Russia's nanotechnology growth: a study of cross-country and cross-regional collaboration networks

Russia’s nanotechnology growth: a study of cross-country and cross-regional collaboration

networks

Evgeny A. Klochikhina and Philip Shapiraa,b,c

a. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, MBS, University of Manchester, UK

b. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, USAc. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State

University, USA

Background

• After the USSR collapsed, some liberals proclaimed ‘the end of history’ with an emerging paradigm of global economy, society and values (Fukuyama, 1992)

• Although not recognized as market economies immediately, post-communist states were considered as part of the world capitalist system by the merit of their structural reform and establishment of recognized market mechanisms

• However, many institutional, social and cultural frameworks remain in transition countries (including Russia) that have substantial impact on their contemporary development and policies

Research questions

• How Russia and China can exploit their science and technology (S&T) history to promote indigenous innovation development and resolve the weaknesses of the former state planning system?

• Are there any particular complementarities between the Russian and Chinese innovation that can contribute to their socioeconomic development?

• What are the current and emerging opportunities for mutual leaning between the two countries?

• What is the role of technology-based growth strategies in this process?

Nanotechnology

• Can it be implemented bypassing the major system weaknesses and path dependencies?

• Can it help resolve the major challenges and break the existing lock-ins in the construction of effective national innovation systems in transition economics?

Context

• Nano – next transformative technology like electricity or Internet?

• Who will get the most benefits from nano revolution: the poor or the rich, the smaller or the larger?

National nano initiatives

• USA is the first to launch a National Nanotechnology Initiative in 2000

• More than sixty countries joined global nanorace (Shapira and Wang, 2010; Sargent, 2008)

• Various starting points (Court et al., 2004):Front runners: China and IndiaMiddle ground: Thailand, the Philippines, South

Africa, Brazil, and ChileUp and comers: Argentina and Mexico

Russia China Brazil USA

Launch of the national nano program

2007 2001 2004 2000

Significance of nano component in STI policy

Highly important One of the areas to support

One of the areas to support

Important

Policy design Highly centralized Dispersed among diverse programs and institutions, center and regions

Balanced: national and state programs plus autonomous policy objects

Balanced: centralized coordination plus much autonomy left for the agencies

Scale Several fields (mostly nanomaterials)

‘Across the board’ (but mostly nanomaterials)

Focused ‘Across the board’

Regional spread Across the country

Concentrated in several key regions

Several university centers and most developed cities

Concentrated in major clusters

Commercialization mechanism

Rusnano Tianjin Nanotech Industrialization Base; Shanghai Nano Promotion Center; Suzhou-Nanopolis

Nanotech is included in the Industrial, Technology and Trade Policy (2004)

Issue left to policy objects (so far)

Regular evaluations Annual, carried out by MES

Varied (basically, part of larger S&T evaluations)

N/A Triannual, independent evaluations

ELSI component No Vague No Yes

Top-5 nanopubs producing countries, 1990-2010

Source: Arora et al. (2012)

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

China

USA

Japan

Germany

South Korea

Year

Num

ber

of P

ubli

cato

ins

Russia and China - nanopubs

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020110

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

RussiaChina

Year of publication

Num

ber o

f nan

o pu

blic

ation

s, th

ousa

nds

Source: own calculations based on Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science

Russia and China - nanopatents

Source: own calculations based on Thomson Reuters ISI Derwent Innovations Index

1996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

RussiaChina

Basic patent year

Num

ber o

f bas

ic p

aten

ts

Methodological framework: six impacts

• Institutional development, knowledge flows, and network efficiency

• Research and education capabilities• Industrial and enterprise development• Regional spread• Cluster and network development• Product innovation and market growth

Nanopubs: cross-country collaboration

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Russia's top five international collaborators, nanotechnology, 1996-2011

GermanyUSAFranceUKJapan

Year of publication

Num

ber

of c

olla

bora

tive

pape

rs

Source: own calculations based on Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science

Patents: cross-country protection

Interdisciplinary networks – Russia

Interdisciplinary networks – China

Nano patents: how close to market?

Note: calculations based on the number of basic patents, i.e. applications may have been submitted 1-2 years before the basic patent was eventually granted, which explains why the effects of 2008 crisis are seen only in 2009.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

50

100

150

200

250

Industry

Individuals

Russian Academy of Science (basic res)

Universities

Research institutes (applied R&D)

Basic patent year

Num

ber

of b

asic

pat

ents

Industry-science links: evidence of technology transfer

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

1

2

3

4

5

6

Share of industry-RAS co-invented patents

Share of industry-university co-invented patents

Share of industry-research institutes co-invented patents

Year

Perc

ent

of t

otal

pat

ents

Cross-regional collaboration

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Average annual growth by region

Total number of publications by region (2001-2011)

Moscow, Russia 15,1 16,4 15,5 17,7 17,2 22,5 20,1 21,3 22,4 23,6 22,6 4,7 10386St Petersburg, Russia 9,9 9,8 9,6 11,3 13,6 13,4 10,7 12,9 18,0 19,4 16,2 6,5 6203Moscow Oblast, Russia 31,2 31,0 29,4 30,6 28,2 36,5 31,7 34,6 45,0 40,8 43,3 4,3 3000Novosibirsk Oblast, Russia 15,5 12,8 14,1 12,4 21,4 18,3 20,6 16,0 16,9 20,9 20,5 5,6 2758Sverdlovskaya Oblast, Russia 30,4 33,8 28,6 25,8 26,4 27,7 20,5 28,5 16,8 17,5 18,7 -2,4 1215N.Novgorod Oblast, Russia 7,7 18,8 21,3 24,4 18,2 38,2 27,4 28,1 31,7 30,2 28,9 23,5 983Tomsk Oblast, Russia 26,1 18,8 18,4 22,6 27,5 12,1 9,1 20,4 20,0 21,6 28,4 9,6 684Tatarstan, Russia 22,2 15,2 15,2 11,7 24,1 18,0 20,0 20,0 19,0 20,3 22,9 5,3 599Bashkortostan, Russia 23,1 30,6 27,5 29,5 46,5 29,3 28,2 28,4 36,8 16,2 17,6 3,0 587Saratov Oblast, Russia 57,1 12,5 0,0 10,5 9,4 13,6 10,6 17,3 35,3 25,0 16,7 -15,1 388Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia 30,4 14,3 23,1 14,3 25,8 32,3 22,5 31,4 20,5 50,0 18,4 13,1 377Primorsky Krai, Russia 0,0 7,7 21,4 23,1 32,0 14,3 16,7 29,0 7,1 18,2 19,0 25,2 288Voronezh Oblast, Russia 0,0 28,6 63,6 42,9 55,6 40,7 33,3 26,5 31,3 39,5 20,0 -2,2 252Udmurtiya, Russia 16,7 36,4 30,0 50,0 46,7 55,0 26,3 60,0 51,7 50,0 12,5 16,2 224Rostov Oblast, Russia 44,4 25,0 33,3 21,4 60,0 25,0 28,1 21,4 23,3 36,7 14,7 7,0 216Perm Krai, Russia 14,3 9,1 30,0 8,3 23,1 7,7 40,0 35,7 42,1 42,9 14,3 59,4 151Ivanovo Oblast, Russia 50,0 14,3 11,1 12,5 40,0 28,6 16,7 15,0 25,0 13,0 23,5 15,8 127Irkutsk Oblast, Russia 0,0 0,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 11,1 27,8 6,7 38,1 33,3 38,5 27,0 124Leningrad Oblast, Russia 87,5 66,7 66,7 50,0 33,3 80,0 71,4 60,0 95,7 100,0 89,5 8,5 124Ulyanovsk Oblast, Russia 20,0 18,2 37,5 11,1 50,0 50,0 33,3 33,3 50,0 20,0 12,5 29,6 112Tver Oblast, Russia 25,0 50,0 40,0 33,3 0,0 50,0 66,7 55,6 38,5 68,8 50,0 -4,9 107Volgograd Oblast, Russia 0,0 0,0 100,0 72,7 75,0 25,0 20,0 13,3 25,0 9,5 6,9 -16,2 106Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia 100,0 60,0 50,0 60,0 72,7 60,0 80,0 75,0 10,0 50,0 25,0 25,7 90Kabardino Balkaria, Russia 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 64,3 22,2 71,4 0,0 55,6 -4,8 84Kaluga Oblast, Russia 0,0 100,0 100,0 8,3 25,0 26,7 100,0 71,4 83,3 55,6 30,0 29,9 81

Regional spread

Source: own calculations based on Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 360

10

20

30

40

50

60

Distribution of nanotechnology publication output across Russian regions in 2001-2011

20112001

Share of papers by region in total nano publications output, %

Num

ber

of r

egio

ns in

eac

h pe

rcen

tile