Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Study of the business climate in Russian science: Testing the approach
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2025-6-114-136
Abstract
In this article, we discuss a novel approach to the assessment of the situation (business climate) in the science and technology (S&T) field, as well as the results of its testing within three large-scale surveys of top-managers of R&D organizations and universities conducted in 2017, 2022 and 2024. The methodology is based on the theory and practice of quantitative (including statistical) measurement of this area, business tendency surveys, and evaluation of S&T policy and its instruments. The opportunities and advantages of using the proposed analytical tools for identifying drivers and barriers to the development of this area in Russia, studying the dynamics of ongoing changes, and the demand for government support measures are demonstrated.
Supporting agencies: The article was prepared within the framework of the HSE University Basic Research Program.
About the Authors
M. A. Gershman
HSE University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Mikhail A. Gershman
Moscow
L. A. Gokhberg
HSE University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Leonid M. Gokhberg
Moscow
T. E. Kuznetsova
HSE University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tatiana E. Kuznetsova
Moscow
References
1. Vlasova V., Kuznetsova T., Roud V. (2017). Drivers and limitations of Russia’s development based on the evidence provided by the Global Innovation Index. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 8, pp. 24—41. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2017-8-24-41
2. Gershman M. A., Evseeva M. V., Kameneva E. G., Lapochkina V. V. (2025). Impact assessment of subsidized academia—industry cooperation in Russia. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 3, pp. 48—75. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2025-3-48-75
3. Gershman M., Kuznetsova T. (2014). Performance-related pay in the Russian R&D sector. Foresight—Russia, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 58—69.
4. Gokhberg L. M. (2003). Statistics of science. Moscow: Teis. (In Russian).
5. Gokhberg L. M. (ed.) (2019). Business climate in the Russian R&D sector — Doing science. Moscow: HSE University. (In Russian).
6. Gokhberg L. M. (ed.) (2024). The future of world science. Moscow: HSE Publ. (In Russian).
7. Gokhberg L. M., Gershman M. A. (eds.) (2023). Doing science in Russia: Business climate in the R&D sector. Moscow: HSE ISSEK. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-3003-0
8. HSE University (2025). Science and technology indicators in the Russian Federation: 2025: Data book. Moscow: HSE ISSEK. (In Russian).
9. Abramo G., D’Angelo C. A., Caprasecca A. (2009). Allocative efficiency in public research funding: Can bibliometrics help? Research Policy, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 206—215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.001
10. Allard G., Martinez C. A., Williams C. (2012). Political instability, pro-business market reforms and national systems of innovations. Research Policy, Vol. 41, pp. 638— 651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.005
11. Ankrah S., Omar A. T. (2015). Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 387—408. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003
12. Bartle D., Morris M. (2010). Evaluating the impacts of government business assistance programmes: Approaches to testing additionality. Research Evaluation, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 275—280. https://doi.org/10.1093/reeval/19.4.275
13. Becker S., Wohlrabe K. (2008). Micro data at the Ifo Institute for Economic Research — The “Ifo Business Survey” usage and access. Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 128, No. 2, pp. 307—319. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.128.2.307.
14. Bell S., Cingranelli D., Murdie A., Caglayan A. (2013). Coercion, capacity and coordination: Predictors of political violence. Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 240—262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894213484032
15. Bloch C., Sørensen M. P., Graversen E. K., Schneider J. W., Schmidt E. K., Aagaard K., Mejlgaard N. (2014). Developing a methodology to assess the impact of research grant funding: A mixed methods approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 43, pp. 105—117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2013.12.005
16. Blume-Kohout M. E. (2022). The case of the interrupting funder: Dynamic effects of R&D funding and patenting in U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 1221—1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09965-7
17. Carvalho А. (2018). Wishful thinking about R&D policy targets: What governments promise and what they actually deliver. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 373—391. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx069
18. Cerny P., Prichard A. (2017). The new anarchy: Globalisation and fragmentation in world politics. Journal of International Political Theory, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 378—394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088217713765.
19. Chou Y.-C., Hsu Y.-Y., Yen H.-Y. (2008). Human resources for science and technology: Analyzing competitiveness using the analytic hierarchy process. Technology in Society, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 141—153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.12.007
20. Crespi F., Caravella S. et al. (2021). European technological sovereignty: An emerging framework for policy strategy. Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy Centre for European Policy Studies, Vol. 56, No. 6, pp. 348—354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6
21. Cunningham P., Gök A., Larédo P. (2016). The impact of direct support to R & D and innovation in firms. In: J. Edler, P. Cunningham, A. Gök, P. Shapira (eds.). Handbook of innovation policy impact. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 54—107. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784711856.00010
22. Edler J., Blind K., Kroll H., Schubert T. (2023). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy, Vol. 52, No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765
23. Edler J., Cunningham P., Gök A., Shapira P. (eds.) (2016). Handbook of innovation policy impact. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
24. Erkel-Rousse H., Minodier C. (2009). Do business trend surveys in industry and services help in forecasting GDP growth? A real-time analysis on French data. INSEE Working Paper, No. G2009/03. Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques.
25. European Commission (2004). Evaluating EU activities: A practical guide for the Commission services. Brussels: European Commission.
26. European Commission (2016). The joint harmonised EU programme of business and consumer surveys: User guide. Brussels: European Commission.
27. European Commission (2023a). Research, innovation, and technology policy in times of geopolitical competition. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/745596
28. European Commission (2023b). S&T&I for 2050: Science, technology and innovation for ecosystem performance — Accelerating sustainability transitions. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/100029
29. Freeman C. (1995). The “national system of innovation” in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 5—24. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309
30. Frietsch R., Reiß T., Schmoch U. (2024). Development of innovation monitoring and innovation indicators in the past 50 years. In: J. Edler, R. Walz (eds.). Systems and innovation research in transition. Research questions and trends in historical perspective. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66100-6_3
31. Gassler H., Schibany A. (2011). “Useless” science: How to evaluate performance of basic research. Foresight—Russia, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 40—47. https://doi.org/ 10.17323/1995-459x.2011.1.40.47
32. Georghiou L. (1995). Research evaluation in European national science and technology systems. Research Evaluation, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 3—10. https://doi.org/10.1093/rev/5.1.3
33. Gershman M., Kuznetsova T. (2016). The future of Russian science through the prism of public policy. Foresight, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 320—339. https://doi.org/10.1108/ FS-06-2014-0037
34. Godin B. (2001). Measuring output: When economics drive science and technology measurements. Project on the history and sociology of S&T statistics. Montreal: OST.
35. Godin B. (2009). What is science? Defining science by numbers, 1920—2000 (part 2). Foresight—Russia, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 68—81. https://doi.org/10.17323/1995- 459x.2009.3.68.81
36. Godin B. (2010). Conceptual frameworks of science, technology and innovation policy. Foresight—Russia, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 34—43. https://doi.org/10.17323/1995- 459x.201.2.34.43
37. Gök A., Edler J. (2012). The use of behavioural additionality evaluation in innovation policy making. Research Evaluation, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 306—318. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs015
38. Gokhberg L. (2013). Indicators for science, technology and innovation on the crossroad to foresight. In: D. Meissner, L. Gokhberg, A. Sokolov (eds.). Science, technology and innovation policy for the future: Potentials and limits of foresight studies. Berlin: Springer, pp. 257—288. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31827-6_15
39. Gokhberg L., Shmatko N., Auriol L. (eds.) (2016). The science and technology labor force: The value of doctorate holders and development of professional careers. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27210-8
40. Industrial Research Institute (2017). 2017 R&D trends forecast: Results from the Industrial Research Institute’s annual survey: Slowing economies slow R&D investments and mute optimism. Research—Technology Management, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 18—25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2017.1255049
41. IMF (2023). World economic outlook: Navigating global divergences. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400235801.081 Jordan G. B. (2010). A theory-based logic model for innovation policy and evaluation. Research Evaluation, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 263—273. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820210x12827366906445
42. Kuhlmann S. (2003). Evaluation of research and innovation policies: A discussion of trends with examples from Germany. International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 26, No. 2—4, pp. 131—149. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2003.003366
43. Lakomý M., Hlavová R., Machackova H. (2019). Open science and the science—society relationship. Society, Vol. 56, pp. 246—255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-019- 00361-w
44. Lipkind T., Kitrar L., Ostapkovich G. (2019). Russian business tendency surveys by HSE and Rosstat. In: S. Smirnov, A. Ozyildirim, P. Picchetti (eds.). Business cycles in BRICS. Cham: Springer, pp. 233—251. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-90017-9_13
45. Lola I., Bakeev M. (2024). Technology adoption expectations in the face of temporal uncertainty: An analysis of survey data from manufacturing firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 45—58. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.2020751
46. Lundvall B.-Е. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.
47. McLaughlin J. A., Jordan G. B. (2015). Using logic models. In: K. E. Newcomer, P. Hatry, J. S. Wholey (eds.). Handbook of practical program evaluation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 62—87. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch3
48. Meissner D., Gokhberg L., Kuzminov Y., Cervantes M., Schwaag Serger S. (2021). Knowledge triangle targeted science, technology and innovation policy. In: The knowledge triangle. Changing higher education and research management paradigm. Cham: Springer, pp. 3—15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81346- 8_1
49. Meissner D., Kergroach S. (2021). Innovation policy mix: Mapping and measurement. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 46, pp. 197—222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09767-4
50. Nelson R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative study. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195076165.001.0001
51. OECD (2003). Business tendency surveys: A handbook. Paris: OECD Publ. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264177444-en
52. OECD (2012). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2012. Paris: OECD Publ. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2012-en
53. OECD (2013). Commercialising public research: New trends and strategies. Paris: OECD Publ. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264193321-en
54. OECD (2015). Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development, the measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities. Paris: OECD Publ. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en
55. OECD (2019). University—industry collaboration: New evidence and policy options. Paris: OECD Publ. https://doi.org/10.1787/e9c1e648-en
56. OECD (2023). Science, technology and innovation outlook 2023: Enabling transitions in times of disruption. Paris: OECD Publ. https://doi.org/10.1787/0b55736e-en
57. Priem R. L., Butler J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 22—40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011928
58. Shapira P., Furukawa R. (2003). Evaluating a large-scale research and development program in Japan: Methods, findings and insights. International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 26, No. 2—4, pp. 166—190. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2003.003368
59. Stern E. (1993). Ongoing and participative evaluation: Purpose, design and role in the evaluation of a large-scale R&D programme. Research Evaluation, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 75—82. https://doi.org/10.1093/rev/3.2.75
60. Teirlinck P., Delanghe H., Padilla P., Verbeek A. (2013). Closing the policy cycle: Increasing the utilization of evaluation findings in research, technological development and innovation policy design. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 366—377. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs123
61. Weiss C. (1999). The interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 468—486. https://doi.org/10.1177/135638909900500408
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Gershman M.A., Gokhberg L.A., Kuznetsova T.E. Study of the business climate in Russian science: Testing the approach. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2025;(6):114-126. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2025-6-114-136
Views:
215
Email this article 
