Developing a National Innovation System in Small States

This study shares some empirical insights for adopting a national innovation system (NIS) to catalyze capacity building in small states with relatively low technology-based research and development resources. These countries may have to start further back than other nations; however, this chapter maintains that with the right NIS, latecomers can have the advantage of catching up economically. This study explores Brunei Darussalam's journey to catalyze innovation for sustainable economic growth, particularly digitalization and deep tech. The study found that establishing a national innovation ecosystem could be effective with national consensus and acceptance behind the approach. It emphasizes building critical infrastructures, institutions, and governance to promote efficient knowledge flow, talent development, digital literacy, and overall absorptive capacity. Because Brunei is a small state, coordinating and facilitating cohesive linkages among its key stakeholders can strategically mobilize change. As Brunei Darussalam embarks on such a trajectory, it must determine a relevant model.

Science for Russia: Innovative Tuning of the Econom

The discussion revealed the main positions of researchers on the lines of “state – market” and “national – global”. The dominant point of view is the recognition of the irreplaceability of the market and, above all, the demand for science and innovation on the part of the hightech industry, as well as the recognition of the special role of the state in the development of the institutional environment and the fear of bureaucratization. For all the tempting idea of connecting the country to the global innovation mechanism, the formation of an effective national innovation system (ecosystem) is recognized as more realistic under current conditions. In this regard, the development of human capital and the institutional environment, as well as the digital transformation of the main spheres of the life of society, including the scientific, technological and innovation spheres, are of particular importance. Deep integration of science into the national innovation system is required, which implies the participation of science in the innovation process at all its stages and the connection of science with all types of innovations from technological to organizational.

NATIONAL INNOVATIVE SYSTEM: FEATURES OF FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION AT THE MACRO-, MEZO- AND MICROECONOMIC LEVELS (ABOUT THE BOOK BY YU.B. VINSLAV «INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECONOMY: PROBLEMS OF STATE AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE»)

The article is a review of the monograph named in the title, which reflects the multilevel features and problems of the formation of a national innovation system in Russia. According to the reviewer’s summary predictive conclusion, the book will be very interesting and useful for its addressees: researchers and experts, university teachers, graduate students and students, as well as managers of different levels responsible for innovative processes.

China’s National and Regional Innovation Systems

This chapter provides an updated discussion of China’s national and regional innovation systems. First, it introduces the unique development path and distinct characteristics of China’s national and regional innovation systems. Second, it reviews the evolution of China’s national and regional innovation systems, which is divided into five periods: the pre-reform era (1949–1978), the end of the chaos and the beginning of a new era (1978–1985), the reform of China’s science and technology (S&T) system (1985–1998), the scaling-up of S&T system reform (1998–2006), and the improvement of the national S&T system (2006–2013). Third, it describes the overall structure of China’s national innovation system, illustrating the components and interactions (e.g., university-industry linkages, military and civilian integration) within the system. Then, it evaluates the overall performance of China’s national and regional innovation systems. Lastly, it points out future directions for deepening the reform of China’s national innovation system and continuing to pursue innovation-driven development.

Priorities of the state policy of expanding the mechanisms of financing science and innovation in Kazakhstan

В статье исследованы приоритетные направления государственной политики расширения механизмов финансирования науки и инновации в Казахстане. В условиях стабильного снижения финансово-инвестиционной базы развития научно-инновационной сферы Казахстана, о чем свидетельствует неуклонное снижение коэффициента наукоемкости ВВП Казахстана, необходимо реализовать первоочередные меры государственной политики по расширению механизмов привлечения дополнительных финансовых ресурсов в данную сферу. Ключевыми механизмами, предложенными в рамках данного исследования, выступают, меры по развитию инновационного предпринимательства, создание специализированных финансовых посредников и повышение эффективности работы институтов поддержки инноваций. Инициирование и реализация коммерчески привлекательных научно-инновационных проектов позволят реально повысить финансовый потенциал национальной инновационной системы. Чтобы обеспечить более эффективную коммерциализацию и стимулировать инновационное предпринимательство, заинтересованные стороны в странах с формирующейся рыночной экономикой должны поощрять отраслевые и научные связи. Пути и средства достижения цели коммерциализации инновации включают развитие сотрудничества в наукоемкой сфере через открытые инновационные проекты. Предложенные механизмы детально рассмотрены с позиции влияния на расширение финансовой базы национальной инновационной системы Казахстана, а также возможных перспектив развития взаимодействия университетов, бизнеса и академической науки. The article examines the priority directions of the state policy of expanding the mechanisms of financing science and innovation in Kazakhstan. In the context of a stable decline in the financial and investment base for the development of the scientific and innovative sphere of Kazakhstan, as evidenced by the steady decline in the science intensity coefficient of Kazakhstan's GDP, it is necessary to implement priority state policy measures to expand the mechanisms for attracting additional financial resources to this sphere. The key mechanisms proposed in the framework of this study are measures for the development of innovative entrepreneurship, the creation of specialized financial intermediaries and improving the efficiency of innovation support institutions. The initiation and implementation of commercially attractive scientific and innovative projects will really increase the financial potential of the national innovation system. In order to ensure more efficient commercialization and stimulate innovative entrepreneurship, stakeholders in emerging market economies should encourage industry and scientific ties. Ways and means of achieving the goal of commercialization of innovation include the development of cooperation in the knowledge-intensive field through open innovation projects. The proposed mechanisms are considered in detail from the position of influence on the expansion of the financial base of the national innovation system of Kazakhstan, as well as possible prospects for the development of cooperation between universities, business and academic science.

Ensuring Social Impact at Every Stage of Technology Research & Development

Although the United States national innovation system has produced many technologies, their benefits are not evenly distributed across the country’s population. This stands in direct contrast to the aims of government, which frequently funds science research for the purpose of social benefit. This paper first undertakes a deep reconsideration of the US national innovation system, and then reframes it as a collective impact initiative in order to coordinate every one of its contributors around this goal. It begins by tracing the origins of the longstanding tensions between science undertaken for the sakes of science inquiry versus societal benefit. It then discusses the inadequacies of practices meant to bridge science outcomes and societal needs like the broader impacts and technology transfer. It concludes by proposing a significant expansion of the stakeholders that evaluate the proposals and outcomes of federally funded research. This integrates diverse public participation into the proposal selection process, research discussions, and technology transfer to ensure that universal social impact is routinely considered.