The problems of «digital» goalsetting within the government s&t policy in the regions comprised by federal entities of the Russian Federation

Publication type Article
Status Published
Affiliation: Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute(TsAGI)
Address: Russian Federation
Occupation: Junior Researcher
Affiliation: Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Address: Russian Federation
Journal nameObshchestvo i ekonomika
EditionIssue 1

The authors maintain that there is a noticeable crisis of “digital” goal-setting for civil science by federal authorities. The differentiation of regions in  achieving the "digital" goals is shown, and the inability of conventional indicators to correctly diagnose the situation depending on different initial conditions in various regions. The conclusion is formulated that the crisis of “digital” goal-setting can be overcome by redistributing the powers and the allocated resources among federal and regional authorities. 


Keywordsscience and technology policy, regional science, indicators of scientific and technological development, goal-setting in science
Publication date13.02.2019
Number of characters40794
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 2, views: 1538

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Bania N., Calkins L.N., Dalenberg D. R. The effects of regional science and technology policy on the geographic distribution of industrial R&D laboratories // Journal of Regional Science. 1992. Vol. 32. No. 2. P. 209–228.

2. Belderbos R. et al. Academic research strengths and multinational firms' foreign R&D location decisions: evidence from R&D investments in European regions // Environment and planning A. 2014. Vol. 46. No. 4. P. 920–942.

3. Oh S.H., Lee K.J. Governance system of governmental R&D programs: Formation and transformation of the Framework Act on Science and Technology in Korea // Science and Public Policy. 2013. Vol. 40. No. 4. P. 492–503.

4. Wilson D., Souitaris V. Do Germany’s federal and land governments (still) co-ordinate their innovation policies? // Research Policy. 2002. Vol. 31. No. 7. P. 1123–1140.

5. Koschatzky K., Kroll H. Which side of the coin? The regional governance of science and innovation // Regional Studies. 2007. Vol. 41. No. 8. P. 1115–1127.

6. Perry B., May T. Governance, science policy and regions: an introduction // Regional Studies. 2007. Vol. 41. No. 8. P. 1039–1050.

7. Audretsch B. Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity // Oxford review of economic policy. 1998. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 18–29.

8. Borras Alomar S., Christiansen T., Rodriguez Pose A. Towards a ‘Europe of the regions'? Visions and reality from a critical perspective // Regional & Federal Studies. 1994. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 1–27.

9. Heéraud J.A. Regional innovation systems and European research policy: Convergence or misunderstanding? // European Planning Studies. 2003. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 41–56.

10. Mindeli L.Eh., Medvedeva T.Yu., Ostapyuk S.F. Tendentsii razvitiya rossijskoj i mirovoj nauki // M.: In-t problem razvitiya nauki RAN, 2014.

11. Feller I. Federal and state government roles in science and technology // Economic Development Quarterly. 1997. Vol. 11. No. 4. P. 283–295.

12. Kitagawa F. The regionalization of science and innovation governance in Japan? // Regional Studies. 2007. Vol. 41. No. 8. P. 1099–1114.

13. Golova I.M. Problemy formirovaniya regional'noj innovatsionnoj strategii // Ehkonomika regiona. 2010. № 3. S. 77–85.

14. Mindeli L.Eh., Khromov G.S. Nauchno-tekhnicheskij potentsial Rossii: v 2 ch. Ch. 1. // M.: In-t problem razvitiya nauki RAN, 2011.

15. Magro E., Aranguren M., Navarro M. Does regional S&T policy affect firms’ behaviour // Regional Studies Association annual international conference. 2010. P. 24–26.

16. Antonioli D., Marzucchi A., Montresor S. Regional innovation policy and innovative behaviour: looking for additional effects // European Planning Studies. 2014. Vol. 22. No. 1. P. 64–83.

17. Georghiou L., Clarysse B. Introduction and Synthesis, in Government R&D Funding and Company Behaviour. Measuring Behavioural additionality. 2006. URL: https:// governmentrdfundingandcompanybehaviourmeasuringbehaviouraladditionality.htm (data obrascheniya: 20.02.2018).

18. Clarysse B., Wright M., Mustar P. Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective // Research Policy. 2009. Vol. 38. No. 10. P. 1517–1533.

19. Czarnitzki D., Licht G. Additionality of public R&D grants in a transition economy // Economics of Transition. 2006. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 101–131.

20. Czarnitzki D., Ebersberger B., Fier A. The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: empirical evidence from Finland and Germany // Journal of applied econometrics. 2007. Vol. 22. No. 7. P. 1347–1366.

21. David P.A., Hall B.H., Toole A.A. Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence // Research policy. 2000. Vol. 29. No. 4–5. P. 497–529.

22. Aerts K., Schmidt T. Two for the price of one?: Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: A comparison between Flanders and Germany // Research Policy. 2008. Vol. 37. No. 5. P. 806-822.

23. Autio E., Kanninen S., Gustafsson R. First-and second-order additionality and learning outcomes in collaborative R&D programs // Research Policy. 2008. Vol. 37. No. 1. P. 59–76.

24. Bortnik I.M., Zinov V.G., Kotsyubinskij V.A., Sorokina A.V. Indikatory innovatsionnogo razvitiya regionov Rossii dlya tselej monitoringa i upravleniya // Innovatsii. 2013. Tom 181. № 11. S. 21–32.

25. Zvezdina P., Kazarnovskij P., Okrest D. Rossijskim uchenym predlozhili perejti na nepolnyj rabochij den', 30 iyunya 2017 g. URL: (data obrascheniya: 23.03.2018).

26. Gusev A.B., Yurevich M.A. Vnebyudzhetnyj spros na issledovaniya i razrabotki: otsenki regional'nogo raspredeleniya // Nauka. Innovatsii. Obrazovanie. 2017. № 1. S. 120–135.

Система Orphus