Russia’s Position in the World in Terms of Scientific and Technological Development

The aim of the research is to assess the level of development of Russia’s scientific and technological complex in a comparative analysis of achieved parameters against the results of the world level. The relevance of the work is in determining the emerging trend of scientific and technological development of the Russian Federation for the subsequent development of managerial decisions in the areas requiring close attention of the state. The study is based on the available information resources that publish open data on international statistics for the period 2010–2019. The first stage involved a detailed analysis of the most significant indicators characterizing the level of resource endowment and efficiency of scientific activity in the countries and partners of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. At the second stage, based on the developed and applied methodology of point estimation, the final index of development of the scientific and technological complex was found for the countries at two time intervals. The results achieved in the Russian Federation were evaluated, and the factors that determined its position among the studied countries were given. According to the results of the study, the leaders in the final index of scientific and technological development are Switzerland, Sweden, South Korea and the Netherlands; the outsiders are India, Brazil and South Africa. The Russian Federation is included in the list of countries with a low level of scientific and technological development. A direct correlation between the level of resource provision and performance has been established, with a number of countries having a “deferred effect” due to the created reserve to build the resource potential in the past period, which later allowed them to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of scientific activity while reducing the resource base. It is revealed that the change in the amount of funding and availability of labor resources primarily affects the possibility of and return in obtaining a practical result, expressed by patent activity, and does not have a significant impact on publication. The solution to the problem of low efficiency of scientific activity in the Russian Federation and lagging behind the leading countries in scientific and technological development, in the opinion of the authors, lies in the reorientation of state policy to stimulate scientific organizations and researchers in obtaining demanded results of scientific activity from society and enterprises, with a decrease in the role of publication activity as the main criterion for evaluating the effectiveness of organizations subordinated to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. 

1. Bodrova E. V., Kalinov V. V. Faktory, opredelivshie tekhnologicheskoe otstavanie SSSR nakanune perestroyki [The Factors that Determined the Technological Backwardness of the USSR on the Eve of “Perestroika”]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istoriya [Tomsk State University Journal of History], 2018, no. 52, pp. 63-70. DOI:10.17223/19988613/52/12. (In Russ.)

2. Мolchanova S. M., Drozdova A. P. Instrumenty realizatsii innovatsionnoy politiki Velikobritanii [UK Innovation Policy Instruments]. Voprosy innovatsionnoy ekonomiki [Russian Journal of Innovation Economics], 2019, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1215-1226. DOI:10.18334/vinec.9.4.41289. (In Russ.)

3. Chmykhalo A. Y., Ardashkin I. B. Perspektivy razvitiya nauki i innovatsiy v sovremennoy Rossii [Future Development of Science and Innovation in Modern Russia]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya [Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science], 2014, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 111- 122. (In Russ.)

4. Yakovlev A. A., Yakovlev A. V. Puti razresheniya sistemnogo krizisa v ekonomicheskoy teorii [Ways of Resolving Systemic Crisis in Economic Theory]. Aktual’nye problemy ekonomiki i prava [Actual Problems of Economics and Law], 2019, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 923- 934. DOI:10.21202/1993-047X.13.2019.1.923-934. (In Russ.)

5. Al-Ghazali A. S. A. Theoretical and Applied Aspects of Basic R&D During the Period of Transition to Post-Industrial Knowledge Economy. Access to Science, Business, Innovation in Digital Economy, 2021, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 103-115. DOI:10.46656/access.2021.2.1(8).

6. Artemiev A. A., Lyubarskaya M. A., Tsurkan M. V., Naumova O. A., Vershinin S. E. Current Status and Prospective for the Modernization of Russian Economy in the Developing Conditions. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2016, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 194-205. DOI:2-s2.0-85014064468.

7. Asprilla H. C., Gonzalez-Campo C. H. Differences in Technology Transfer Between Regional Innovation Systems of Developed and Developing Countries. Journal of Globalization, Competitiveness, and Governability, 2018, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 79-96. DOI:10.3232/GCG.2018.V12.N3.05.

8. Ceribeli H. B., Da Silva A. L. R., Guilarducci C. A., Garcia L. G. R. Strategic Remuneration: A Multicases Study. Journal of Globalization, Competitiveness, and Governability, 2015, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 129-144. DOI:10.3232/GCG.2015.V9.N3.06.

9. Emelyanova E. E., Chapargina A. N. Assessing the Regional Housing Market Development in the Northern and Arctic Regions of the Russian Federation. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 2020, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 105-120. DOI:10.15838/esc.2020.5.71.6.

10. Guile B. R., Wagner C. S. A New S&T Policy for a New Global Reality. Issues in Science and Technology, 2021, vol. 37, no. 4. https://issues.org/global-science-technology-policy-guilewagner/

11. Nesvetailova A. Against All Odds? Russia’s Financial Crisis and Global Geopolitics. The International Spectator, 2016, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 113-130. DOI:10.1080/03932729.2016.1126421.

12. Ramakrishna S., Ngowi A., De Jager H., Awuzie B. O. Emerging Industrial Revolution: Symbiosis of Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy: The Role of Universities. Science, Technology and Society, 2020, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 505-525. DOI:10.1177/0971721820912918.

13. Roberts S. The Eurasian Economic Union: The Geopolitics of Authoritarian Cooperation. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 2017, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 418-441. DOI:10.1080/15387216.2017.1415763.

14. Rubtsova E., Bogolyubova I., Starodubtseva G., Lyubaya S. Technological Culture of Future Engineers in the Context of Modern Socio-Economic Development of the Society. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2019, vol. 315, no. 2. pp. 1-6. DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/315/2/022002.

15. Strasser B. J., Baudry J., Mahr D., Sanchez G., Tancoigne E. “Citizen Science?” Rethinking Science and Public Participation. Science & Technology Studies, 2019, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 52-76. DOI:10.23987/sts.60425.

16. Tierney T. G., Stokes D. E., Abbott A. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Academe, 2005, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 64-67. DOI:10.2307/40253438.