Матризаев Б.Д.Опубликовано в журнале:
Вопросы инновационной экономики
– Том 9, Номер 1 (Январь-Март 2019)

JEL classification: O31, O32, O33

Ключевые слова: диагностика дефицита инноваций, инновационная политика, инновационный императив, модель «дефицита инноваций»


Поделиться этой страницей:

Аннотация:

Поскольку инновации становятся главным императивом макроэкономической политики во всем современном мире, проявляется возрастающая тенденция к обособлению политики связанной с проблемами инноваций. Эта логика говорит о том, что современные социально-экономические системы стали не в состоянии решать грандиозные социальные задачи и обеспечивать экономическую конкурентоспособность, поскольку наши общества, институты, научная деятельность или индивидуальные предрасположенности, как считают некоторые исследователи, недостаточно ориентированы на инновации. В данном исследовании мы анализируем эту так называемую модель “дефицита инноваций”, в которой недостаток инноваций обычно называют главным препятствием на пути социального прогресса. Проводя параллели в исследовании с концепцией дефицита общественного понимания науки, широко известной в мировой научной среде под термином “public understanding of science” (PUS), мы разработаем теоретическую основу, которая отражает динамику и нормативные аспекты формирования дефицита. При этом мы выделим пять основных аспектов: диагностика проблемы, средства правовой защиты, роль экспертизы, подразумеваемые социальные правила и измерение успеха. Мы применим эту теоретическую структуру к трем эмпирическим ситуационным исследованиям последних инновационных стратегий: в Люксембурге, Сингапуре и Дании. Мы подчеркиваем, что внимание к этому дефициту, структурирующему инновации, важно, потому что это существенная часть того механизма, как инновации преобразуют общества в XXI веке: не только через новые технологические возможности или экономический рост, но и через формирование общественного дискурса, сужение вариантов государственной политики и легитимизацию крупных институциональных вмешательств. Подразумеваемые про-инновационные предпочтения, как правило, маргинализируют другие обоснования, ценности и социальные функции, которые явно не склонны к инновациям. Опыт истории "дефицита общественного понимания науки" свидетельствует о том, что без целенаправленных усилий по преобразованию инновационной политики в более демократическое, инклюзивное и явно государственное политическое поле, нынешняя логика дефицита и ее технократический подтекст чреваты серьезными социальными и экономическими потрясениями.

---

Источники:
1. Солоу Р.M. Техническое развитие и агрегированная производственная функция // The Rev. Econ. Stat. – 1957. – № 3. – С. 312–320.
Матризаев Б.Д. Макростратегии инновационного развития и глобальный экономический рост: Макроэкономический анализ, тренды, прогнозы. - М.: URSS, 2018. – 256 с.
3. Матризаев Б.Д. Глобальное инновационное лидерство: макроконтуры и моделирование его концептуальной основы // Муниципальная академия. – 2018. – № 1. – С. 85-91.
4. Aghion P., Howitt P. A model of growth through creative destruction // Econometrica. – 1992. – № 2. – С. 323–351.
Bauer M.W., Allum N., Miller S., 2007. What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Underst. Sci. 16, 79–95
Carney S., 2006. University governance in Denmark: from democracy to accountability? Eur. Educ. Res. J. 5, 221–233
Carney S., 2009. Negotiating policy in an age of globalization: exploring educational “policyscapes” in Denmark, Nepal, and China. Comp. Educ. Rev. 53, 63–88
Chuan Poh, L., 2010. Singapore betting on biomedical sciences. Issues Sci. Technol. 26 (3)
Clancey G., 2012. Intelligent island to biopolis: smart minds, sick bodies and millennial turns in Singapore. Sci. Technol. Soc. 17, 13–35
Collins H.M., Evans R. Rethinking Expertise. - University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2007.
Downes L., 2015. Europe’s Innovation Deficit Isn’t Disappearing Any Time Soon. Washington Post June 8, 2015. EC, 2011. Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union. European Commission, Brussels
EC, 2016. Why Do We Need an Innovation Union?. European Commission. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm? pg=why ( дата обращения: 2 November 2016 ).
Eisenhardt K.M., 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manage. J. 50, 25–32
Etzkowitz H. The Triple Helix: Industry, University, and Government in Innovation. - Routledge, New York, 2008.
Fairclough N. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. - Routledge, New York, 2013.
Fischer F., Forester J. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. - Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1993.
Forsker Forum, 2001. Hemmelig drejebog på DTU. Forsker Forum, pp. 141
Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. - Sage, London/Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994.
Godin B., 2014. Innovation studies”: staking the claim for a new disciplinary “Tribe. Minerva 52, 489–495
Godin B., Lane J.P., 2013. Pushes and pulls hi(s)tory of the demand pull model of in-novation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 38, 621–654
Huff W.G., 1995. The developmental state, government, and Singapore’s economic de-velopment since 1960. World Dev. 23, 1421–1438
Irwin A., 2006. The politics of talk: coming to terms with the “new” scientific govern-ance. Soc. Stud. Sci. 36, 299–320
Irwin A., 2014. From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Underst. Sci. 23, 71–76
Jasanoff S.S., 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 17, 195–230
Jasanoff S. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. - Harvard University Press, Boston, MA, 1994.
Jasanoff S., 2003. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41, 223–244
Jasanoff S., 2005. Judgment under siege: the three-body problem of expert legitimacy. In: Maasen, S., Weingart, P. (Eds.), Democratization of Expertise? Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 209–224
Jasanoff S. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. - Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2005.
Jasanoff S. Why compare? Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. - Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2005. – 13–41 с.
Jenkins T., Gupta A., Naylor D., Dahlby B., Leroux M., Robinson N., 2011. Innovation Canada: A Call to Action (Review of Federal Support to Research and Development - Expert Panel Report). Industry Canada, Ottawa, Canada
Juhl J., 2016. Innovation science: between models and machines. Eng. Stud. 8, 116–139
Keen Meng C., 2010. Singapore’s changing economic model. In: Chong, T. (Ed.), Management of Success: Singapore Revisited. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore
Krugman P., 1994. The myth of Asia’s miracle. Foreign Affairs 73, 62. 2307/20046929
Kuhlmann S., Rip A. The Challenge of Addressing Grand Challenges. Ec.europa.eu. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/ pdf/expert-groups/The_challenge_of_addressing_Grand_Challenges.pdf ( дата обращения: 4 October 2018 ).
Kuhlmann S., Shapira P., Smits R., 2012. Introduction. A systemic perspective: the innovation policy dance. In: Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S., Shapira, P. (Eds.), The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy: An International Research Handbook. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 1–22
Lee H.L. Prime Minister of Singapore on SUTD. Prime Minister’s Office Transcript of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s Speech at the SUTD East Coast Campus Opening on May 8, 2015. Pmo.gov.sg. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/ transcript-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loong-speech-sutd-east-coast-campus-opening-8-may ( дата обращения: 4 October 2018 ).
Luxembourg for Business, 2015. Your Prime Business Location. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www. tradeandinvest.lu/invest-in-luxembourg.
Luxinnovation, 2010. High Hopes for Health. Focus on Research and Innovation in Luxembourg. pp. 4
Lynn L.E., 1996. Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession. Chatham House Publishers, London
Mansfield E., Lee J.-Y., 1996. The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Res. Policy 25, 1047–1058
Michael M., 2009. Publics performing publics: of PiGs, PiPs and politics. Public Underst. Sci. 18 (5), 617–631
MIT, 2015. The Future Postponed: Why Declining Investment in Basic Research Threatens a U.S. Innovation Deficit. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Morozov E. To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. - PublicAffairs, New York, 2013.
Mowery D.C., 2004. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA
Norn M.T., Jensen B.L., Laursen U. From Research to Invoice: What Can We Learn from 10 Years’ Attempt to Commercialize Research?. DEA, Copenhagen, 2013. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://dea.nu/sites/dea.nu/files/Web_Fra%20forskning0til%20faktura%202_0.pdf ( дата обращения: 1 May 2018 ).
OECD, 2010. The OECD Innovation Strategy. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris
Pfotenhauer S.M., Jasanoff S., 2017. Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the “MIT model” in three political cultures. Soc. Stud. Sci. 47 (6), 783–810
Pfotenhauer S.M., Jasanoff S., 2017. Traveling imaginaries: the “practice turn” in in-novation policy and the global circulation of innovation models. In: Tyfield, D., Randalls, S., Lave, R., Randalls, S. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 416–428
Pfotenhauer S.M., Juhl J., 2017. Innovation and the political state: beyond the myth of technologies and markets. In: Godin, B., Vinck, D. (Eds.), Critical Studies of Innovation: Alternative Approaches to the Pro-Innovation Bias. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 68–94
Pfotenhauer S.M., Wood D., Roos D., Newman D., 2016. Architecting complex inter-national science, technology, and innovation partnerships (CISTIPs): a study of four global MIT collaborations. Technol. Forecasting Social Change 104, 38–56
Pfotenhauer S.M., forthcoming. Building Global Innovation Hubs: The MIT Model in Three Start-Up Universities, In: Wisnioski, M., Hintz, E.S., Stettler Kleine, M. (Eds.), Does America Need More Innovators? MIT Press, 2018
Polanyi M., 1962. The republic of science. Minerva 1, 54–73
Pollit C. Managerialism and the Public Services. - Blackwell, Oxford, 1993.
PwC, 2009. Diagnostics 2009: Moving Towards Personalised Medicine. Pricewaterhouse Coopers, London
Rajaratnam S., 2007. Singapore: global city. In: Chan, H.C., Haq, O.ul (Eds.), S. Rajaratnam: The Prophetic and the Political. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies/ Graham Brash Pte, Singapore
Rasmussen A.F., 1993. Fra socialstat til minimalstat: En liberal strategi. Samleren, Copenhagen
Remaking Singapore Committee, 2003. Changing Mindsets, Deepening Relationships: The Report of the Remaking Singapore Committee (Chaired by Vivian Balakrishnan). The Committee
Romer P., 1990. Endogenous technological change. J. Pol. Econ. 98 (5), 71–102. Royal Society, 1985. The Public Understanding of Science. Report of a Royal Society AdHoc Group Endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society (“Bodmer Report”). Royal Society, London. de Saille, S., 2015. Dis-inviting the unruly public. Sci. Cult. 24, 99–107
Scherer F.M. New Perspectives on Economic Growth and Technological Innovation. - Brookings/BNAC, Washington, DC, 1999.
Schot J., Steinmueller E., 2016. Framing Innovation Policy for Transformative Change: Innovation Policy 3.0. SPRU Science Policy Research Unit. University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
Schumpeter J.A. The Theory of Economic Development. - Harvard University Press, Boston, MA., 1934.
Sismondo S. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. - Wiley-Blackwell, London, 2003.
Sma, 2005. SMA Homepage – Prospective Students (CPE). [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://web.mit.edu/sma/students/programmes/cpe.htm ( дата обращения: 24 February 2014 ).
Stilgoe J., Owen R., Macnaghten P., 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 42, 1568–1580
Stilgoe J., Lock S.J., Wilsdon J., 2014. Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Underst. Sci. 23, 4–15
Stirling A., 2008. “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33, 262–294
Tan K.-S., Phang S.-Y., 2005. From Efficiency-Driven to Innovation-Driven Economic Growth: Perspectives from Singapore. World Bank Publications, Washington, DC
The White House, 2011. President’s Strategy for American Innovation: Securing Our Economic Growth and Prosperity. The White House, Washington, DC
Thorp H.H., Goldstein B. Engines of Innovation: The Entrepreneurial University in the Twenty-First Century. - University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 2010.
Tiles M., Oberdiek, 1995. Living in a Technological Culture: Human Tools and Human Values. Routledge, London/New York
Von Schomberg R., 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M. (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 51–75
Wilsdon J., Willis R. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. - Demos, London, 2004.
Wisnioski M. Innovation Magazine and the Birth of a Buzzword. IEEE Spectrum. Technology, Engineering, and Science News, 2015. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/innovation-magazine-and-the-birth-of-a-buzzword ( дата обращения: 4 January 2018 ).
Wynne B., 1988. Unruly technology: practical rules, impractical discourses and public understanding. Soc. Stud. Sci. 18, 147–167
Wynne B., 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Underst. Sci. 1, 281–304
Wynne B. Risk as globalizing “democratic” discourse? Framing subjects and ci-tizens. Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. - Zed Books, London, 2005. – 66–82 с.
Wynne B., 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: hitting the notes, but missing the music? Commun. Genet. 9, 211–220
Wynne B., 2007. Public participation in science and technology: performing and ob-scuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Sci., Technol. Soc. 1, 99–110
Wynne B., 2015. Ghosts of the machine: publics, meanings and social science in a time of expert dogma and denial. In: Chilvers, J., Kearnes, M. (Eds.), Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. Routledge, London, pp. 99–120
Yakabuski K., 2015. Government Can’t Solve Canada’s Innovation Deficit. The Globe and Mail 25 September 2015
Yanow D. Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. - Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000.
Ziman J., 1991. Public understanding of science. Sci., Technol. Hum. Values 16, 99–105