|
on Confederation of Independent States |
| By: | Alexander Sokolov (Director of the international Foresight centre, vice director of the ISSEK HSE. Address: National research university “Higher school of economics”); Alexander Chulok (Head of the science and technology Foresight department, ISSEK HSE. Address: National research university “Higher school of economics”); Vladimir Mesropyan (Researcher at the science and technology Foresight department, ISSEK HSE. Address: National research university “Higher school of economics”) |
| Abstract: | Currently the framework conditions for science and technology and innovation (STI) policy have changed significantly in Russia: a system of technology forecasting has been established, which focuses on ensuring the future needs of the manufacturing sector of the national economy. This system was supposed to be the main part of the state strategy planning system which is currently being formed. Over the last decade dozens of science and technology forward-looking projects have been implemented, among which 3 cycles of long-term S&T Foresight stand out prominently. The Foresight was developed by the request of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. The development of the 3rd cycle of long-term Foresight includes both normative («market pull») and research («technology push») approaches. The project involved more than 2,000 experts and more than 200 organizations. Within the project a network of six sectoral Foresight centers was created on the basis of leading universities. The article describes the most important issues of future studies in Russia and presents the principles which formed the basis for the long-term science and technology (S&T) Foresight until 2030. The authors explore its position in the national technology Foresight system and the possibilities for the implementation of its results by the key stakeholders of the national innovation system and on the level of STI policy. Eventually Russian experience could be fairly interesting and useful for many other countries with similar socio-economic features and barriers |
| Keywords: | Foresight, Russia, research and development strategy, planning of science and technology development, Russian technology Foresight system, innovation policy. |
| JEL: | O31 O32 O33 O38 O21 O25 O43 |
| Date: | 2013 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hig:wpaper:19sti2013&r=cis |
| By: | Dmitry Suslov (Deputy Director for Research of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies, School of the World Economy and International Affairs, National Research University – Higher School of Economics) |
| Abstract: | The contemporary Russian military-industrial complex to a great extent still remains a shortened and shrinking copy of the old Soviet military machine, which is less and less capable of defending Russia from the real threats and challenges and stimulates ineffective spending of financial resources. The reason is that the logic of the Russian defense policy, which determines structure of the military-industrial complex, did not change since the Cold War. This logic is strategic deterrence of the US. Today more factors objectively unite Russia and the US in the world rather than separates them. However, Moscow is still committed to maintaining a parity (or at least an illusion of parity) with the US in the strategic nuclear sphere and regards it as a criteria for its military security and maintenance of a great power status. |
| Keywords: | Nuclear weapons, Strategic missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles, missile defense, arms control, defense policy, armaments, US-Russia relations. |
| JEL: | F59 |
| Date: | 2013 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hig:wpaper:01/ir/2012&r=cis |
| By: | Dmitry Suslov (Deputy Director for Research of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies, School of the World Economy and International Affairs, National Research University – Higher School of Economics) |
| Abstract: | To a big extent the Russian defense policy and, as a consequence, development of the Russian defense industrial complex, is determined by the prospects of the US missile defense policy and fate of the US-Russia negotiations in this area. As a cooperative solution seems improbable in the observable future, Russia plans to develop certain response measures of military nature, including creation of a new heavy ICBM, and to create its own missile defense by 2015. However, this policy does not seem correct from the economic, political and security viewpoints. Russia overestimates the possible military challenges of the hypothetic US missile defense system and invests huge funds into fighting non-existent threats. A US-Russia cooperation in missile defense is possible, and it would fundamentally change their overall relations for the better |
| Keywords: | US-Russia relations, missile defense, defense policy, strategic deterrence, mutually assure destruction, foreign policy, international security. |
| JEL: | F59 |
| Date: | 2013 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hig:wpaper:02/ir/2012&r=cis |
| By: | Svetlana Avdasheva (1National Research University Higher School of Economics. Institute for Industrial and Market Studies. Deputy Director;); Polina Kryuchkova (2National Research University Higher School of Economics. Institute for Industrial and Market Studies, Laboratory of Competition and Antimonopoly Policy. Leading Research Fellow;) |
| Abstract: | Law enforcement by regulatory authorities on complaints may replicate not only advantages but also disadvantages of both public and private enforcement. In Russian antitrust enforcement there are strong incentives to open investigations on almost every complaint. The increasing number of complaints and investigations decreases both the resources available per investigation and the standards of proof. It also distorts the structure of enforcement, increases the probability of both wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals, and lowers deterrence. Statistics of antitrust enforcement in the Russian Federation, including Russian regions, highlight the importance of complaints for making decisions on whether to open investigations and the positive dependence of convictions on the number of investigations |
| Keywords: | antitrust, Russia, public enforcement, complaints, legal errors. |
| JEL: | K21 K42 |
| Date: | 2013 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hig:wpaper:05/pa/2013&r=cis |
| By: | Burkitbayeva, Saule; Kerr, William A. |
| Abstract: | International trade in wheat accounts for approximately one third of world grain trade and is expected to double by 2050.The KRU (Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine) countries account for approximately a quarter of world wheat exports and are collectively considered one of the key wheat exporting regions. The Ukraine became a member of the WTO only in 2008. Russia became an official member of the WTO in 2012 and Kazakhstan is expected to follow Russia and reach an accession deal with WTO members shortly. As a result of WTO accession, all three countries will be entitled to “most favoured nation” (MFN tariffs), and hence, gain improved access to a number of important markets that have been largely inaccessible due to very high tariffs that could be charged on imports from non-WTO countries. World wheat trade liberalization, reflecting the move to the MFN tariff as a result of accession, was simulated using the global simulation model (GSIM). The KRU region’s increased market accessibility as a result of successful accession to the WTO has the potential to foster important re-alignments in world wheat trade flows, prices and changes in welfare among major wheat trading countries. The simulation results suggest that the change to MFN tariffs leads to KRU countries trading more with now freer markets such as Turkey, the EU and China. Major traditional wheat exporters such as Australia, Canada, the EU, and the US do not seem to be negatively impacted to any important degree. Their relative market access conditions, however, erode in Turkish, Middle Eastern, and North African markets with their exports being diverted and broadly distributed among other countries and regions at marginally reduced prices. Trade liberalization is not uniform across regions and, hence, leads to different net welfare changes across countries. Those welfare changes, however, appear to be modest. |
| Keywords: | accession, Kazakhstan, MFN, Russia, tariff reduction, Ukraine, wheat, Agribusiness, Agricultural and Food Policy, Demand and Price Analysis, International Development, International Relations/Trade, |
| Date: | 2013–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ags:catpcp:158891&r=cis |
| By: | Elena Chernovich (Junior Research Fellow, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University Higher School of Economics,) |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates environmental behavior in Russian households by the analysis of 24 in-depth interviews conducted in typical households of the city of Moscow. Using the STS tools such as ‘script’ and ‘moral agency’ it discovers how technologies shape domestic routines and pro-environmental behavior of their users and how the users shape the resource consumption of technological artifacts. Depending on their environmental values and believes three types of residents are identified: committed environmentalists, occasional environmentalists and non-environmentalists. Each of the group of people appeared to have different agencies in relation to their domestic technologies. Technologies also seem to play different role in shaping moral actions of the three categories of residents |
| Keywords: | Human-technology relations, environmentalism, domestic routines |
| JEL: | D19 Q01 |
| Date: | 2013 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hig:wpaper:18sti2013&r=cis |
| By: | Valeria Ivaniushina (Sociology of Education and Science Lab, National Research University Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg, Senior Researcher.); Daniel Alexandrov (Sociology of Education and Science Lab, National Research University Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg, Professor.) |
| Abstract: | This article analyzes student pro-school/anti-school attitudes on different levels and explores their relation to educational outcomes. We examine the individual level, school level, and clique level predictors (clique is defined as a tight social group within a class social network). Cliques were identified using special software called Kliquefinder. We use multi-level regression approach on a sample of 7300 students from 104 public schools from St.Petersburg. Our findings show that: 1.) Socio-economic differentiation of Russian schools does not lead to a polarization of pro-school/anti-school attitudes in different types of schools; 2.) The polarization of attitudes emerges and is maintained at the clique level; and, 3.) Clique attitudes have a significant impact on educational outcomes (net of a student’s socio-demographic characteristics and individual attitudes). |
| Keywords: | pro-school/anti-school culture, peer effects, social network analysis, cliques. |
| JEL: | I21 C12 |
| Date: | 2013 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hig:wpaper:09edu2013&r=cis |