The Influence of National Economy Specifics on the Interaction between Universities and Corporations in the Field of Innovation

Pavel  G. Gribov; Andrey  L. Lomakin; Marina  Ya. Kurganskaya; Maria  Z. Kumelashvili

doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.54

Authors

Pavel G. Gribov Department of Economic Security, Institute of Law and National Security, RANEPA, 119571, Moscow, pr. Vernadskogo, d. 82, str. 1, Russia
Andrey L. Lomakin Department of Economic Security, Institute of Law and National Security, RANEPA, 119571, Moscow, pr. Vernadskogo, d. 82, str. 1, Russia
Marina Ya. Kurganskaya Department of Public Administration and National Security, Institute of Law and National Security, RANEPA, 119571, Moscow, pr. Vernadskogo, d. 82, str. 1, Russia
Maria Z. Kumelashvili Department of Economics and Management, Moscow International University, 125040, Moscow, Leningradsky Prospekt, d. 17, Russia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.54

Keywords:

Innovation activity, intellectual property, higher education, entrepreneurial university, intellectual capital.

Abstract

Questions of the influence of national economy features on innovation activity do not lose their relevance at the beginning of the XXI century. In different countries of the world, new approaches to stimulating innovation are emerging that take into account the peculiarities of national economies. However, the main problem of such activities remains the speed of movement of new technologies from universities to corporations and the further creation of new products and technologies. The number of patents obtained by various organizations is becoming one of the main indicators of the development of the national economy. It is noted that the relationship between research costs and the number of patents obtained is not as linear as it seems in theory. The practical implementation of diffuse processes in an innovative environment also does not have a linear dependence on the "investment – result".

The use of statistical analysis methods allowed us to identify the facts that signal that the model of stimulating innovation activity, formed in the 1980s of the XX century, is losing its advantages. The article examines in detail the progress of higher education reform in the EU countries and identifies the key features of combining scientific organizations to create large multidisciplinary research centers. The authors conclude that the experience of such a reform in France is very interesting to study in Russia. It is noted that since the 2000s. in the United States and the European Union, questions are raised about the revision of the University tax system, as well as changes in the legal status of educational organizations. Similar trends occur in Russia, however, due to historical and social processes, they have their specifics. According to the authors, the regulation of taxation of scientific activities leads to the formation of unique elements of the economic mechanism for stimulating innovation.

References

Aganbegyan, A. G. (2017). What comprehensive plan up to 2025 does Russia need? Economic Policy, 4, 8–29. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2017-4-01 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2017-4-01

Agénor, P.-R. (2017). Caught in the middle? The economics of middle–income traps. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(3), 771–791. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12175 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12175

Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., Frenken, K. (2015a). Proximity and innovation: From statics to dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6), 907–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.883598 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.883598

Bessen, J. E. (2016). How computer automation affects occupations: Technology, jobs, and skills. In Boston University School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper, 15–49. Boston, MA: Boston University. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2690435 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2690435

Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

da Fonseca R. (2018) Financing of science, technology and innovation: Modern practice and prospects. Foresight, 2, 6–22. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2018.2.6.22 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2018.2.6.22

De Marchi, V., Giuliani, E., Rabolletti, R. (2015). Do global value chains offer developing countries learning and innovation opportunities? The European Journal of Development Research, 30(3), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0126-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0126-z

Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (1998) The Endless Transition: A “Triple Helix” of University – Industry – Government Relations. Minerva, 36, 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004348123030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004348123030

Frenkel, A. A., Tikhomirov, B. I., Sergienko, Y. V., Surkov, A. A. (2018). Russia’s economy in 2017-2019: Preconditions for a breakthrough have not been created yet. Economic Policy, 5, 24–49. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2018-5-24-49 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2018-5-24-49

Galindo-Rueda, F., Verger, F. (2016). OECD Taxonomy of Economic Activities Based on R&D Intensity. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Paper 2016/04. Paris: OECD.

Gribov, P. G., Kumelashvili, M. Z. (2018). Entrepreneurial university as the basis for the formation of the national intellectual capital. Economics of Education, 2, 17–28. (in Russian).

Ha, S.H., Liu, W., Cho, H., Kim, S.H. (2015). Technological advances in the fuel cell vehicle: Patent portfolio management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.016

Mau, V. A. (2015). Economic crises in the modern history of Russia. Economic Policy, 2, 7–19. (in Russian).

Patel, P., Pavitt, K. (1997). The technological competencies in the world’s largest firms: Сomplex and path dependent, but not too much variety. Research Policy, 26, 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00005-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00005-X

Pietrobelli, C., Puppato, F. (2015). Technology foresight and industrial strategy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 110(1), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.021

Romanenko, K. R. (2015). Lessons from the International Experience of University Mergers. Moscow: Higher School of Economics. (in Russian).

Rücker Schaeffer, P., Fischer, B., Queiroz, S. (2018). Not only education: The role of research universities in innovation ecosystems. Foresight, 2, 50–61. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2018.2.50.61 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2018.2.50.61

Sala, A., Landoni, P., Verganti, R. (2016). Small and medium enterprises collaborations with knowledge intensive services: An explorative analysis of the impact of innovation vouchers. R&D Management, 46(S1), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12196 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12196

Schot, J., Steinmueller, W.E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47, 1554–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011

Sokolov, D. (2016). Umbrella patent for invention. Nanoindustry, 7, 114–120. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.22184/1993-8578.2016.69.7114.120 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22184/1993-8578.2016.69.7114.120

Vivarelli, M. (2016). The middle income trap: A way out based on technological and structural change. Economic Change and Restructuring, 49(2–3), 159–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-015-9166-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-015-9166-6