. P., Alabyan, S. S., Komissarov, A. V. & Morozenkova, O. V. (2009). Mesto Rossii na mirovykh rynkakh intellektualnykh (nematerialnykh) uslug v usloviyakh perekhoda k innovatsionnomu razvitiyu. In Russian [The place of Russia in the world markets of intellectual (non-material) services in the conditions of transition to innovative development]. Problemy prognozirovaniya [Forecasting problems], 2, 116–120.

Frolov, I. E. (2015). Problemy kapitalizatsii rossiyskoy nauki: produktivnost, rezultativnost, effektivnost. In Russian [Problems of capitalization of the Russian science: productivity, effectiveness, efficiency]. Problemy prognozirovaniya [Forecasting problems], 3, 3–19.

Kozyrev, A. N. (2015). Ekonomika intellektualnoy sobstvennosti. Izmereniya, mifologiya, matematicheskie modeli. In Russian [Economy of intellectual property. Measurements, mythology, mathematical models]. Vestnik RAN [Bulletin of RAS], 85(9), 776–784. DOI: 10.7868/S0869587315090066.

Likhachev, V. A. (2014). Mirovoy rynok obyektov intellektualnoy sobstvennosti. In Russian [World market of intellectual property items]. Rossiyskiy vneshneekonomicheskiy vestnik [Russian external economic messenger], 8, 89–103.

Tsapenko, I. (2014). Chelovecheskie resursy v sfere nauki i tekhnologiy. In Russian [Human resources in the sphere of science and technologies]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya [World economy and international relations], 4, 3–15.

Nort, D. (1997). Instituty, institutsionalnyye izmeneniya i funktsionirovanie ekonomiki: per. s angl. In Russian [Institutes, institutional changes and functioning of economy: trans. from English]. Moscow: Fond ekonomicheskoy knigi Nachala Publ., 180.

Eggertsson, T. (2001). Ekonomicheskoye povedenie i instituty: per. s angl. In Russian [Economic behaviour and institutes: trans. from English]. Moscow: Delo Publ., 408.

Nekipelov, A. D. (2009). Nauchno-tekhnologicheskoye obespechenie sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya. Doklad na Obshchem sobranii RAN. In Russian [Scientific technological support of social and economic development. The report on general meeting of RAS]. Vestnik RAN [Bulletin of RAS], 79(3), 198–202.

Andreev, A. L. (2015). Intellektualnyye sredy: kontseptualnaya perspektiva glazami sotsiologa. In Russian [Intellectual environments: conceptual prospect by sociologist’s eyes]. Vestnik RAN [Bulletin of RAS], 85(4), 321–328. DOI: 10.7868/S0869587315040027.

Florida, R. (2005). Kreativnyy klass. Lyudi, kotoryye menyayut budushcheye: per. s angl. In Russian [Creative class. People who change the future: trans. from English]. Moscow: Klassika-XXI Publ., 430.

Published

01.02.2017

How to Cite

Volkova, T. I., & Usoltsev, I. A. (2017). Inventive Activity of Researchers: Cross-Country Rating Assessments. Economy of Regions, 13(1), 290–307. https://doi.org/10.17059/2017-1-26

Issue

Section

Research articles