Presented at the First International Conference «Development of nanotechnology: challenges of international and regional scientific and educational centers», Barnaul, Russia, 12-15 September 2012.

1. Russia’s nanotechnology growth: a
study of cross-country and cross-
regional collaboration networks
Evgeny A. Klochikhina and Philip Shapiraa,b,c
a. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, MBS,
University of Manchester, UK
b. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology,
USA
c. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State
University, USA

2. Background
• After the USSR collapsed, some liberals proclaimed ‘the
end of history’ with an emerging paradigm of global
economy, society and values (Fukuyama, 1992)
• Although not recognized as market economies
immediately, post-communist states were considered
as part of the world capitalist system by the merit of
their structural reform and establishment of recognized
market mechanisms
• However, many institutional, social and cultural
frameworks remain in transition countries (including
Russia) that have substantial impact on their
contemporary development and policies

3. 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?

4. Nanotechnology
• Can it be implemented bypassing the major
system weaknesses and path dependencies?
• Can it help resolve the major challenges and
break the existing lock-ins in the construction
of effective national innovation systems in
transition economics?

5. Context
• Nano – next transformative technology like
electricity or Internet?
• Who will get the most benefits from nano
revolution: the poor or the rich, the smaller or
the larger?

6. National nano initiatives
• USA is the first to launch a National
Nanotechnology Initiative in 2000
• More than sixty countries joined global nanorace
(Shapira and Wang, 2010; Sargent, 2008)
• Various starting points (Court et al., 2004):
Front runners: China and India
Middle ground: Thailand, the Philippines, South
Africa, Brazil, and Chile
Up and comers: Argentina and Mexico

7. Russia China Brazil USA
Launch of the national 2007 2001 2004 2000
nano program
Significance of nano Highly important One of the areas to One of the areas to Important
component in STI support support
policy
Policy design Highly centralized Dispersed among Balanced: national Balanced:
diverse programs and and state programs centralized
institutions, center and plus autonomous coordination plus
regions policy objects much autonomy left
for the agencies
Scale Several fields ‘Across the board’ (but Focused ‘Across the board’
(mostly mostly nanomaterials)
nanomaterials)
Regional spread Across the Concentrated in several Several university Concentrated in
country key regions centers and most major clusters
developed cities
Commercialization Rusnano Tianjin Nanotech Nanotech is Issue left to policy
mechanism Industrialization Base; included in the objects (so far)
Shanghai Nano Industrial,
Promotion Center; Technology and
Suzhou-Nanopolis Trade Policy (2004)
Regular evaluations Annual, carried Varied (basically, part N/A Triannual,
out by MES of larger S&T independent
evaluations) evaluations
ELSI component No Vague No Yes

8. Top-5 nanopubs producing countries, 1990-2010
25,000
20,000
Number of Publicatoins
15,000
China
USA
10,000 Japan
Germany
South Korea
5,000
0
Year
Source: Arora et al. (2012)

9. Russia and China - nanopubs
35
Number of nano publications, thousands
30
25
20
15 Russia
China
10
5
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year of publication
Source: own calculations based on Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science

10. Russia and China - nanopatents
7000
6000
Number of basic patents
5000
4000
3000 Russia
China
2000
1000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Basic patent year
Source: own calculations based on Thomson Reuters ISI Derwent Innovations Index

11. Methodological framework: six impacts
• Institutional development, knowledge
flows, and network efficiency
• Research and education capabilities
• Industrial and enterprise development
• Regional spread
• Cluster and network development
• Product innovation and market growth

12. Nanopubs: cross-country collaboration
Russia's top five international collaborators, nanotechnology, 1996-2011
350
300
Number of collaborative papers
250
200 Germany
USA
150 France
UK
100
Japan
50
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year of publication
Source: own calculations based on Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science

13. Patents: cross-country protection

14. Interdisciplinary networks – Russia

15. Interdisciplinary networks – China

16. Nano patents: how close to market?
250
200
Industry
Number of basic patents
150 Individuals
Russian Academy of
Science (basic res)
Universities
100
Research institutes
(applied R&D)
50
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Basic patent year
Note: calculations based on the number of basic patents, i.e. applications may have been submitted 1-2 years before
the basic patent was eventually granted, which explains why the effects of 2008 crisis are seen only in 2009.

17. Industry-science links: evidence of
technology transfer
6
5
Percent of total patents
4
Share of industry-RAS co-
invented patents
3 Share of industry-university
co-invented patents
Share of industry-research
2
institutes co-invented
patents
1
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year

18. Cross-regional collaboration
Average Total number of
annual publications by
growth by region (2001-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 region 2011)
Moscow, Russia 15,1 16,4 15,5 17,7 17,2 22,5 20,1 21,3 22,4 23,6 22,6 4,7 10386
St Petersburg, Russia 9,9 9,8 9,6 11,3 13,6 13,4 10,7 12,9 18,0 19,4 16,2 6,5 6203
Moscow Oblast, Russia 31,2 31,0 29,4 30,6 28,2 36,5 31,7 34,6 45,0 40,8 43,3 4,3 3000
Novosibirsk Oblast, Russia 15,5 12,8 14,1 12,4 21,4 18,3 20,6 16,0 16,9 20,9 20,5 5,6 2758
Sverdlovskaya Oblast,
Russia 30,4 33,8 28,6 25,8 26,4 27,7 20,5 28,5 16,8 17,5 18,7 -2,4 1215
N.Novgorod Oblast, Russia 7,7 18,8 21,3 24,4 18,2 38,2 27,4 28,1 31,7 30,2 28,9 23,5 983
Tomsk Oblast, Russia 26,1 18,8 18,4 22,6 27,5 12,1 9,1 20,4 20,0 21,6 28,4 9,6 684
Tatarstan, Russia 22,2 15,2 15,2 11,7 24,1 18,0 20,0 20,0 19,0 20,3 22,9 5,3 599
Bashkortostan, Russia 23,1 30,6 27,5 29,5 46,5 29,3 28,2 28,4 36,8 16,2 17,6 3,0 587
Saratov Oblast, Russia 57,1 12,5 0,0 10,5 9,4 13,6 10,6 17,3 35,3 25,0 16,7 -15,1 388
Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia 30,4 14,3 23,1 14,3 25,8 32,3 22,5 31,4 20,5 50,0 18,4 13,1 377
Primorsky Krai, Russia 0,0 7,7 21,4 23,1 32,0 14,3 16,7 29,0 7,1 18,2 19,0 25,2 288
Voronezh Oblast, Russia 0,0 28,6 63,6 42,9 55,6 40,7 33,3 26,5 31,3 39,5 20,0 -2,2 252
Udmurtiya, Russia 16,7 36,4 30,0 50,0 46,7 55,0 26,3 60,0 51,7 50,0 12,5 16,2 224
Rostov Oblast, Russia 44,4 25,0 33,3 21,4 60,0 25,0 28,1 21,4 23,3 36,7 14,7 7,0 216
Perm Krai, Russia 14,3 9,1 30,0 8,3 23,1 7,7 40,0 35,7 42,1 42,9 14,3 59,4 151
Ivanovo Oblast, Russia 50,0 14,3 11,1 12,5 40,0 28,6 16,7 15,0 25,0 13,0 23,5 15,8 127
Irkutsk Oblast, Russia 0,0 0,0 25,0 0,0 25,0 11,1 27,8 6,7 38,1 33,3 38,5 27,0 124
Leningrad Oblast, Russia 87,5 66,7 66,7 50,0 33,3 80,0 71,4 60,0 95,7 100,0 89,5 8,5 124
Ulyanovsk Oblast, Russia 20,0 18,2 37,5 11,1 50,0 50,0 33,3 33,3 50,0 20,0 12,5 29,6 112
Tver Oblast, Russia 25,0 50,0 40,0 33,3 0,0 50,0 66,7 55,6 38,5 68,8 50,0 -4,9 107
Volgograd Oblast, Russia 0,0 0,0 100,0 72,7 75,0 25,0 20,0 13,3 25,0 9,5 6,9 -16,2 106
Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia 100,0 60,0 50,0 60,0 72,7 60,0 80,0 75,0 10,0 50,0 25,0 25,7 90
Kabardino Balkaria, Russia 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 64,3 22,2 71,4 0,0 55,6 -4,8 84
Kaluga Oblast, Russia 0,0 100,0 100,0 8,3 25,0 26,7 100,0 71,4 83,3 55,6 30,0 29,9 81

20. Regional spread
Distribution of nanotechnology publication output across Russian regions in 2001-2011
60
50
Number of regions in each percentile
40
2011
30 2001
2006
20
10
0
0 0.01-4 4-8 8-12 12-16 16-20 20-24 24-28 28-32 32-36
Share of papers by region in total nano publications output, %
Source: own calculations based on Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Science