The Interconnection among Science,Industry,State,and Society in Russia

Abstract

The article analyzes the interconnection among science, industry, state, and society in Russia and the world. It also deals with the common characteristics and peculiarities of the Russian economy in transition. The authors focus on the transition from a linear to nonlinear model of the innovation process and the role of this transition in the technological progress of particular countries. The paradox in Russia is caused by an inherited linear model of the innovation process from the USSR. The transition to a nonlinear model is being carried out, but slowly and it is not yet generalized. The Russian innovation and legal spheres require comprehensive reforms, and the government needs to become the driving force for these changes in order for Russia to achieve the postindustrial stage of development. Understanding the peculiarities of the national innovation system (NIS) in Russia during the current transition period sheds light on how the Russian paradox can be overcome.

Keywords

Postindustrial development scientific research national innovation system intellectual property innovation triple helix

Introduction

The Russian economy in the twenty-first century is characterized by the increasing importance of knowledge (Atkinson, Ezell, & Stewart, 2012). The development of knowledge is related to the quality of human capital and scientific achievements (Balcerzak, 2010). Science has become a productive force, an organizer of public life, and an integral part of the national innovation system (NIS). A term ‘‘NIS’’ means a set of subjects and institutions which activities are aimed at implementing and supporting innovative activities. The main NIS subjects are the state, businesses, universities (science), and society (Lundvall, 1992). The development of successful technological innovations is encouraged to bring about material benefits. The concept of a “knowledge economy” describes this type of economy. The terms ‘‘innovation’’ (Schumpeter, 1935), ‘‘national innovation system’’ (Lundvall, 1992), ‘‘technological potential’’ (Fagerberg, 2011), and ‘‘intellectual capital’’ (Drucker, 1942) have firmly entrenched in the conceptual framework of theorists.

The history of technological change and innovation contains several uneven periods. Nowadays, many countries are engaged in making the transition from the industrial to the postindustrial era. Bell (1965) was the first to introduce the concept of “postindustrial society” in 1959 to describe an economic system, whose main productive force is science, and whose development depends on the ability to transform new knowledge into new products and services. The leading role of the NIS in the functioning of a postindustrial society as a whole is one of the key tenants of modern economic theory. The new role of science as a driving productive force and its place in the modern economic system has been discussed by many analysts since the beginning of the twentieth century (e.g., Schumpeter, 1912, 1935).

Countries have different forms of economic and governmental development, and as a result, the transition from industrial to postindustrial society takes different forms. Today, there are several countries, which are quite rich in technological progress and innovation. At the same time, in some countries such processes have not yet begun. Every economic system is unique and has its history and national characteristics (Konstantakis & Michaelides, 2017; Sushchenko, 2017). However, many economists predict there will be a common path of transformation in their economic systems from an industrial to postindustrial society and the development of a democratic state (Bell, 1965; Fukuyama, 1992; Marx, 1891).

The analysis of Russia’s historical development in comparison with other developed countries is of a particular interest as this country has a unique experience of developing a command economy and then the transition to democratic governance and market mechanisms. The innovation system of the Soviet Union was based on the linear process model of a command economy. All information and research results were inspired by the state and used as its property (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2006). Nowadays, the role of the state continues to be significant, although emerging innovative private firms are engaged in competitive research which is contributing to a more nonlinear system of innovation. However, there is a high level of education and human capital alongside a low level of industrial production, which represents the paradox of the NIS in Russia and other former socialist countries (Fagerberg, Feldman, & Srholec, 2011).

The main aim of this article is to analyze the interconnection among science, industry, state and society in world history and the peculiarities of this interconnection in contemporary Russia. Understanding the role of science in Russia during the transition period is the primary focus of this article. This contributes to the possibility of overcoming the present paradox of the NIS not only in Russia, but also in other countries with a transitional economy.

The division of the history of human society into stages has many variations but the basis of most classifications is based on the level of productive forces, the form of government, and their interrelation. The most common classification divides the history of the development of civilization into preindustrial, industrial, and postindustrial eras or waves of human civilizational development (Bell, 1973; Inozemtsev, 1999, 2000; Toffler, 1980). The milestones separating the economic stages of development from each other are industrial and technological revolutions.

A certain interrelation between productive force, society, and government takes place during each stage of historical development. The changes in economic structures have been analyzed differently. Marx saw the history of economic systems as the relationship between the productive forces of society and corresponding relations of production (Marx, 1891). According to that point of view, the conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production is resolved as a result of a revolution. Toffler’s wave theory of civilizational development continues the ideas of Marx about socioeconomic formations, but in a more general form (Toffler, 1980). Toffler considered technological progress as the main driving force of history and his three great waves provide a grand sweep of history in terms of the restructuring of all aspects of public and private life. However, these great waves of change are evolutionary in nature and involve a “scientific-technical revolution.”

Schumpeter (1912) emphasized saw innovations as the driving force for business cycles. Persistent innovations and new business ideas make significant contributions to economic growth (Landström, 2005). The importance of new productive forces for technological innovation in capitalist economies is underlined (Schumpeter, 1964). According to Nunes (2016), the role of the modern entrepreneur creates as a new business cycle in a developing economy by destroying the status quo. Another view of the history of economic development is the Kondratieff cycle, which describes the waves of technological progress (Blaug & Schumpeter, 2008; Kondratiev, 1935). These theoretical views have led to the emergence of such terms as “wave of innovation” (Schumpeter, 1935), “scientific and technical revolution” (Kuznets, 1968), “technological order” (Glazyev & L’vov, 1985), “diffusion of innovations,” and the “technical and economic paradigm” (Freeman, 1974).

Despite different points of view on the evolution of economic systems, the achievement of a democratic state and public ownership of at least some of the means of production appears to be inevitable (Marx, 1891; Schumpeter, 1999). All of the above theories also include the interaction of business (productive forces, entrepreneurs, firms), the state (form of government, political system), and society (social strata, consumer society, classes, and so on).

The relationship between science and the state was considered by philosophers at the beginning of the industrial way of life. In general, there are two opposing views on the role of basic science. The first one gives importance to theoretical (fundamental) science without reference to the mandatory implementation of the results of fundamental research. This approach (Newtonian science) is based on the fact that science is important in its pure form as an activity that brings new knowledge about the regularities of the structure of the world, and therefore it is argued it is necessary to finance the maximum number of fundamental research projects. The second approach is named after Francis Bacon and regards science as an activity for obtaining practically valuable knowledge, and therefore science has an applied role. Bacon proposed the state finance university research, since (a) only the state is able to fund it, (b) it is from fundamental science that the new technologies grow, and (c) new technologies provide economic growth. All the above have contributed to a linear model of the innovation process.

However, in his “Wealth of Nations,” Adam Smith (1776) disproved of this model, arguing that academic science “flows out of” applied or “industrial” science and not vice versa. Moreover, he believed that almost all new industrial technologies were developed by experts in industry itself rather than by scientists. According to Smith, the development of industry constantly increases specialization, and it is the specialists who will improve technology. Therefore, he considered “industrial” (applied) science to be the result of specialization driven by market mechanisms.

There is an intermediate approach (also known as Jeffersonian science), according to which it is impossible to prespecify the particular practical uses of the results of basic research, as proposed in Bacon’s approach. Ongoing basic research should aim at solving certain social, rather than scientific problems only (Alandarov, 2011). This entails the financing of fundamental science and the relationship between industry and applied research, but the role of humanities in this process is not analyzed.

From the point of view of the theories of technological structures, or waves of innovation, all these approaches have a right to exist, some the role of science varies depending on the level of industrial structure. But it is noteworthy that the use of the humanities is not always defined by material gain.

In industrial society, university science stands apart from business interests, and most technical innovations are created in industrial enterprises directly. In this case, the validity of Adam Smith’s theory becomes clear: a source of innovation in industrial production brings revenues to the state for, in particular, its defense, in the social sphere, for education and science. Fundamental science is a superstructure that appears in states, which can afford funding universities and research on the laws of nature. Industry uses new knowledge only as necessary, involving specialists and their expertise in the solution of its problems. The process of creating innovation consists of identifying problems, performing applied research and development (using scientific potential), and the production of new products.

It is only in the postindustrial society where a direct form of commercialization of the process from science to industry is implemented: from the scientific and technical sphere to pilot production and then mass production of innovative products takes place (as in the view of Bacon). In this case, the term “innovation cycle” loses its meaning. In the postindustrial society, science is transformed into a component of society’s technological “productive” capacity, and a nonlinear model of the innovation process appears.

A linear model and the Triple Helix Model

A linear model applied to launch the manufacturing process for the innovations presupposes a sequential performance of the commercialization stages by different subjects: fundamental studies (government funded), applied projects, pilot and mass production. This model is typical for an industrial society. For example, back at the time of the USSR, fundamental studies were carried out by RAS institutions, applied studies were the province for the specialized institutions, pilot production was done by specialized design engineering departments (SDED) and design engineering departments (DED), mass production was managed by the industrial enterprises. This is how the implementation chain subjects (double helix) interacted by a pair.

A postindustrial economy saw science as a productive force, innovation infrastructure was developed, universities and academic departments of the industrial enterprises deal with the applied studies and mass production. Innovation chain shortens. Thus, one could observe a nonlinear model for innovation launch.

A notable example of nonlinear model of the innovation process is the triple helix model (THM) (Etzkowitz, 2002-2011; Leydesdorff, 2005). The Triple Helix Model is based on the major role of academia in the system of innovative development. In an industrial society, the path from discovery to technological breakthroughs took years. In an innovative economy, this cycle fits in a time frame that allows inventors to participate both in the research and at the stage of innovation. This phenomenon is the main argument for deeper involvement of universities that generate knowledge in the innovation process. There is a high degree of interaction of universities with government and business.

The concept of the triple helix is based on evolution theory and explains changes in economic systems and the interaction of government, business, and science as the logic of technology development. However, for educational and methodological purposes, the researchers may use more advanced models of the innovation processes, that is, they may use multispirals (N-spiral) (Leydesdorff, 2012). For instance, the model of the quadruple helix includes civil society in the mixture that is influenced by culture, mass media, art, values, lifestyle, creative industries, as well as perhaps a “creative class” (Kolehmainen et al., 2016). With the development of the industry level, the role of science changes from Smith to Bacon, from the double helix to the quadruple. Logical continuation of the development of the N-helix model, of the ideas of Schumpeter, Marx (1891) and Fukuyama (1992), is the assumption about the sustainability of economic systems and states in the case of rapid achievement of local equilibrium between all the components of these economic systems (government, business, science, society), bringing them to conformity in terms of their development. The delay or the rapid development of any single component entails a failure in the whole system, and the growing conflict is resolved either by revolution or evolutionarily. The interpenetration and approach of the components of economic systems apparently lead to their future merger and the era of socialism, according to Marx (1891).

Origins of intellectual property in Russia and worldwide

Science and intellectual property (IP) are tightly bound. The institute of intellectual property evolved with the formation of the industrial society structure in the Middle Ages in connection with the industry development. The first patent (in tits modern sense) was issued in 1421 by the City Council of Florence to Filippo Brunelleschi for a rotary ship crane. The first patent law was adopted in the Republic of Venice in 1474, then in France (in 1791 during the French revolution) and the United States (in 1790). Note the growth of patent applications in the United States from 1850 to 1870, the period of industrialization and transport development. In the 1790 (USPTO data) U.S. patent statistics recorded 3 patents for inventions. Later inventions, trademarks, and industrial designs were registered. In Russia, the first Russian common law of charted rights was adopted in 1812 (Imperial Manifesto as of June 17, 1812, No. 25143). In Russia, patents were first mentioned in the middle of XVIII century, when, in 1748, merchants Tavlev, Voloskov, and Dedov were granted the charted right to organize factories to manufacture paints by the proposed method.

In Russia, IP institute and the law in this area went hand in hand with the development of the industry to encourage the entrepreneurial and inventive activity in the production of goods. Soviet Union was the right holder for the majority of inventions. Prior to its breakup, the USSR surpassed other countries in the number of inventions registered annually (Figure 1). Moreover, in terms of the number of protected inventions, the Soviet Union was ahead of many countries; the share of the Soviet science in the 70–80s of XX century accounted for a quarter of all inventions in the world. For example, in 1987, the USSR saw 83,700 inventors’ certificates, while in the United States the same year the number of patents was 82,900, in Japan it was 62,400, and in Germany and the UK the number was 28,000 each.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the institute of intellectual property in Russia was actually reintroduced. Russia has not yet returned the position of the USSR in the world. There is still a lag behind the developed countries in the number of the protected IP, its application in industry, and in the development of economic and legal bases of IP, which is manifested in the lack of legislative and statutory regulation, infrastructure, skilled managers, economists, lawyers in the IP field, and the small size of the market (Perepechko, 2014). For example, even more deplorable is the situation with foreign patents, which registration is a single event in the Russian Academy of Science.

The high level of education and human capital neighbors with the low level of industrial production, which represents the NIS paradox of Russia and other former socialist countries (Fagerberg, Feldman, Srholec, 2011). For example, Machine-Tool Equipment (MTE) in Russia has not recovered to date compared to the USSR (Figure 2). Furthermore, the index of industrial production has only now reached the level of 1991.

At the end of 2014, Russia was ranked the 6th on the patents granted to the residents in the NPO (142 thousand, and in Japan 1,616 thousand), and the 26th on the number of patents issued to residents abroad (only 6.3 thousand patents, and in Japan 1,088 thousand); it is at the top 20 by the number of TM and ID with only few protected abroad.

Figure 1.

Source: The WIPO.

Figure 2.

Source: Gardner Business Media.

Figure 3.

Source: The Rosstat.

Role of science in Russia

The USSR significantly funded academia, and there was a sufficient number of scholars (Table 1). To sum up, the scientific literature flourishes with multiple studies on ‘‘knowledge economy’’ (Toffler, 1980; Nunes, 2016). There is a range of works devoted to NIS in Russia and consequences of the USSR heritage (Leydesdorff, Perevodchikov and Uvarov, 2015). Having the paradox of innovation system the Russia’s NIS is only now being developed. Nevertheless, the reasons for NIS paradox of Russia in the framework of transition from a linear to a nonlinear model of innovation process is not paid attention to. The analysis of the Russian paradox would allow one to obtain proper recommendations to overcome it.

Table 1.

Data on science in the USSR.

Factors/year	1980	1988
Expenses on science, % national income	4.8	6.0
Number of the scholars (thousand people per 1 mln population)	5,240	5,322

Source: WIPO and the USPTO.

Methodological and Theoretical Framework

The following methods were used: system analysis, systematization and generalization of facts, comparison, systematic description, and analogies.

The theoretical framework of research includes the fundamental and applied works of scientists who study the “knowledge economy,” “economic growth,” “postindustrial era,” “economic development of Russia,” “NIS of Russia”.

This article deals with interaction between science, industry, state, and society in the context of transition from a linear to a nonlinear innovation model.

NIS subjects, including government, academia (universities), business, and society in the postindustrial society should match each other by their innovation development level.

The following factors were taken from the literature data analysis to evaluate the development level.

Academia (universities): number of scholars, number of inventions in the National Patent Agency (NPA), number of small-size enterprises by the universities.

State: science funding, in % GDP in bln dollars;

Business: number of the inventions belonging to the industrial enterprises (a share from all residents), inventions abroad, number of specifications, software, high-tech export, manufacturing of FF&E, science funding by business.

The main hypothesis of the research is that the Russian industry is not ready yet and can not comprehend innovations with the reason being small size of IP market in Russia. At the same time, the research level goes down.

The study was conducted in three stages: (a) analysis and generalization of common tendencies of socioeconomic changes and the role of science, (b) analysis of the features of Russian NIS in the transition period including the role of national science and scientific and industry activity, and (c) the consideration of the prospects for the development of the knowledge economy in Russia.

Results and Discussion

Common trends of socio-economic changes

At present, the transition from industrial to postindustrial era in the more developed countries proceeds in an evolutionary and relatively slow manner. In different sectors of economy, this process proceeds at different rates. The interaction among business, society, and universities is characterized by the term “open innovation,” which refers to the development of new technologies and products when the firms rely not only on their own internal research and development program, but also when they actively apply innovation and expertise from outside (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, & West, 2008). The main feature of the NIS in these societies is the central role played by firms in innovation. Science creates knowledge and stimulates the demand for knowledge by proposing new technologies. It may increase the competitiveness of firms, which are engaged in practical implementation of innovations. Thus, the “linear” form of new knowledge flow in the innovation cycle is transformed into a more complex “network” (nonlinear) process, where one of the actors can generate new knowledge at any stage of the cycle. Therefore, the efficiency of triple helix interactions is significantly higher than that of paired interactions.

Transition to the postindustrial era in Russia

The peculiarity of the development of Russia is that the transition of the NIS from linear to the nonlinear pattern was propelled not by the internal needs of society but by external factors connected with the significant changes in the country’s political and economical structure. The Soviet Union had its own NIS, which differed a great deal from the market economies. It had a linear centralized type of NIS (Gokhberg, 2004). The main characteristics of the NIS in the USSR evolved along with state ownership of public property, including IP. Industry institutions and specialized design engineering bodies served a link between academia and business. Since 1991 the commercialization link based on pair cooperation was broken, while

Since 1992, Russia has been moving toward a market economy. Important political decisions have been carried out: there is more openness in the social system and there has been a demilitarization of the economy. As a result of these decisions, the NIS of a market type economy has started to develop. Significant changes have taken place in the development of science in Russia.

In Russia, there is integration between science and industry. To improve communications, it is necessary to encourage: effective interaction of universities with employers and the labor market, the creation of business incubators, partnerships between higher education and the industrial sector, training of specialists in cross-functional activities, and so on.

The realization of the scientific potential of the Russian economy will provide the opportunity to solve major socioeconomic objectives: improving the quality of life, the implementation of import substitution programs, increasing the competitiveness of the economy, and so on. Besides, these changes will create a significant multiplier effect in the development of high-tech sectors which will build the knowledge economy and contribute to achieving sustainable economic growth (Acs, Audretsch, Lehmann, & Licht, 2017).

The position of the national IP is one of the most important indexes of the needs of the industrial sector for scientific knowledge. It is worth considering how the number of patents has been changing in Russia and the USA. Note the growth of patent applications in the USA from 1850 to 1870, which was the period of industrialization and transport development. In 1790 (The USPTO), US patent statistics indicate three patents for inventions. Later came the registration of inventions, trademarks, and industrial designs (refer to Tables 1 and 2).

Table 2.

Number of scholars in 2015*

Country	Number of scholars (thousand people per 1 mln population)
Russia	3,102
USA	4,232 (2014)
Germany	4,431
France	4,169 (2014)
China	1,177
Brasilia	698 (2010)

Source: The USPTO and Rospatent.

Note: *The World Bank data.

Table 3.

IP figure and a share of export of highly-technological goods in the overall export in 2015*

	IP payments (2017), bln USA	IP revenues (2017), bln USA	High-tech export (2014), bln USA dollars	High-tech export (2014), % from the world
Russia	5.98	0.74	9.8	0.46
USA	48.4	127.9	155.6	7.25
Germany	12.7	20.2	199.7	9.31
France	14.2	16.5	114.7	5.34
China	28.6	4.8	559	26.05
Brasilia	5.2	0.64	8.2	0.38

Source:

Note: *The World Bank data.

Before 1812, 76 charted rights were issued “for crafts, trade, and inventions in the arts and crafts” in Russia. In Russia, the formation of the institute of industrial patents and the law in this area is due, as elsewhere in the world, to the development of the industry, which encouraged entrepreneurial and inventive activity in the production of goods. In the Soviet Union, the rights holder for the majority of inventions was the state. Prior to its breakup, the USSR surpassed other countries in the number of inventions registered annually (refer Figure 1). Moreover, in terms of the number of protected inventions, the Soviet Union was ahead of many countries; the share of Soviet science in the 1970–1980s accounted for a quarter of all inventions in the world. For example, in 1987 in the USSR, 83,700 inventors’ certificates were filed, while in the USA in the same year, the number of patents was 82,900; in Japan, it was 62,400; and in Germany and the UK—28,000 each (Arkhipova & Karpov, 2012).

Russia has not yet regained the position of the USSR in the world. There is still a lag behind the more developed countries in the number of protected IP, its use in industry, and in the development of the economic and legal bases of IP, which is manifested in the lack of legislative and normative regulations, infrastructure, skilled managers, economists, lawyers in the IP field, and the small size of the market (Perepechko, 2014). Even more deplorable is the situation with foreign patents, whose registration is, for example, a single event in the Russian Academy of Science (>Perepechko & Grishina, 2015).

In a postindustrial society, the role of science in the economy and society as a whole changes, and the role of industrial IP (inventions, utility models, trademarks, and industrial designs) should change too. In particular, inventions are largely created by universities and research organizations, and the IP market shows faster growth than the gross domestic product (GDP) as well as the growth of high-tech manufacturing and exports (Yagolnitser & Perepetchko, 2017).

One of the hallmarks of the postindustrial stage of development is a “patent race,” an increase in the number of patents in the more developed countries, which is associated with the accelerated production of innovative high-tech products. There are two stable trends: (a) the increasing consolidation of IP rights and (b) increasing regulation of the execution and sales of IP licenses. In the twenty-first century, IP is becoming one of the most popular products in the market of innovative products, forming a new fourth category of goods (Perepechko, 2017). Countries that may be attributed to the postindustrial way of life, or the more developed countries, have the largest number of patents both domestically and abroad. The principal owners of patents are high-tech enterprises and universities. There are, however, some peculiarities in countries with a transitional form of economy such as Russia.

The key governmental strategy document on scientific and technological development of the Russian Federation (the presidential decree of December 1, 2016) recognizes that “Russian science continues to play an important role in ensuring the country’s security and in the development of world science, but the effectiveness of Russian research organizations is much lower than in the leading countries” and, states that there is “weak interaction of the sector of research and development with the real sector of the economy, [lack of] openness in the innovation cycle, [and] the lack of receptivity in the economy and society to innovations.” It also states there is a mismatch between the financing of science growth, the country’s significant number of researchers, the low productivity in the volume of scientific publications, the number of international patents, and the volume of revenues from the export of high-tech products. As a result, science is considered “guilty” because of the low return from its increased funding, the lack of growth in high-tech exports, and the overall low rate of innovation in the economy.

Meanwhile, in the Global Innovation Index (GII), published by WIPO, INSEAD, and Cornell University in 2017, the strengths of the innovation system of Russia were identified as the high quality of human capital, knowledge, and technology. The GII provides a multi-index rating of the level of innovation in 141 countries based on 79 indicators. This index is based on an assessment of the laws, institutions, infrastructure, market conditions, human capital, and science in each of the countries rated. In Russia, the high level of education and human capital contrasts with the low level of industrial production, which represents the paradox of the NIS in Russia and the other former socialist countries (Fagerberg et al., 2011). For example, the production of machine-tool equipment (MTE) in Russia has not recovered to the level it was in the USSR (refer Figure 2). Furthermore, the country’s rating in the index of industrial production has only recently reached the level of 1991, which was the last year of the USSR (refer Figure 3).

Russia at the end of 2014 was ranked the 6th in the world on patents granted to residents (NPO), and 26th on the number of patents issued to residents abroad (only 6,300 patents), and it is in the top 20 in terms of the number of TMs and IDs with only few protected abroad (Perepechko, 2017). The main reason for the weak contribution of research results in the economy stems from the fact that Russian industry is just now being restored to its previous levels and does not yet have a high need for scientific research.

Science grows out of the society’s capabilities and the need for its support. Industrial inventions arise from the demands of business to improve existing technologies or create new ones based on scientific results and personnel. As a result, a major obstacle to the use of scientific advances in Russian industry is the country’s objective conditions—the disparity between the high level of science and low level of industrial production, which is a legacy of the fall of the Soviet Union. The demand for universities and research institutions “to involve IP in civil and economic turnover” has become, according to Kozyrev, “purely fiscal and has lost its inherent innovative nature” (Kozyrev, 2002). The situation with patents coming from Russian universities serves a great example. The economic literature notes an almost linear dependence of the increase in the number of patents on the growth of research funding. In Russia, however, unlike other countries, this relation is not observed (Perepechko, Yagolnitzer, & Rakhmanov, 2017). The priority funding of university research and the introduction of the number of patents have led to an explosive increase in patents owned by Russian universities. But management complexity and high transaction costs associated with their transfer are one of the reasons research institutes and universities do not maintain patents in force. The USPTO and Rospatent statistics on patents granted to patent rights holders in the USA and Russia is given in Table 2. In Russia, the growth of patents granted to universities has increased 3 times since 2000 (from 1823 in 2000 to 5726 in 2015). Since January 1, 2000, universities in Russia have been granted 57,200 thousand patents in total, of which only 9,000 were still in force on August 3, 2017.

For comparison, universities protect the same number of inventions per year in the USA and Russia. At the same time, Russian universities have less patents in force, because patents are no longer supported in the absence of their use. The structure of rights holders for inventions in Russia is fundamentally different from that in more developed countries (Kurakova, Zinov, & Tsvetkova, 2016). In Russia, individual applicants and the universities received 77.2 percent of patents from 2010 to 2015, while in developed countries this number is no more than 15 percent.

In Russia, the involvement of government in all the spheres of economy and social life is traditionally very significant. Analyzing the politics and economics in Russia, it is possible to conclude that the government should be the driving force of the system’s transition to the postindustrial era. Government plays the leading role in creating and maintaining the framework, in which enterprises may introduce innovations. The goal of innovation policy is to select a desirable future and facilitate its realization. For instance, the government could promote the National Foresight Plan, the elaboration of which would engage all the parties concerned. The major reason for the paradox of the NIS of Russia is that Russia has inherited the linear process model of innovation from the USSR, which is not relevant and competitive anymore. The transition to a nonlinear model has begun, but it is taking place quite slowly. The inception of the nonlinear model of interaction between the NIS actors will allow the system to be more flexible and variable in response to positive feedback, which is necessary for development.

Conclusions

Innovations contribute to the economic growth and welfare of nations. The interaction between NIS actors and the economy varies depending on the level of development of the actors and the economy. With the development of industry, the role of science changes from the linear (double helix) pattern to the nonlinear (multiple helix) pattern. In the future, there will be an increased penetration and merger of state, business, science, and civil society.

Fundamental science is the primary source of innovation for industry only in postindustrial economies. Only in postindustrial society there is a direct commercialization process from science to industry, a scientific and technical sphere, pilot production and mass production of innovative products. In postindustrial society, inventions are created in universities and research organizations which is one of the basic characteristics of the innovation structure. In postindustrial societies, science is transformed into a major component of the technological “productive” capacity of these societies.

The transition period in Russia has been prolonged due to the paradox of the NIS, which stems from the high level of education and human capital and the low level of industrial production. The main reason for the weak contribution of scientific research in the Russian economy is that Russia’s industry is still recovering to the level of the last years of the Soviet Union and it does not yet have a high need for innovations from scientific research. This in turn is connected to the fact that Russia has inherited a linear innovation process model from the Soviet period. At present, the transition to a nonlinear model is taking place, but slowly and without any generalized form. It is the government, which is an influential actor in economic relations, that should accelerate the process of transition to a postindustrial society. The implementation and control of the nonlinear model of interactions between NIS actors and the realization of Russia’s high scientific potential will promote the transfer to a postindustrial form of economic development.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Acs

Z. J.

, Audretsch

D. B.

, Lehmann

E. E.

, & Licht

(2017). National systems of innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 997–1008.

Bell

(1965). The end of ideology: On the exhaustion of political ideas in the fifties. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bell

(1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture of social forecasting. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Blaug

, & Schumpeter

J. A.

(2008). 100 great economists before Keynes. In Blaug

(Ed.), Great Economists before Keynes: An introduction to the lives & works of one hundred great economists of the past (Library of ‘Economic School’, Issue 42, p. 333). Saint Petersburg: Economicus.

Chesbrough

, Vanhaverbeke

, & West

(Eds.). (2008). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Drucker

P. F.

(1942). The Future of Industrial Man: A Conservative Approach.

Fagerberg

, Feldman

, & Srholec

(2011). Technological dynamics and social capability: Comparing U.S. States and European nations (Paper No. 2011/11). Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE), Lund University P.O. Retrieved from http://www.circle.lu.se/publicationsISSN1654-3149

Freeman

(1974). The economics of industrial innovation. London: Penguin Modern Economics Texts.

Fukuyama

(1992). The end of history and the last man. New York, NY: Free Press.

10.

Glazyev

S. Y.

, & L’vov

D. S.

(1985). Theoretical and applied aspects of NTP management. Economics and Mathematical Methods, 1, 1.2–0.6.

11.

Gokhberg

(2004). Russia’s national innovation system and the ‘new economy’. Problems of Economic Transition, 46(9), 8–34.

12.

Kolehmainen

, Irvine

, Stewart

, Karacsonyi

, Szabo

, Alarinta

, & Norberg

(2016). Quadruple helix, innovation and the knowledge-based development: Lessons from remote, rural and less-favoured regions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 7(1), 23–42.

13.

Kondratiev

N. D.

, (1935). The Long Waves in Economic Life. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 6, 105–115.

14.

Kozyrev

A. N.

(2002). Mathematical and economic analysis of intellectual capital (PhD Dissertation). Central Economics and Mathematics Institute RAS (CEMI RAS), Moscow.

15.

Kuznets

(1968). Toward a theory of economic growth, with reflections on the economic growth of modern nations. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

16.

Landström

(2005). Pioneers in entrepreneurship and small business research (Vol. 8, International Studies in Entrepreneurship Series). New York, NY: Springer.

17.

Leydesdorff

(2012). The triple helix, quadruple helix, …, and an N-tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 25–32.

18.

Leydesdorff

, Perevodchikov

, & Uvarov

(2015). Measuring triple-helix synergy in the Russian innovation systems at regional, provincial, and national levels. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(6), 1229–1238.

19.

Lundvall

B.-A.

, (1992). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.

20.

Marx

(1891). Critique of the Gotha programme. Die Neue Zeit, Bd. 1, No. 18.

21.

Nunes

L. B.

(2016). Schumpeter’s entrepreneurs in the 20th century: The Tucker automobile. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 14–20.

22.

Perepechko

L. N.

(2014). Intellectual property as an indicator of national economic growth. International Journal of Economic Theory and Application, 1(1), 1–8.

23.

Smith

(1776). The wealth of nations.

24.

Toffler

(1980). The third wave: The classic study of tomorrow. Morrow.

25.

Yagolnitser

, & Perepetchko

(2017). Innovative development and economic growth. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 8(1), 261–266.