This is my presentation at the IM2012 Beijing conference on nanotechnology development of Russia and China. Evgeny Klochikhin

1. Giants in Small Worlds? Innovation and
nanotechnology development in China and Russia
Evgeny Klochikhin, PhD Candidate,
Manchester Business School, UK
The IM2012 Conference, Beijing, China, 21-24 May 2012

2. Research questions
• How Russia and China can exploit their science and
technology (S&T) history to promote indigenous innovation
development and resolve the weaknesses of the former
state planning system?
• Are there any particular complementarities between the
Russian and Chinese innovation that can contribute to their
socioeconomic development?
• What are the current and emerging opportunities for
mutual leaning between the two countries?
• What is the role of technology-based growth strategies in
this process?

3. Literature
• Soviet S&T: Zalesski et al. (1969), Berliner (1976), Amman and
Cooper (1977), Amman et al. (1977), Balzer (1989), Fortescue
(1990)
• Russia: Graham (1998), Radosevic (1999), Radosevic (2003),
Gokhberg et al. (2003), Kosals (2004), Gianella and Thompson
(2007), Graham and Dezhina (2008), OECD (2011), Westerlund
(2011), Klochikhin (2012a,b)
• China: Cao (2004), Sigurdson (2005), Li (2006), Huang (2008),
Sigurdson and Tompson (2008), OECD (2008), Breznitz and
Murphree (2011)
• BRICS: Cassiolato and Vitorino et al. (2009)

4. Social and political status
of science and technology
STI policy system
RUSSIA and CHINA
Quality of STI and
technology transfer
System of IPR protection

5. Soviet S&T system
Strengths Weaknesses
• High profile and continuity of • Lack of S&T equipment in research institutes
• Inhibited information flows
science
• Separation of research and teaching
• Support of highly-qualified S&T • Technological ‘backwardness’
personnel • Low productivity and rates of ROI
• Weak technology diffusion
• Good level of theoretical research
• Risk averse culture
• Massive resource allocation to • Weak computing capability
S&T • Poor training of researchers
• Rampant departmentalism and political
• Block system of science funding involvement
• Prioritization of most important • Emphasis on the military
S&T projects • Corruption and nepotism
• Lack of enterprise autonomy
• Knowledge as a public good that • Reluctance to dissolve unsuccessful SOEs
can be freely used by all agents • Imbalance between risk and reward for
innovating
• Lack of mission-oriented approach
•
(Klochikhin, 2012) Low patenting activity

6. Historical perspective
USSR/Russia China
2003-present 1997-present
Reform Back on track
1980-1990s 1990s Post-
Tian’anmen Decline 1978-1992
Decline
1966-1976 Open Door Policy
1960-1970s
Cult revolution
STI frontier
1930-1950s 1950s
Lysenkoism S&T expansion
1949
1917
1911

7. Opportunities for mutual learning
• Turning universities into research institutions
• Rethinking the state planning legacies
• Finding effective ways to employ state-owned
enterprises as major innovation actors
• FDI and knowledge spillovers – not an only
solution of innovation growth
• Development zones and SEZs
• Regional spread
• Mega-science projects
• Turning ‘brain drain’ to ‘brain gain’

8. Nanotechnology
Russia China
Launch of the national nano 2007 2001
program
Significance of nano Highly important One of the areas to support
component in STI policy
Policy design Highly centralized Dispersed among diverse programs
and institutions, center and regions
Scale Several fields (mostly ‘Across the board’ (but mostly
nanomaterials) nanomaterials)
Regional spread Across the country Concentrated in several key regions
Commercialization Rusnano Tianjin Nanotech Industrialization
mechanism Base; Shanghai Nanotechnology
Promotion Center; Nanopolis Suzhou,
and others
Regular evaluations Annual, carried out by the Varied (basically part of larger S&T
Ministry of Education and Science policy evaluations)

9. Conclusions
• History matters
• Many opportunities for mutual learning
between Russia and China but not from the
United States
• Nanotechnology is a fuzzy field with no clear
leader – every nation is exploring its own
ways

10. Policy recommendations
• More democratization and transparency of the science,
technology and innovation policy making process with
broader involvement of the academic community and
wider public:
a) involvement of a bigger circle of university researchers and think-
tanks into policy consultation and evaluation;
b) establishment of an independent agency that would openly
present the interests of the academic community at the top
political level
• Better legislation and regulation for the innovation process
• Development of private sector and reducing the role of the
state in the national economy