Vol. 10, No. 1, 2024

.

An analysis of the reforms in the scientific and technological complex and higher education system in Russia shows that the tasks assigned have been successfully achieved. However, in current conditions, the need for a new state-led scientific and technical strategy is evident. The main goals are to achieve technological sovereignty and transition the economy into a full cycle of innovation. The goal of this article is to identify new objectives and priorities for scientific and technological advancement to ensure technological sovereignty. Descriptive, comparative, and taxonomical methods are employed in the analysis. The paper identifies the main areas of government policy aimed at achieving technological sovereignty in Russia, and this constitutes the main finding. Additionally, it is essential to develop new objectives and strategies for scientific and technological growth. In fact, the new scientific and technological policy should include the following issues: organizing scientific research, developing innovative territories, integrating science and education, conducting scientific diplomacy, providing resource and legislative support, and measuring the effectiveness of the scientific-technological complex.

This paper, written to commemorate the anniversary of the Russian Academy of Sciences, offers a detailed account of the establishment of Novosibirsk Akademgorodok. The author, Academician Abel Gezevich Aganbegyan, played an active role in this process. He regards Akademgorodok as a major contributor to the advancement of science and education. Akademgorodok was initially created to accomplish three primary objectives: to foster the development of fundamental sciences and facilitate their mutual interaction, with a focus on breakthrough directions; to integrate science with higher and pre-university education; and to promote innovation based on scientific achievements. These goals demanded significant efforts from both the research community and the state. Despite significant challenges and risks, Akademgorodok has become one of the leading scientific centres both in Russia and globally. However, this process was associated with some omissions, including insufficient attention to the commercialisation of scientific findings and innovation transfer in industry.

This article examines a number of aspects in the development of the economics of technology as an independent research direction. This field falls under the umbrella of a broader discipline of the ‘economics of scientific and technological progress’, which was founded by a group of outstanding Soviet economists. The article analyses the methodological principles behind the economics of technology as a modern field of science. Additionally, the contribution made by the Soviet and Russian economic schools, as well as the continuity of their studies, are discussed. The research methodology is based on theories of technological change and development factors. Comparative analysis is used to explore the chronology of including technology in the realm of economic analysis. The results obtained indicate that modern works by the Russian economic school, including those on the ‘combinatorial growth’ of technologies, significantly alter the widely-held concept of technological evolution and most well-known models of technological dynamics, which rely on J. Schumpeter’s principle of creative destruction. In this respect, the emerging research direction – economics of technology – continues the traditions of the Soviet economic school of Heynman–L’vov–Anchishkin. While considering the economic impact, renewal, or forecasting of technological development, this direction also focuses on interactions between technologies and their dynamics. Technologies advance at various rates along various areas of production activities, both within their core and periphery. Consequently, the structure of technologies within each type of activity, as well as the structural design of each technology within the ‘core–periphery’ framework, is of fundamental importance. The conclusion is made that the research direction of the economics of technology consists in studying the effects of combinatorial growth in technological fields, technological duality, and the sensitivity of technological development goals to different industrial policy instruments. This direction also includes modes and models of substituting and adding technologies, as well as technological neutrality and its impact on economic growth.

The article examines the reasons for the low innovative activity of domestic enterprises, taking into account the development of Russian science, which is still effective. The aim of the study is to identify ways to ensure a more active impact of research activities on the level of innovation and efficiency of social production, in order to improve the quality of life for the population and develop the social sphere. The originality of the approach used in this article lies in its application of methodological principles and conclusions drawn within the framework of the theory of organizational knowledge management. Specifically, the author draws on the classification of this knowledge management theory into non-formalized and formalized knowledge, and identifies four types of transformation: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. Additionally, the article concludes that a continuous and cyclical process is necessary for knowledge to pass through these four stages in a sequential manner. It has been concluded that one of the main reasons for the low innovation activity in our country and the low efficiency of our social production is due to the linear nature of the scientific and innovative process in Russia. This is because there is a lack of feedback between the real economy and society and the field of research and development (R&D). In other words, there is an inefficiency in the process of internalizing knowledge within the domestic economy, and the externalization phase is almost completely absent. Therefore, ensuring the fullness and continuity of this process, based on four sequential types of knowledge transformations, can lead to an intensification of innovation in Russia and an increase in efficiency in the functioning of our domestic economy and society. This in turn would contribute to improving the quality of life for our population.

The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic overview of the current state of patenting activities within higher education institutions, as well as to identify potential directions for future development.The methodology used in this study combines both theoretical and empirical approaches, drawing on the techniques of system analysis, patent analysis, retrospective and comparative studies, and expert assessment.The overall results of the study demonstrate the need for a shift in focus from the traditional quantitative indicator of scientific patenting by universities, to a more strategic approach that considers the potential for commercializing patents or achieving economic benefits from their implementation or use. An analysis of the interaction between businesses and higher education institutions in joint research and development projects has shown that there is an imbalance in the current level of knowledge about production problems within businesses and the potential fields for finding solutions. Another challenge is the remuneration for employees at higher education institutions who offer innovative solutions, as well as the process of registering a corresponding patent. This is about ensuring that the results obtained match the amount of motivation and the expectations of employees themselves. Special attention has been paid to studying the methodological basis for developing a rating system for innovative activities within higher education institutions. Understanding this system will allow higher education institutions to develop more effective strategic and tactical plans for research projects and cooperation programs with industry partners.