Список литературы:
1 Казахстан в современном мире: реалии и перспективы. – Алматы: КИСИ при
Президенте Республики Казахстан, 2008. – 348 с.
2 Звонова Е.А. Деньги, кредит, банки.. – М.: ИНФРА – М. – 2012. – 592 с.
3 Нуркенов Ж.Ш. Формирование и развитие кредитной системы Республики Казахстан:
автореф. …. докт.PhD экон. наук – Москва, 2005. – 17 с.
УДК O 15
Kireyeva A.
Dr. hab., Professor, Belarus State Economic University (Minsk, Belarus)
e-mail: kireeva-e@yandex.ru
ADVANCEMENT OF UNIVERSITY-LEVEL SCIENCE AS A FACTOR OF
INNOVATIVE SPHERE DEVELOPMENT
Abstract. This article deals with the problem of integration of higher education science
and business as a precondition for the creation of innovative environment. The linkage
between higher education scienceand the real sector provides a new role of higher education
and transfers knowledge into the driving force of economy. The potential of higher education
149
sciencein the Republic of Belarus was analyzed.The article defines theways to strengthen the
linkages of higher education scienceand the entrepreneurial sector, both on the state levelby
means of stimulating theintegration linkages, and on the level of "universitybusiness" by
improving thequalityof scientific developmentsand commercialization.
Keywords: Higher education science; transfers knowledge;integration of high education
and business; research and development (R&D)
Research methodology of the integration of high education and business
Stimulation of innovative development will be inefficient unless the actors involved in the
innovation process are not interested in the results. This approach is possible by using
research and innovation potential of the higher education. The formation of knowledge
economy requires combined efforts of science, education and business. The experience of
advanced European countries and the United States indicates that integrated scientific and
educational systems have proved to be effective as the basis of the National Innovation System
(NIS) and can provide training of qualitatively new specialists as well as fulfill new ideas on
the market [7].
Considerable attention in the economic literature is given to innovation governance at the
universities, and in particular, interaction with business. It’s impossible to fulfill successful
commercialization of university developments without this interaction. These include the
works of M. Porter, B. Santo , H. Mintzberg, Joseph Schumpeter , S Valdaytsev , P. Drucker ,
B. Clark , etc. The concept of classical university first highlighted I.Kant, I.G. Fichte,
F.Schelling, F.Schleiermacher , A. Humboldt , H. Etzkowitz [37].
In recent years, there have been certain shifts in the understanding of the relations
between the main actors within the NIS. Particularly, the following features are indicated:
• Governments became more involved in enhancing innovation through appropriate
institutional structures and policy measures.
• The role of universities and publicly funded research and development (R&D) units is
enhanced for corporate innovation, reducing of corporate R&D units and laboratories in scale
and number. Fostering the linkages between industry and the research and scientific base is
considered to be one of the most significant target of science and technology policy.
• Commercialization of research outputs is a priority for all types of performers.
• Governments focus on the creation of new innovative firms and innovative SMEs,
using the variety of incentives [5, 12].
The main challenge in improving the national innovation system is that it contains
several interrelated subsystems. Therefore, the connectivity among them strongly affects the
functioning of the NIS: poor linkages among subsystems may hamper the functioning of the
NIS as a whole. The interaction between two significant subsystems, those of business and
science, is at the core of the NIS approach.
In this case both internal and external processes are aimed at the transfer of innovations
developed in the scientific institutional subsystem within an appropriate level of the national
innovation system to the interested consumers. Objective bases for integration of higher
education science and business in terms of innovative development provide a new role of
higher education and transfer knowledge into the driving force of economy. At a more specific,
empirical level, the driving force of integration is economic interest of the participants of the
national innovation system. The ground for higher education science is considered to be
attraction of additional resources for researches. The ground for economic entities is new fields
of investments, higher competitiveness of goods (services). The driving force of integration of
the higher education sector is to improve quality and cost effectiveness of collaboration in
scientific, educational and innovative fields. This task can be realized by combining human,
intellectual, material and technical, informational resources based on the associative or
contractual unit. In order to develop associative forms of longterm cooperation the projects
must contain infrastructure components that are the basis for longterm integration.
150
Relevance oftheresearch topicis defined by the fact that in domestic science the
adaptation of forms and methods of innovative integration to the process of manufacture ofthe
Higher EducationSector is poorly known. There is no specificmechanismof innovative
integration of the Higher EducationSector andbusinesswhich is applicableto the Belarusian
conditions andnecessary to the creation of innovative economy.
Problems and state of potential of higher education science in the Republic of Belarus
Integration of science and education has been a particularly issue of domestic science
since the early 2000s. Necessity to reduce the gap between science and education that has
negative impact on both science and education, and on economic system of the country, is now
recognized at the state level. Removal of institutional barriers between science and education,
improvement of legislation, development of tax system of integrative interaction are frequently
discussed in scientific, educational and political circles. The idea of using the experience of
advanced countries is often expressed, particularly the experience of the U.S.A, where
universities are the centers of researches [4, 6]
Significance of the higher education sector is defined by the statistic data of the
expenditures on researches and developments in developing countries. (see Table 1)
Table 1
Distribution of intramural expenditures on R&D by fields of science in 2012in the
separate countries of the world [2; 8; 10]
Сountries
Total
Government
sector
Entrepreneurial
sector
Higher
education
sector
Nonprofit
оrganisation
sector
Austria
100
5,1
68,8
25,5
0,5
Belarus
100
26,4
61,9
11,7
0,0
Belgium
100
8,2
67,8
23,2
0,9
Germany
100
14,8
66,9
18,3
Denmark
100
2,2
65,7
31,8
0,4
Spain
100
19,1
53,0
27,7
0,2
Italy
100
13,7
54,5
28,6
3,1
Portugal
100
6,5
47,0
38,7
7,8
United
Kingdom
100
8,2
63,4
26,5
1,8
Israel
100
1,8
84,4
12,6
1,1
Japan
100
8,4
77,0
13,2
1,5
South Africa
100
21,6
53,2
24,3
0,9
Argentina
100
42,3
24,6
31,4
1,7
USA
100
12,3
69,8
13,8
4,0
Higher education sector of Belarusincludes educational institutions providing higher
education programms (i.e. classic university, specialised university (academy), institute or
higher college), organizations engaged in R&D under the jurisdiction of higher education
establishments and/or the Ministry of Education, medical institutions affiliated to higher
education establishments.
Despite of positive tendencies towards the increasing of research actors in the higher
education and the potential of scientific staff this sector lags significantly behind the
government sector and the entrepreneurial sector.
In 2014 the higher education sector occupied14,6 per cent of the organizations engaged
in scientific development, while the number of researchers in this sector represented 10,1 per
cent of the total number of researchers.
The study revealed the lowest level of research and development expenditures in the
higher education sector (in 2014 the expenditures amounted to less than 43 per cent of the
government sector and less than 19 per cent of the entrepreneurial sector). At the same time, it
151
should be noted that the wage share is the most significant of all these sectors: it occupies 46,9
per cent of the government sector, 36,8 per cent of the entrepreneurial sector and 56,2 per cent
of the higher education sector ( see Table 2 ).
The main source of research and development financing is public funding amounted to
77, 6 per cent of the government sector, 33,7 per cent of the entrepreneurial sector and 66,0
per cent of the higher education sector.
Funds of other investors (foreign investors are included) in the higher education represent
less than 1/3 of all expenditures. This fact confirms insufficient interaction between the real
sector and education and the possibility of attracting funds of the entrepreneurial sector for the
higher education sector.
Table 2.
Intramural expenditures on R&D [1; 11].
2005
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Government sector
170 196
304 185
427 116
738 405
1 041 489
1 074
623
of which wage
costs
76 792
153 747
216 045
370 773
486 302
504 077
Commercial
organisation sector
(Еntrepreneurial
sector)
196 172
692 080
1 454 694
2 444 451
2 855 811
2 522
204
of which wage
costs
77 386
246 852
339 408
678 897
843 605
927 230
Higher education
sector
75 123
144 092
199 559
354 107
474 006
475 456
of which wage
costs
39 698
89 813
115 570
198 023
263 474
267 208
As previously stated, the distinguishing feature of the Belarusian NIS is high share of
state funding of research and development in the business enterprise sector, which itself is to a
large degree state owned. In turn, state funding is closely tied to research and development
organizations that carry out research and development for the business enterprise sector, rather
than R&D being carried out within enterprises. International comparisons indicate that, in
countries with per capita income above $15,000, the entrepreneurial sector is the dominant
source of funding and performer of research and development [8; 12]. In economies below this
“threshold level” (such as Belarus), there are a variety of organizational models.
Belarus belongs to the most numerous group where the government is the major funder,
while the enterprise sector is the dominant performer. This has strong implications for
Belarusian economic policy, where the objective is to double income per capita in the next five
years. Achieving this objective should be associated with major changes in the model and with
the enterprise sector becoming the major funder of research and development. This would
require a thorough restructuring of the research and development system. Scientific potential of
universities is one of the significant reserves and it can be used to solve problems in the real
sector.
Opposed to scientific organizations researches in Belarusian universities are less
significant than educational component. It’s reflected in the structure of human resources and
funding levels of education and science. It should be noted that the funds earned by the
universities by means of educational services on a contractual basis, are not sufficiently
invested in science development. Success of it impacts on competitiveness of educational
services.
152
Usually, researches are conducted on the basis of research and education centers, shared
knowledge centers; laboratories at the faculties (departments), as well as scientific laboratories
on the basis of universities. Nevertheless, such forms of organization do not provide qualitive
scientific researches, especially of applied nature. One of the problem is absence of
commercial information which is constantly considered the basis of researches. Therefore, it’s
necessary to cooperate innovative potential of entrepreneurial and educational components in
the form of research universities, university units, industrial parks, scientific, technological and
innovative enterprises operating on the permanent basis and financed by commercial resources.
Universities may consist of small and medium enterprises, specialized in hightech
industries (based on scientific and technical developments in the universities).
Some policy measures also target industryscience integration within the business
enterprise sector through the creation of large entities (such as clusters or holdings), capable of
becoming internationally competitive players in knowledgeintensive industries. The large
business structures (holdings or concerns) are expected to attract small and mediumsized
enterprises and other supporting activities and organizations (such as education, consulting and
technical infrastructure services), to develop tightly linked technologybased production
chains, mostly independent from external supplies. The ambition is to build up vertically
integrated and strongly specialized structures overcoming the deficiencies of the current
administratively coordinated industryscience collaboration.
It will commercialize innovative developments of universities.
World practice confirms that the most effective way to promote R&D results is
commercial interaction of all participants [12, 14]. This method is called commercialization of
R&D results. All participants of innovative process such as scientists and developers,
manufacturers and investors are engaged and highly motivated to succeed.
Commercialization today is a possibility to build business based on the results of
researches where the authors of developments are involved.
Commercialization of R&D results is associated with innovative process through which
R&D results are realized commercially. Commercialization requires feedback information on
intermediate results and market. Implementation of R&D results will be possible if it is able to
strengthen one's competitive advantage and to convince the enduser of proper choice and
thereby provide profits.
Commercial forms of technology transfer include license on granting the right of use
technical documentation, license on granting the right of use intellectual property and "know
how", agreements for engineering service, contracts and subcontracts to conduct joint research
and development, transfer of scientific technical data and software, investment agreements.
Commercial forms of technology transfer also include agreements on creation, further
equipping and upgrading of industrial projects and other facilities; industrial and other training;
technical maintenance and etc.
Therefore, fundamental and applied researches are expected to cater for the needs of
economy and society, or, more specifically, to adequately reflect the nature of innovation
demand. In this system, innovation supply and demand as well as the respective industry
science linkages are matched through administrative coordination and justified by multilevel
expert evaluation of R&D and innovation priorities on which the subsequent project proposals
are based.
Technology transfer, as a favored form of interaction between the university sector and
manufacture, is to be performed mainly through two mechanisms – either on the institutional
basis with the contracted enterprises for technological development or intellectual property
rights, or on the individual basis through staff training, consulting and implementation.
Technology transfer includes commercialization of intellectual property objects and
R&D results, the development of new technologies and participation in cooperative R&D
projects. Technology transfer essentially implies the creation of new, or development and
strengthening of existing industryscience linkages.
153
The role of such assessments in decisionmaking is very high, and the information is of
great value.
Technology portfolio formation is the result of selection of intellectual property objects on
the following criteria:
• correspondence of the research results to the level of technology and production
development;
• novelty of the research results and scientific relevance;
• readiness and necessity to complete the research;
• availability of the market or correspondence of the research results to the specific needs
of society and market or possibility to form new requirements;
• economic benefits for endusers due to research results;
• promptness of the research results and correspondence to technological capabilities of
users;
• competitiveness of the research results (comparison of technologic, consumer, cost
characteristics with analogues).
References:
1 Innovation performance review of Belarus. (2011). United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (United Nations, New York and Geneva).
2 Science, technology and innovation in Europe. (2014). Statistical pocketbook .Edition
2014. (Luxembourg: Office of the European Union).
3 Artis, M. J. and F. Nixson, Eds. (2007). "The Economics of the European Union: Policy
and Analysis" (4th ed.), (OxfordUniversity Press)
4 Muldur, U., et al., “A New Deal for an Effective European Research Policy,” Springer
2006
5 P. Cooke (2004). Regional Innovation Systems: An evolutionary approach(London,
Routledge).
6 C. Freeman (1987). National systems of innovation: the case of Japan, in: Technology
Policy and Economic Performance (London, Printer Publishers).
7 Schumpeter (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits,
capital, credit, interest and the business cycle(Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).
8 World Intellectual Property Indicators. 2012 / World Intellectual Property
Organization.URL:http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/pdf/941_
2012.pdf.
9 Research and development expenditure (% of GDP) / The World Bank. URL:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS.
10 UNESCO (2010). Global Education Digest. Comparing Education Statistics Across the
World (Montreal, UNESCO Institute for Statistics).
11 World Bank (2009). Belarus: Public Expenditures and Financial Accountability. Public
Financial Management Assessment (Washington, D.C., Document of the World Bank).
12 UNECE (2009). Enhancing the Innovative Performance of Firms: Policy Options and
PracticalInstruments. (Geneva and New York);
13 UNECE (2007) Financing Innovative Development. Comparative Review of the
Experiences of UNECE Countries in Earlystage Financing. (Geneva and New York).
14 OECD (2010). Innovation Strategy. Getting a head start on tomorrow (Paris).
154
УДК 620.92
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |