Preview

Вопросы экономики

Расширенный поиск
Доступ открыт Открытый доступ  Доступ закрыт Только для подписчиков

О научной обоснованности научной политики в РФ

https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-2-5-32

Полный текст:

Аннотация

На основании анализа большого числа эмпирических исследований, где выявлены последствия мер научной политики, реализуемой во многих странах, в статье показано, что проводимая в России государственная науч- ная политика включает инструменты, препятствующие достижению декла- рируемых в ней целей. Установлено, что лишены научных оснований такие компоненты отечественной научной политики, как механизмы повышения публичной подотчетности науки, намерения финансировать исследования в основном на конкурсной основе, стремления развивать науку преимущест- венно в университетах (силами преподавателей), а также тренд к укрупнению исследовательских организаций.

Об авторе

В. Л. Тамбовцев
МГУ имени М. В. Ломоносова
Россия
д. э. н., проф., главный научный сотрудник экономического факультета МГУ имени М.  В. ­Ломоносова (Москва)


Список литературы

1. Вольчик В. В., Посухова О. Ю. (2016). Прекариат и профессиональная идентичность в контексте институциональных изменений // Terra Economicus. Т. 14, № 2. С. 159-173

2. Вольчик В. В., Посухова О. Ю. (2017). Реформы в сфере образования и прекариа- тизация учителей // Terra Economicus. Т. 15, № 2. С. 122-138

3. Крупина С. М., Клочков В. В. (2014). Перспективы российской фундаментальной науки в условиях институциональных реформ: моделирование и качественные выводы // Материалы 17-х Друкеровских чтений «Инновационные перспективы России и мира: теория и моделирование». Новочеркасск: ЮРГТУ (НПИ). С. 11- 24

4. Курбатова М. В., Апарина Н. Ф., Донова И. В., Каган Е. С. (2014). Формализа- ция деятельности преподавателя и эффективность деятельности вузов // Теrrа Economicus. Т. 12, № 4. С. 33-51

5. Курбатова М. В., Каган Е. С. (2016). Оппортунизм преподавателей вузов как спо- соб приспособления к усилению внешнего контроля деятельности // Journal of Institutional Studies (Журнал институциональных исследований) Т. 8, № 3. С. 116-136

6. to adapt to the external control activities strengthening. Journal of Institutional Studies, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 116-136. (In Russian).

7. Майминас Е. З., Тамбовцев В. Л., Фонотов А. Г. (1983). О разработке концепции экономического и социального развития СССР // Экономика и математические методы. Т. 19, Вып. 4. С. 583-597

8. Майминас Е. З., Тамбовцев В. Л., Фонотов А. Г. (1986). К методологии обосно- вания долгосрочных перспектив экономического и социального развития СССР // Экономика и математические методы. Т. 22, Вып. 3. С. 397-411

9. Нефедова А. И., Фурсов К. С. (2016). Общественное мнение о развитии науки и техно- логий. М.: Институт статистических исследований и экономики знаний НИУ ВШЭ

10. Тамбовцев В. Л. (1986). Научно-техническая политика: методология разработки и принципы реализации // Вопросы формирования и реализации научно- технической политики. М.: ИЭП НТП АН СССP. С. 3-16

11. Тамбовцев В. Л., Рождественская И. А. (2014). Реформа высшего образования в России: международный опыт и экономическая теория // Вопросы экономики. № 5. С. 97-108

12. Aarrevaara T., Dobson I. R. (2015). Academics under pressure: Fear and loathing in Finnish universities? In: U. Teichler, W. Cummings (eds.). Forming, recruiting and managing the academic profession. Cham: Springer, pp. 211-223.

13. Abramo G., D’Angelo C. A., Di Costa F. (2010). Testing the trade-off between productivity and quality in research activities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 132-140.

14. Ahmadpoor M., Jones B. F. (2017). The dual frontier: Patented inventions and prior scientific advance. Science, Vol. 357, No. 6351, pp. 583-587.

15. Al-Khatib A. (2016). Protecting authors from predatory journals and publishers. Publishing Research Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 281-285.

16. Amara N., Landry R., Halilem N. (2015). What can university administrators do to in-crease the publication and citation scores of their faculty members? Scientometrics, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp. 489-530.

17. Andersen L. B., Pallesen T. (2008). “Not just for the money?” How financial incentives affect the number of publications at Danish research institutions. International Public Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 28-47.

18. Anderson R. (2000). Before and after Humboldt: European universities between the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries. History of Higher Education Annual, Vol. 20, pp. 5-14.

19. Aristei D., Sterlacchini A., Venturini F. (2017). Effectiveness of R&D subsidies during the crisis: Firm-level evidence across EU countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 554-573.

20. Arrow K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for inventions. In: R. Nelson (ed.). The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors. Princeton, MA: Princeton University Press, pp. 609-626.

21. Auranen O., Nieminen M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance - An international comparison. Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 822-834.

22. Balconi M., Brusoni S., Orsenigo L. (2010). In defence of the linear model: An essay. Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 1-13.

23. Banal-Estañol A., Macho-Stadler I., Pérez Castrillo D. (2016). Key success drivers in public research grants: Funding the seeds of radical innovation in academia? CESifo Working Paper Series, No. 5852.

24. Barrier J. (2014). Merger mania in science: Organizational restructuring and patterns of cooperation in an academic research centre. In: R. Whitley, J. Gläser (eds.). Organizational transformation and scientific change: The impact of institutional restructuring on universities and intellectual innovation. Bingley, UK: Emerald, pp. 141-172.

25. Becker B. (2015). Public R&D policies and private R&D investment: A survey of the empirical evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 917-942.

26. Bellucci A., Pennacchio L. (2016). University knowledge and firm innovation: Evidence from European countries. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 730-752.

27. Benner M., Sörlin S. (2007). Shaping strategic research: Power, resources, and interests in Swedish research policy. Minerva, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 31-48.

28. Besley J. C. (2013). The state of public opinion research on attitudes and understand- ing of science and technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 33, No. 1-2, pp. 12-20.

29. Blackburn R. T., Bentley R. J. (1993). Faculty research productivity: Some moderators of associated stressors. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 725-745.

30. Blumenthal D., Campbell E. G., Gokhale M., Yucel R., Clarridge B., Hilgartner S., Holtzman N. A. (2006). Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: Prevalence and predictors. Academic Medicine, Vol. 81, No. 2, рр. 137-145.

31. Bolli T., Somogyi F. (2011). Do competitively acquired funds induce universities to increase productivity? Research Policy, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 136-147.

32. Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. (2002). The organization of science. Size, agglomeration and age effects in scientific productivity. Paper submitted to the SPRU Conference “Rethinking science policy”, March 21-23.

33. Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. (2005). Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Scientometrics, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 87-120.

34. Bornmann L. (2011). Mimicry in science? Scientometrics, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 173-177.

35. Bornmann L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 217-233.

36. Bornmann L., Daniel H.-D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 45-80.

37. Bovens М. (2005). Public accountability. In: E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn (Jr.), C. Pollitt (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Public Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 182-208.

38. Bowman J. D. (2014). Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Vol. 78, Nо. 10, Article 176. http://www.ajpe.org/doi/abs/10.5688/ajpe7810176.

39. Bozeman B., Sarewitz D. (2005). Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 32, Nо. 2, pp. 119-136.

40. Brandt T., Schubert T. (2013). Is the university model an organizational necessity? Scale and agglomeration effects in science. Scientometrics, Vol. 94, No. 2, pp. 541-565.

41. Butos W. N., McQuade T. J. (2006). Government and science: A dangerous liaison? Independent Review, Vol. 11, Nо. 2, pp. 177-208.

42. Butos W. N., McQuade T. J. (2012). Nonneutralities in science funding: Direction, destabilization, and distortion. Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines, Vol. 18, No. 1, Article 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/1145-6396.1262.

43. Cadez S., Dimovski V., Zaman Groff M. (2017). Research, teaching and performance eva- luation in academia: The salience of quality. Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 42, No. 8, pp. 1455-1473.

44. Cairney P., Jones M. D. (2016). Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: What is the em- pirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 37-58.

45. Callon M. (1994). Is science a public good? Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 19, No. 4, рp. 395-424.

46. Calvert J., Martin B. (2001). Science funding: Europe. In: N. J. Smelser, P. B. Baltes (eds.). International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, Vol. 20 (S. Jasanoff (ed.). Science and technology studies). Oxford and New York: Elsevier Science, pp. 13676-13680.

47. Carboni O. A. (2017). The effect of public support on investment and R&D: An empirical evaluation on European manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 117, pp. 282-295.

48. Cattaneo M., Meoli M., Signori A. (2016). Performance-based funding and university research productivity: The moderating effect of university legitimacy. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 85-104.

49. Chapman D. W., Lindner S. (2016). Degrees of integrity: The threat of corruption in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 247-268.

50. Christensen T., Lægreid P. (2015). Performance and accountability - a theoretical discussion and an empirical assessment. Public Organization Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 207-225.

51. Coccia M. (2009). Research performance and bureaucracy within public research labs. Scientometrics, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 93-107.

52. Cohen W. M., 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.

53. Czarnitzki D., Lopes Bento C. (2012). Evaluation of public R&D policies: A cross- country comparison. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, No. 2-4, pp. 254-282.

54. Dasgupta P., David P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 487-521.

55. David P. A. (1998). The political economy of public science. In: H. L. Smith (ed.). The regulation of science and technology. London: Macmillan, pp. 33-57.

56. David P. A. (2008). The historical origins of “open science”: An essay on patronage, reputation and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution. Capitalism and Society, Vol. 3, No. 2, Article 5.

57. David P. A., Hall B. H., Toole A. A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 4-5, pp. 497-529.

58. Davies H., Nutley S., Smith P. (2000). Introducing evidence-based policy and practice in public services. In: H. T. O. Davies, S. M. Nutley, P. C. Smith (eds.). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 1-11.

59. Demeritt D. (2000). The new social contract for science: Accountability, relevance, and value in US and UK science and research policy. Antipode, Vol. 32, No. 3, рр. 308-329.

60. Demsetz H. (1969). Information and efficiency: Another viewpoint. Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-22.

61. Dezhina I. G. (2017). Science and innovation policy of the Russian government: A variety of instruments with uncertain outcomes? Public Administration Issues, No. 5 (Special Issue), pp. 7-26.

62. Doern B. G., Stoney C. (2009). Federal research and innovation policies and Canadian universities: A framework for analysis. In: G. B. Doern, C. Stoney (eds.). Research and innovation policy: Changing federal government-university relations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 3-34.

63. Drivas K., Balafoutis A. T., Rozakis S. (2015). Research funding and academic output: Evidence from the Agricultural University of Athens. Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 235-256.

64. Dubnick M. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance and Management Review, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 376-417.

65. Ebadi A., Schiffauerova A. (2016). How to boost scientific production? A statisti- cal analysis of research funding and other influencing factors. Scientometrics, Vol. 106, No. 3, pp. 1093-1116.

66. Erkkilä T. (2007). Governance and accountability - A shift in conceptualization. Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1/2, pp. 1-38.

67. Ferro M. J., Martins H. F. (2016). Academic plagiarism: Yielding to temptation. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, Vol. 13, Nо. 1, p. 1-11.

68. Francis J. R. (1989). The credibility and legitimation of science: A loss of faith in the scientific narrative. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 5-22.

69. Franck G. (2002). The scientific economy of attention: A novel approach to the collective rationality of science. Scientometrics, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 3-26.

70. Garcia R., Araújo V., Mascarini S., Gomes dos Santos E., Ribeiro Costa A. (2017). The academic benefits of long-term university-industry collaborations: A comprehensive analysis. Unpublished manuscript. URL: https://www.anpec.org.br/ encontro/2017/submissao/files_I/i9-37eb54ec2895954e09d70ddc72561777.pdf

71. Geuna A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 607-632.

72. Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

73. Glänzel W. (2008). Seven myths in bibliometrics: About facts and fiction in quantitative science studies. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 9-17.

74. González X., Pazó C. (2008). Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending? Research Policy, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 371-389.

75. Gulbrandsen M., Smeby J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 932-950.


Для цитирования:


Тамбовцев В.Л. О научной обоснованности научной политики в РФ. Вопросы экономики. 2018;(2):5-32. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-2-5-32

For citation:


Tambovtsev V.L. On scientific validity of Russian science policy. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2018;(2):5-32. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-2-5-32

Просмотров: 110


ISSN 0042-8736 (Print)