Pushkinskaya st. 43. office 10
Rostov-on-Don, Russia
344082
e-mail: info@hjournal.ru 
tel. +7(863) 269-88-14

cubsEN (2)

Import of Scientific Policy Instruments in Contemporary Russia

Import of Scientific Policy Instruments in Contemporary Russia

Journal of Institutional Studies, , Vol. 13 (no. 3),

Characteristic features of contemporary scientific policy of Russia in the context of its instruments import are highlighted in the article. Instruments are analyzed as institutions according to the D. North interpretation. It was revealed that the main imports are the instruments those ensure the accountability of the academic community (academia). Grant funding system, scientometrics and academic excellence programs are these instruments. In the conditions of contemporary Russia the accountability of scientists and scholars to society turns into accountability to the vertical of power. The motivation of its representatives includes both the idea of public benefits as well as the task of private efficiency maximizing when to select the goals and instruments of scientific policy. It is shown that the selection process includes three main levels: political, governmental and departmental. Imported instruments are gradually transformed in accordance with the interests of the actors participating in the vertical administrative bargaining at all these levels. The goals set at the political level to strengthen economic and political positions of the country in the world are gradually being replaced with the tasks of maximizing the private efficiency of high-ranking participants in this bargaining. As a result, a qualitative modification of the sphere of science occurs. It is not just about the limitation of academic community autonomy, but about its incorporation into the vertical of power in the conditions of contemporary Russia. This fact leads to the changing of motivation and structure of academia. Academic researchers and scholars are gradually being replaced by politicized academic administrators and specific academic entrepreneurs. They are differ if compare them with the western academic entrepreneurs. The latter are focused on the competitive economic markets, while the first concentrate their attention on the redistribution of resources within the framework of vertical administrative bargaining.


Keywords: scientific policy; import of institutions; accountability; scientometrics; grant funding; projects of academic excellence

References:
  • Балацкий Е.В. (2014). Истощение академической ренты // Мир России 23(3): 150–174. [Balatsky, E.V. (2014). Depletion of Academic Rent. Universe of Russia 23(3): 150–174. (In Russian).]
  • Бок Д. (2012). Университеты в условиях рынка. Коммерциализация высшего образования. М.: ИД Высшей школы экономики. [Bok, D. (2012). Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Moscow, Higher School of Economics Publishing House. (In Russian).]
  • Вершинин И. (2016). О государственном задании в сфере науки в свете международного опыта // Общество и экономика 11: 5–22. [Vershinin, I. (2016). Towards the Governmental Task in the Field of Science in the Light of International Experience. Society and Economics 11: 5–22. (In Russian).]
  • Вольчик В.В., Маслюкова Е.В. (2018). Ловушка метрик, или Почему недооценивается неявное знание в процессе регулирования сферы образования и науки // Журнал институциональных исследований 10(3): 158–179. DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2018.10.3.158-179 [Volchik, V.V., Maslyukova, E.V. (2018). The metrics trap, or why is implicit knowledge underestimated when regulation of science and education is handled. Journal of Institutional Studies 10(3): 158–179. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2018.10.3.158-179]
  • Дежина И.Г. (2020). Научная политика в ведущих российских университетах: эффекты нового «менеджериализма» // Университетское управление: практика и анализ 24(3): 13–26. [Dezhina, I.G. (2020). Scientific Policy in the Leading Russian Universities: Effects of New “Managerialism”. University management: practice and analysis 24(3): 13–26. (In Russian).]
  • Душина С.А., Камнева А.В., Куприянов В.А., Шиповалова Л.В. (2019). Научное лидерство в контексте академического капитализма (российская перспектива) // Социология науки и технологий 10(1): 50–76. [Dushina, S.A., Kamneva, A.V., Kupriyanov, V.A., Shipovalova, L.V. (2019). Scientific Leadership in the Context of Academic Capitalism (Russian perspective). Sociology of Science and Technology 10(1): 50–76. (In Russian).]
  • Калгин, А.С., Калгина О.В., Лебедева А.А. (2019). Оценка публикационной активности как способ измерения результативности труда ученых // Вопросы образования 1: 44–86. DOI:10.17323/1814-9545-2019-1-44-86 [Kalgin, A.S., Kalgina, O.V., Lebedeva, A.A. (2019). Evaluation of Publication Activity as a Way of Measuring the Productivity of Scientists. Educational Studies Moscow 1: 44–86. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2019-1-44-86]
  • Кордонский С.Г. (2006). Рынки власти: Административные рынки СССР и России. М.: ОГИ. [Kordonsky, S.G. (2006). Markets of Power: Administrative Markets of the USSR and Russia. Moscow, OGI]
  • Кузьминов Я.И., Семенов Д.С., Фрумин И.Д. (2013). Структура вузовской сети: от советского к российскому «мастер-плану» // Вопросы образования (4): 8–69. [Kuzminov, Y., Semyonov, D., Froumin, I. (2013). University Network Structure: From the Soviet to the Russian “Master Plan”. Educational Studies Moscow (4): 8–69. (In Russian).]
  • Кун Т. (2001). Структура научных революций. М.: ООО «Издательство АСТ». [Kuhn, T. (2001). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Moscow, AST Publishing House. (In Russian).]
  • Курбатова М.В. (2016). Реформа высшего образования как институциональный проект российской бюрократии: содержание и последствия // Мир России 25(4): 59–86. [Kurbatova, M. (2016). Higher Education Reform as an Institutional Project of the Russian Bureaucracy: the Content and the Outcomes. Mir Rossii 25(4): 59–86. (In Russian).]
  • Курбатова М.В., Каган Е.С. (2015). Оценка степени значимости эффектов внешнего контроля деятельности преподавателей вузов // Журнал институциональных исследований 7(3): 122–143. DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2015.7.3.122-143 [Kurbatova, M.V., Kagan, E.S. (2015). Assessment of the degree of significance of the effects of external control of the activities of university lecturers. Journal of Institutional Studies 7(3): 122–143. (In Russian).]
  • Курбатова М. В., Донова И. В., Кранзеева Е. А. (2021). Высшее образование в регионах ресурсного типа: между задачами ведомственного и регионального развития // Terra Economicus 19(1): 109–123. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2021-19-1-109-12 [Kurbatova, M. V., Donova, I. V., Kranzeeva, E. A. (2021). Higher Education in Resource-Type Regions: Between the Tasks of Departmental and Regional Development. Terra Economicus 19(1): 109–123. (In Russian).]
  • Ле Гранд, Дж. (2011). Другая невидимая рука: предоставление общественных услуг на основе выбора и конкуренции. М.: Изд. Института Гайдара. [Le Grand, J. (2011). The Other Invisible Hand: Delivering Public Services through Choice and Competition. Moscow, Gaidar Institute Publishing House. (In Russian).]
  • Левин С.Н., Саблин К.С. (2016). Предприниматели как субъект развития современной российской экономики: общая характеристика и специфика регионов «ресурсного типа» // Журнал институциональных исследований 8(2): 76–86. DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2016.8.2.076-086. [Levin, S.N., Sablin, K.S. (2016). Entrepreneurs as a Subject of Modern Russian Economy Development: General Characteristics and «Resource Type» Regions Specificity. Journal of Institutional Studies 8(2): 76–86. (In Russian).]
  • Левин С.Н., Саблин, К.С. (2017). «Политизированные» бюрократы как субъект развития экономики регионов «ресурсного типа» // Общественные науки и современность 1: 128–139. [Levin, S.N., Sablin, K.S. (2017). “Politicized” Bureaucrats as Agents of Economic Development in Resource-Rich Regions. Social Sciences and Modernity 1: 128–139. (In Russian).]
  • Норт Д. (1997). Институты, институциональные изменения и функционирование экономики. М.: Фонд экономической книги «Начала». [North, D. (1997). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Moscow, Fund of Economic Book “NACHALA”. (In Russian).]
  • Пшеворский А. (2000). Демократия и рынок. Политические и экономические реформы в Восточной Европе и Латинской Америке. М.: Российская политическая энциклопедия (РОССПЭН). [Przeworski, A. (2000). Democracy and Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Moscow, Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN). (In Russian).]
  • Семенов Е.В. (2019). Государственная научно-технологическая политика в современной России: замысел и реализация // Управление наукой: теория и практика 1(1): 51–71. DOI: 10.19181/smtp.2019.1.1.1 [Semenov, E.V. (2019). Public science and technology policy in modern Russia: idea and implementation. Science Management: Theory and Practice 1(1): 51–71. (In Russian). DOI: 10.19181/smtp.2019.1.1.1]
  • Тамбовцев В.Л. (2018). О научной обоснованности научной политики в РФ // Вопросы экономики (2): 5–32. DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2018-2-5-32 [Tambovtsev, V.L. (2018). On the scientific substantiation of scientific policy in the Russian Federation. Voprosy ekonomiki (2): 5–32. (In Russian).]
  • Тамбовцев В.Л. (2020). Действенность мер российской научной политики: что говорит мировой опыт // Управление наукой: теория и практика 2(1): 16–38. DOI: 10.19181/smtp.2020.2.1.1 [Tambovtsev, V.L. (2020). Validity of Russian science policy’s instruments: what the world’s experience says? Science Management: Theory and Practice 2(1): 16–38. (In Russian).]
  • Шепелев Г.В. (2020а). Об управлении российской наукой // Управление наукой: теория и практика 2(2): 65–92. DOI: 10.19181/smtp.2020.2.2.3 [Shepelev, G.V. (2020а). On the governance of Russian science. Science Management: Theory and Practice 2(2): 65–92. (In Russian).]
  • Шепелев Г.В. (2020б). О приоритетах научно-технологического развития // Управление наукой: теория и практика 2(3): 16–36. DOI: 10.19181/smtp.2020.2.3.1 [Shepelev, G.V. (2020b). On priorities of scientific and technological development. Science Management: Theory and Practice 2(3): 16–36. (In Russian).]
  • Ayers, D.F. (2014). When Managerialism Meets Professional Autonomy: The University ‘Budget Update’ as Genre of Governance. Culture and Organization 20(2): 98–120. DOI:10.1080/14759551.2011.644675
  • Bagshaw, P. (2000). Managerialism in Public Hospitals and Universities in New Zealand. The New Zealand Medical Journal 113: 112–113.
  • Ball, S.J. (2003). The Teacherʼs Soul and the Terrors of Performativity. Journal of Education Policy 18(2): 215–228. DOI: 10.1080/0268093022000043065
  • Borer, V.L., Lawn, M. (2013). Governing Education Systems by Shaping Data: From the Past to the Present, from National to International Perspectives. European Educational Research Journal 12(1): 48–52. DOI: 10.2304/eerj.2013.12.1.48
  • Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., Goodin, R.E. (2014). Public Accountability. In: Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E. and Schillemans, T. (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability (pp. 1–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Brickman, R. (1981). The Comparative Political Analysis of Science and Technology. Comparative Politics 13(4): 479–496.
  • Brooks, H. (1968). The Governance of Science. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  • Buchanan, J. M. (1999). The Demand and Supply of Public Goods. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
  • Butos, W.N., McQuade, T.J. (2012). Nonneutralities in Science Funding: Direction, Destabilization, and Distortion. Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines 18(1): 1–26.
  • Chandler, J., Barry, J., Clark, H. (2002). Stressing Academe: The Wear and Tear of the New Public Management. Human Relations 55(9): 1051–1069. DOI: 10.1177/0018726702055009019
  • Clague, C., Keefer, P., Knack, S., Olson, M. (1996). Property and Contract Rights in Autocracies and Democracies. Journal of Economic Growth 1(2): 243–276. DOI: 10.1007/BF00138864
  • Collyer, F.M. (2015). Practices of Conformity and Resistance in the Marketisation of the Academy: Bourdieu, Professionalism and Academic Capitalism. Critical Studies in Education 56(3): 315– 331. DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2014.985690
  • Goldsworthy, J. (2008). Research Grant Mania. Australian Universitiesʼ Review 50(2): 17–24.
  • Gulbrandsen, M., Smeby, J.C. (2005). Industry Funding and University Professors’ Research Performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932–950. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.004
  • Hackett, E.J. (2014). Academic Capitalism. Science Technology and Human Values 39(5): 635–638. DOI: 10.1177/0162243914540219
  • Harris, B. (2014). Corporatisation, Managerialism and the Death of the University Ideal in Australia. Journal of Politics and Law 7(2): 63–80. DOI: 10.5539/jpl.v7n2p63
  • Holmstrom, B., Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 7: 24–52. DOI: 10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24
  • Hottenrott H., Lawson, C. (2017). Fishing for Complementarities: Research Grants and Research Productivity. International Journal of Industrial Organization 51(C): 1–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2016.12.004
  • Jones, B.F., Olken, B.A. (2005). Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and Growth since World War II. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 120(3): 835–864. DOI: 10.1162/003355305774268165
  • Jones, D.R., Patton, D. (2020). An Academic Challenge to the Entrepreneurial University: the Spatial Power of the ‘Slow Swimming Club’. Studies in Higher Education 45(2): 375–389. DOI:10.1080/03075079.2018.1534093
  • Lam, A. (2011). What Motivates Academic Scientists to Engage in Research Commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘Ribbon’ or ‘Puzzle’? Research Policy 40(10): 1354–1368. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002
  • Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The Politics of Publication. Nature 422: 259–261.
  • Lynch, K. (2013). New Managerialism, Neoliberalism and Ranking. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 13: 1–13. DOI: 10.3354/esep00137
  • Münch, R. (2014). Academic Capitalism. Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence. London: Routledge.
  • Niskanen, W.A. (1996). Bureaucracy and Public Economics (The Locke Institute Series). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M. (2017). What is Wrong with Evidence Based Policy, and How Can It Be Improved? Futures 91: 62–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012
  • Todd, P.A., Ladle, R.J. (2008). Hidden Dangers of a ‘Citation Culture’. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8(1): 13–16. DOI: 10.3354/esep00091
Publisher: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Founder: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Online-ISSN: 2412-6039
ISSN: 2076-6297