Interaction of Russian business with science: Points of contact and stumbling blocks

The paper assesses the influence of science–business cooperation on the activity of firms, analyzes the factors of interaction of Russian companies with academic organizations and universities in the research sphere, identifies barriers to the development of cooperation between business and science. It has been established that companies whose source of innovation was external R&D were more likely to grow over the past 5 years and to create new products. However, a significant effect of the impact of cooperation with domestic research organizations was found only for the dynamics of exports. It is shown that cooperation with domestic science is more typical for high-tech industries and large Russian businesses. The factor inducing firms to outsource research is a significant level of competition. The high cost of external research services and their insufficient quality hinder the development of scientific and production cooperation. One can point to such a barrier as low interest of research organizations in the volume of orders that firms can offer. This is caused by weak institutional change in the Russian science, preservation of its orientation at the state and major players, which significantly limits the opportunities for institutional interaction of small innovative firms with science. It has been shown that the state quite effectively “pushes” companies to interact with research organizations and universities, but the results of such interaction are often unsatisfactory for firms.

1. Abdrakhmanova G. I. et al. (2020). Russian regional innovation scoreboard, Iss. 6. Moscow: HSE, 2020. (In Russian).

2. Golikova V., Gonchar K., Kuznetsov B. (2012). The impact of exports on technological and management innovations of the firm. Russian Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 3—28. (In Russian).

3. Гохберг Л. М. и др. (2020). Индикаторы инновационной деятельности. М.: НИУ ВШЭ. [Gokhberg L. M. et al. (2020). Indicators of innovation in the Russian Federation 2020: Data Book. Moscow: HSE. (In Russian).]

4. Danilova E. (2013). The innovative instrument of state support for research-and-production cooperation: Subject and regional aspects. Innovatsii, No. 10, pp. 41—50. (In Russian).]

5. Dezhina I., Kiseleva V. (2007). “Triple helix” in Russia’s innovation system. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 12, pp. 123—135. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2007-12-123-135

6. Dezhina I., Simachev Y. (2013). Matching grants for stimulating partnerships between companies and universities in innovation area: Initial еffects in Russia. Journal of the New Economic Association, No. 3, pp. 99—122. (In Russian).

7. Zasimova L., Kuznetsov B., Kuzyk M., Simachev Y., Chulok A. (2008). Problems of switching industry to innovation-driven path (Series “Scientific reports: Independent economic analysis”, No. 201). Moscow: Moscow Public Science Foundation. (In Russian).

8. Zudin N., Kuzyk М., Simachev Y. (2017). Science-industry cooperation in Russia: Current status, problems, effects of government support. In: S. G. Sinelnikov‑Murylev, А. D. Radygin (eds.). Russian economy in 2016. Trends and outlooks, Iss. 38. М.: Gaidar Institute Publ., pp. 430—459. (In Russian).

9. Ivanov D., Kuzyk M., Simachev Y. (2012). Fostering innovation performance of Russian manufacturing enterprises: New opportunities and limitations. Foresight-Russia, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 18—42. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459X.2012.2.18.41

10. Simachev Y., Kuzyk M. (2015). Public policy for stimulating scientific and industrial cooperation. In: S. G. Sinelnikov‑Murylev, А. D. Radygin (eds.). Russian Economy in 2014. Trends and Outlooks, Iss. 36. Мoscow: Gaidar Institute Publ., pp. 465—511. (In Russian).

11. Simachev Y., Kuzyk M., Zudin N. (2017). The impact of public funding and tax incentives on Russian firms: Additionality effects evaluation. Journal of the New Economic Association, No. 2, pp. 59—93. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2017-34-2-3

12. Simachev Y. V., Kuzyk M. G., Fedyunina A. A., Yurevich M. A., Zaytsev A. A. (2020). Factors of labor productivity growth at enterprises of non-resource sectors of the Russian economy: Report to the XXI April international academic conference on economic and social development. Moscow: HSE Publ. (In Russian).] Симачев Ю., Кузык М., Фейгина В. (2014). Взаимодействие российских компаний и исследовательских организаций в проведении НИОКР: третий не лишний? // Вопросы экономики. № 7. С. 4—34.

13. Simachev Y., Kuzyk M., Feygina V. (2014). R&D cooperation between Russian firms and research organizations: Is there a need for state assistance? Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 7, pp. 4—34. (In Russian).] https:// doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2014-7-4-34

14. Yasin E. G. (ed.) (2018). Structural changes in the Russian economy and structural policy: Analytical report. Moscow: HSE Publ. (In Russian).

15. Acs Z., Audretsch D., Feldman M. (1992). Real effects of academic research: Comment. American Economic Review, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 363—367.

16. Agrawal A., Cockburn I. (2003). The anchor tenant hypothesis: Exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 21, No. 9, pp. 1227—1253. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00081-X

17. Amara N., Landry R. (2005). Sources of information as determinants of novelty of innovation in manufacturing firms: Evidence from the 1999 statistics Canada innovation survey. Technovation, Vol. 25, No. 3, рр. 245—259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00113-5

18. Aristei D., Vecchi M., Venturini F. (2016). University and inter-firm R&D collaborations: Рropensity and intensity of cooperation in Europe. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 841—871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9403-1

19. Arranz N., de Arroyabe J. C. F. (2008). The choice of partners in R&D cooperation: An empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Technovation, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 88—100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.006

20. Arundel A., Geuna A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 559—580. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043859092000234311

21. Arvanitis S., Sydow N., Woerter M. (2008). Do specific forms of university-industry knowledge transfer have different impacts on the performance of private enterprises? An empirical analysis based on Swiss firm data. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 504—533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9061-z

22. Audretsch D. B., Feldman M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, Vol. 86, No. 3, pp. 630—640.

23. Audretsch D. B., Vivarelli M. (1996). Firms size and R&D spillovers: Evidence from Italy. Small Business Economics, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 249—258. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00388651

24. Badillo E. R., Moreno R. (2016). What drives the choice of the type of partner in R&D cooperation? Evidence for Spanish manufactures and services. Applied Economics, Vol. 48, No. 52, рр. 5023—5044. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1170932

25. Becker W. (2003). Evaluation of the role of universities in the innovation process. Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsreihe, Beitrag Nr. 241.

26. Becker W., Dietz J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms — evidencefor the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 209—223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.003

27. Beise M., Stahl H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Рolicy, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 397—422. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00126-7

28. Bekkers R., Bodas Freitas I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, Vol. 37, No. 10, pp. 1837—1853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.007

29. Belderbos R., Carree M., Diederen B., Lokshin B., Veugelers R. (2004a). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 22, No. 8—9, pp. 1237—1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2004.08.001

30. Belderbos R., Carree M., Lokshin B. (2004b). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Рolicy, Vol. 33, No. 10, pp. 1477—1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.003

31. Berman E. M. (1990). The economic impact of industry-funded university R&D. Research Policy, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 97—114. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(90)90018-2

32. Bloedon R. V., Stokes D. R. (1994). Making university/industry collaboration research succeed. Research-Technology Management, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 44—48. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1994.11670969

33. Bodas Freitas I. M., Verspagen B. (2009). The motivations, organization and outcomes of university-industry interaction in the Netherlands. UNU-MERIT Working Papers, No. 2009-011.

34. Bolli T., Woerter M. (2013). Competition and R&D cooperation with universities and competitors. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 768—787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9302-2

35. Bozeman B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: А review of research and theory. Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 4—5, pp. 627—655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1

36. Busom I., Fernández-Ribas A. (2008). The impact of firm participation in R&D programmes on R&D partnerships. Research Policy, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 240—257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.11.002

37. Caloghirou Y., Kastelli I., Tsakanikas A. (2004). Internal capabilities and external knowledgesources: Сomplements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 29—39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00051-2

38. Caloghirou Y., Tsakanikas A., Vonortas N. S. (2001). University—industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 26, No. 1—2, pp. 153—161. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013025615518

39. Camagni R. (1993). Inter-firm industrial networks: Тhe costs and benefits of cooperativebehaviour. Journal of Industry Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1—15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662719300000001 Cassiman B., Veugelers R. (2002). R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, Vol. 92, No. 4, pp. 1169—1184. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260344704

40. Cohen W. M. (1995). Empirical studies of innovative activity. In: P. Stoneman (ed.). Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 182—264.

41. Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R & D. Economic Journal, Vol. 99, No. 397, pp. 569—596. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233763

42. Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: А new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 128—152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553

43. Cohen W., Nelson R. R., Walsh J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 1—23. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273

44. Colombo M. G., Grilli L., Piva E. (2006). In search of complementary assets: The determinants of alliance formation of high-tech start-ups. Research Policy, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 1166—1199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.002

45. Cunningham J., Link A. (2015). Fostering university-industry R&D collaborations in European Union countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 849—860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0317-4

46. Cyert R. M., Goodman P. S. (1997). Creating effective university-industry alliances: An organizational learning perspective. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 45—58.

47. D’Angelo A. (2012). Innovation and export performance: A study of Italian high-tech SMEs. Journal of Management & Governance, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 393—423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9157-y

48. Dachs B., Ebersberger B., Pyka A. (2008). Why do firms cooperate for innovation? A comparison of Austrian and Finnish CIS3 results. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 200—229. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2008.017577

49. Dasgupta P., David P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 487—521. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1

50. De Faria P., Lima F., Santos R. (2010). Cooperation in innovation activities: The importance of partners. Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 8, pp. 1082—1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.00

51. De Moraes Silva D. R., Furtado A. T., Vonortas N. S. (2018). University-industry R&D cooperation in Brazil: A sectoral approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 285—315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9566-z

52. D’Este P., Iammarino S., Savona M., von Tunzelmann N. (2012). What hampers innovation? Revealed barriers versus deterring barriers. Research Policy, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 482—488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.008

53. D’Este P., Perkmann M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 316—339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z

54. Dill D. D. (1990). University/industry research collaborations: An analysis of interorganizational relationships. R&D Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 123—129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1990.tb00690.x

55. Dudin M., Frolova E., Gryzunova N., Shuvalova E. (2015). The triple helix model as a mechanism for partnership between the state, business, and the scientific-educational community in the area of organizing national innovation development. Asian Social Science, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 230—238. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n1p230

56. Edquist C. (1997). System of innovation approaches — their emergence and characteristics. In: C. Edquist (ed.). System of innovation. Technologies, institutions and organizations. London: Pinter/Cassell, pp. 1—35.

57. Elmuti D., Abebe M., Nicolosi M. (2005). An overview of strategic alliances between universities and corporations. Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 17, No. 1/2, pp. 115—129. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620510574504

58. Eom B.-Y., Lee K. (2010). Determinants of industry—academy linkages and their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 625—639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.015

59. Etzkowitz H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industrygovernment relation. Social Science Information, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 293—337. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184030423002

60. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. (2000). The dynamic of innovations: From national system and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 109—129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

61. Faems D., Van Looy B., Debackere K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 238—250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00120.x

62. Frenz M., Michie J., Oughton C. (2004). Co-operation and innovation: Evidence from the Community Innovation Survey. Birkbeck Working Paper, 04/03.

63. Fritsch M., Schwirten C. (1999). Enterprise-university co-operation and the role of public research institutions in regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 69—83. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662719900000005

64. Fromhold-Eisebith M. (2004). Innovative milieu and social capital — complementary or redundant concepts of collaboration-based regional development? European Planning Studies, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 747—765. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431042000251846

65. Gerybadze A., Reger G. (1999). Globalization of R&D: Recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Research Policy, Vol. 28, No. 2—3, pp. 251—274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00111-5

66. Gök A., Edler J. (2011). The use of behavioural additionality in innovation policy-making. MBS/MIoIR Working Paper, No. 627.

67. Gómez J., Salazar I., Vargas P. (2016). Sources of information as determinants of productand process innovation. PLoS One, Vol. 11, No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152743

68. Grotz R., Braun B. (1997). Territorial or trans-territorial networking: Spatial aspectsof technology-oriented cooperation within the German mechanical engineeringindustry.

69. Regional Studies, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 545—557. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409750131686

70. Hagedoorn J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 371—385. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140505

71. Hagedoorn J., Link A. N., Vonortas N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 4—5, pp. 567—586. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00090-6

72. Hagedoorn J., Schakenraad J. (1992). Leading companies and networks of strategic alliances in information technologies. Research Policy, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 163—190. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(92)90039-7

73. Hagedoorn J., Schakenraad J. (1993). Strategic technology partnering and international corporate strategies. In: K. S. Hughes (ed.). European competitiveness. Cambridge University Press, pp. 60—86.

74. Hægeland T., Møen J. (2007). Input additionality in the Norwegian R&D tax credit scheme. Statistics Norway Reports, 2007/47.

75. Hall B. H., Link A. N., Scott J. T. (2003). Universities as research partners. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 485—491. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.2003.85.2.485

76. Hayton J. C., Sehili S., Scarpello V. (2010). Why do firms join consortial research centers? An empirical examination of firm, industry and environmental antecedents. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 35, pp. 494—510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9157-8

77. Henderson R., Jaffe A., Trajtenberg M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting. Review of Economic and Statistics, Vol. 80, No. 1, pp. 119—127. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557221

78. Jaffe A., Trajtenberg M., Henderson R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 108, No. 3, pp. 577—598. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118401

79. Jensen R., Thursby M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, Vol. 91, No. 1, pp. 240—259. https:// doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.1.240

80. Kaufmann A., Tödtling F. (2001). Science—industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 791—804. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00118-9

81. Kaymaz K., Eryigit K. Y. (2011). Determining factors hindering university-industry collaboration: An analysis from the perspective of academicians in the context of entrepreneurial science paradigm. International Journal of Social Inquiry, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 85—213.

82. Kodcharat Y., Chaikeaw A. (2012). University and industrial sector collaboration: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer. International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3, No. 23, pp. 130—137.

83. Koch A., Strotmann H. (2008). Absorptive capacity and innovation in the knowledge intensive business service sector. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 511—531. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590701222987

84. Kravchenko N., Yusupova A., Kuznetsova S. (2019). Research and business cooperation: International practice and Siberian experience. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 643—659. https:// doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0414

85. Laursen K., Salter M. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp. 1201—1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.004

86. Lee Y. (2000). The sustainability of university—industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 111—133. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007895322042

87. Leiponen A. (2002). Competencies, R&D collaboration, and innovation under different technological regimes. ETLA Discussion Papers, No. 704.

88. Link A. N., Rees J. (1990). Firm size, university based research, and the returns to R&D. Small Business Economics, Vol. 2, pp. 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00389891

89. Link A. N., Ruhm C. J. (2009). Bringing science to market: Commercializing from NIH SBIR awards. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 381—402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590802208166

90. Link A. N., Wessner C. W. (2011). Universities as research partners: Entrepreneurial explorations and exploitations. In: D. Audretsch (ed.). Handbook of research on innovation and entrepreneurship. London: Edward Elgar, pp. 290—299.

91. Liu W. H. (2009). Academia-industry linkages and the role of active innovation policies: Firm-level evidence in Hong Kong. Kiel Working Paper, No. 1577.

92. Lööf H., Broström A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industryincrease innovativeness? Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 73—90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-9001-3

93. López A. (2008). Determinants of R&D cooperation: Evidence from Spanish manufacturingfirms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 113—136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2006.09.006

94. Mansfield E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 1—12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90080-A

95. Marzucchi A., Montresor S. (2013). The multi-dimensional additionality of innovation policies. A multi-level application to Italy and Spain. SPRU Working Paper, No. 2013-04.

96. Maskell P., Malmberg A. (1999). Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 167—185. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/23.2.167

97. Metcalfe J. S. (1994). Evolutionary economics and public policy. Economic Journal, Vol. 104, No. 425, pp. 931—944. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234988

98. Meyer-Krahmer F., Schmoch U. (1998). Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, Vol. 27, No. 8, pp. 835—852. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00094-8

99. Miotti L., Sachwald F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1481—1499. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00159-2

100. Mohnen P., Hoareau C. (2003). What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS 2. Managerial & Decision Economics, Vol. 24, No. 2/3, pp. 133—146. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1086

101. Monjon S., Waelbroeck P. (2003). Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: Evidence from French firm-level data. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 21, No. 9, pp. 1255—1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00082-1

102. Mora-Valentin E. M., Montoro-Sanchez A., Guerras-Martin L. A. (2004). Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations.

103. Research Policy, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 17—40. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00087-8

104. Narin F., Hamilton K. S., Olivastro D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 317—330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00013-9

105. OECD (2013). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2013: Innovation for growth. Paris: OECD Publishing.

106. OECD (2015). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2015: Innovation for growth and society. Paris: OECD Publishing.

107. Owen-Smith J., Riccaboni M., Pammolli F., Powell W. W. (2002). A comparison of US and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 24—43. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.24.14275

108. Pavitt K. (1991). What do we know about the usefulness of science? The case for diversity. In: D. Hague (ed.). The management of science. London: Macmillan, pp. 21—46.

109. Pavitt K. (2001). Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (And what they should not learn). Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 761—779. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.3.761

110. Piga C., Vivarelli M. (2004). Internal and external R&D: A sample selection approach. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 457—482. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2004.00089.x

111. Quintas P., Wield D., Massey D. (1992). Academic-industry links and innovation: Questioning the science park model. Technovation, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 161—175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(92)90033-E

112. Romijn H. A., Albu M. (2001). Explaining innovativeness in small high-technology firms in the United Kingdom. ECIS Working Paper Series, Vol. 200101.

113. Rosenberg N., Nelson R. R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 323—348. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)90042-6

114. Roud V., Vlasova V. (2020). Strategies of industry-science cooperation in the Russian manufacturing sector. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 870—907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9703-3

115. Santoro M. D., Chakrabarti A. K. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry—university interactions. Research Policy, Vol. 31, No. 7, рр. 1163—1180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00190-1

116. Schartinger D., Schibany A., Gassler H. (2001). Interactive relations between universities and firms: Еmpirical evidence for Austria. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 26, No. 3, рр. 255—268. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011110207885

117. Siegel D., Waldman D., Link A. (1999). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. NBER Working Paper, No. 7256. https://doi.org/10.3386/w7256

118. Segarra-Blasco A., Arauzo-Carod J.-M. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry—university interaction: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp. 1283—1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.05.003

119. Sheehan J., Wyckoff A. (2003). Targeting R&D: Economic and policy implications of increasing R&D spending. OECD STI Working Paper, No. 2003/8.

120. Simachev Y., Kuzyk M., Feygina V. (2014). The nature of innovation channels at the micro level: Evidence from Russian manufacturing firms. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 103—123. https://doi.org/10.1080/14765284.2014.900942

121. Smith H. L., Mihell D., Kingham D. (2000). Knowledge-complexes and the locus of technological change: Тhe biotechnology sector in Oxfordshire. Area, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 179—188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2000.tb00128.x

122. Sternberg R. (1999). Innovative linkages and proximity: Empirical results from recent surveys of small and medium sized firms in German regions. Regional Studies, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 529—540. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409950078224

123. Tether B. S., Tajar A. (2008). Beyond industry—university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, Vol. 37, No. 6/7, pp. 1079—1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.003

124. Tidd J., Bessant J. R. (2018). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. John Wiley & Sons.

125. Vedovello C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, Vol. 17, No. 9, pp. 491—531. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00027-8

126. Veugelers R. (1997). Internal R & D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 303—315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00019-X

127. Veugelers R., Cassiman B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 23, No. 5—6, pp. 355—379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.01.008 Wu V. F.S. (2000). An empirical study of university—industry research cooperation — the case of Taiwan. Workshop of the OECDNIS Focus Group on Innovation Firm and Networks, pp. 1—15.

128. Zahra S. A., George G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 185—203. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6587995