The Year of Science: Modest celebration or lavish funeral?

Andrei Laurukhin

Summary

The year 2017 declared a Year of Science by the presidential decree of December 23, 2016 was marked by pompous events and cheerful statements in the media that contrasted sharply with the disastrous state of Belarusian science and very modest achievements in innovation. The Republic of Belarus showed a decline with respect to most indicators of scientific and innovative development. In the 2017 Global Innovation Index of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Belarus dropped down nine positions against 2016 and 35 against 2015 to the 88th out of 127 spots, showing the worst performance in the past five years. For comparison, Latvia was ranked 33rd, Russia 45th, and Ukraine 50th. The GDP knowledge intensity halted at the lowest level (0.50%) in the past 17 years close to the threshold value (0.40%). The pool of scientists shrank to 25,942 people, which is the smallest number in the history of science in sovereign Belarus.

Trends:

Financing: optimized down to thresholds?

According to official data, the proportion of domestic expenditure on research and development dropped to 0.50% of GDP, which is the lowest level in the history of independent Belarus (1.0% in 1996).1 This brings the country close to the threshold value of 0.40% for the first time. It is generally accepted internationally that, once below this threshold, science begins to perform a merely decorative and symbolic socio-cultural function. According to the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS-2016), the proportion of public expenditure on R&D remained at 0.17%.2 Over the first two years of the new State Program of Innovative Development for 2016-2020, the following changes occurred in the composition of domestic expenditure (compared with 2015): the proportion of budget expenditure decreased 0.7%; the proportion of off-budget expenditure decreased 0.6 %; the proportion of funds of other organizations decreased 8%. The proportions of own funds and foreign investment increased 5.2% and 3.9%, respectively. This means that despite the formal parity between the increase (9.1%) and decrease (9.3%) in the proportion of the sources of funding and the positive trend towards the increase in the proportion of foreign investment (3.9%),3 there is a deficit, as an increase in off-budget sources cannot compensate for budget cuts. The proportion of tertiary education in the domestic expenditure on research and development continued to decrease (by 1.2% against 2015).4

Scientific brainpower: improvement by total reduction?

The historic anti-record of the R&D personnel reduction in 2016 was overwhelmingly beaten in the Year of Science. As of the beginning of 2017, the number of personnel decreased by 211 people, and the pool of researchers decreased by 74 to the smallest number in the recent history of the country (2003 and 2004 being the lowest reference point of the period from 1990 to 2014 with 17,702 and 17,034 researchers, respectively).5 A reduction in the number of personnel was reported in profit making organization and the public sector, while a small increase took place in tertiary education.6 With respect to science domains, the greatest reduction (in comparison with 2015) was reported in the natural sciences (47 people), medical sciences (220), socio-economic and social sciences (22) and humanities (46). A certain increase in the engineering sciences (93) improved the situation in comparison with 2015, but could not compensate for a colossal long-term decline (1,994 people against 2011). Only the situation with regards to agricultural sciences remains stable.

It is relatively positive that, from the point of view of the personnel composition (with respect to education and employment areas), the reduction affected persons with vocational secondary education degrees (-1%) and technicians (-0.4%). A certain optimism is also inspired by the fact that the reduction in the number of researchers affects all age groups, except for researchers aged 30 to 39 (an increase by 153) and those aged 40 to 49 years (an increase by 57). Finally, the proportion of researchers with academic degrees in the total number of researchers changed insignificantly (+/-0.1%).7 The year 2017 was not a turning point in the long-term trend towards a decline in the number of postgraduate and doctoral students (ISCED 6) per 1,000 population aged 25 to 34: from 0.8% in 2013 to 0.6 as of the beginning of 2017.8 It is noteworthy that it continued even against the backdrop of a growing number of postgraduate students (158) and those who have defended dissertations (13) against 2015 and as of early 2017.

The number of R&D institutions continued to decrease from 501 in 2011 to 431 as of early 2017.9 In general, if the trend and the rate of reduction of scientific personnel and organizations remain the same, in the next 5 to 7 years, the R&D pool may fall to the threshold values that will jeopardize the scientific capacity, and turn Belarusian science in a marginal, decorative element of society and culture.

Innovation-driven development of Belarus: external evolution

In the 2017 Global Innovation Index, Belarus dropped nine positions from 79th in 2016 to 88th in 2017. Given that the decline occurs for the second consecutive year (down 35 positions against 2015), the negative trend becomes obvious. This is the lowest indicator over the past five years. At the same time, the fall in the country rating is not as great as it was in 2016 compared with 2015 (26 positions). Besides, data on a number of rating parameters are indicated for different years that makes the rating not fully adequate, and does not allow to determine the nature of the trend or to draw substantiated conclusions. This is evident when comparing the rating data with actual indicators of innovation in 2016. For example, Belarus looks very good with respect to the ‘number of patents’ (39th) and the ‘number of patent applications by origin’ (27th) in GII-2017. However, there is a 1.3-point decrease in the dynamics of the inventive activity coefficient from 2011 to early 2017.10

Based on these comparisons, it is possible to draw a preliminary conclusion about the invariantly weak and strong aspects of innovative development in Belarus. The first ones are: a low proportion of venture capital deals (82nd),11 difficulties in getting credit (84th), a small number of scientific and technical publications in periodicals (85th), low government effectiveness (93rd), high GDP/unit of energy use (94th), non-observance of the rule of law (107th), low logistics performance (112th), low regulatory quality (120th) and the almost complete absence of domestic credit to private sector (last but one, 126th in the world).

The following parameters can be attributed to strengths: ISO 14001 environmental certificates (44th), ease of protecting minority investors (41st), environmental performance (35th), knowledge-intensive employment (34th), school life expectancy (34th), information and communication technologies (32nd), gross capital formation (32nd), microfinance institutions (30th), ease of starting a business (28th), firms offering formal training (21st), pupil-teacher ratio with respect to secondary education (12th), graduates in science and engineering (12th), tertiary education (6th), women employed with advanced degrees among all employed at the age of 25 and over (1st).

Innovation-driven development of Belarus: internal evolution

Innovative development results can also be viewed in terms of ‘internal criteria’, i.e. in the context of the three points of growth of the innovation economy determined by the government and announced in October 2016 by Economy Minister Vladimir Zinovsky.12

The first point of growth–the launch of 19 innovative projects in 2017–was implemented in part, since six out of the 19 facilities were not commissioned in time, and the information about the creation of the promised 1,000 new high-productivity jobs, or GDP growth by 0.12% is not available (at least in the public domain). The second point–an expansion of the Belarusian-Chinese Industrial Park Great Stone by increasing the number of resident companies and investments by USD 60-70 million–was implemented abundantly in what concerns the first part (23 residents against 20 planned), and nothing is known about the second part, since, at the moment, there is no precise data on the amounts and origin of investments. Decree No.166, which established a supportive legal regime for the Great Stone and friendly business environment for investors and residents, certainly helps. The third point–the creation of new jobs in small and medium businesses–turned into a fiasco. As of October 2017, the number of jobs had been decreasing for the third year in a row.13 Besides, there is a steady trend towards a decrease in the proportion of already few small and medium enterprises engaged in domestic innovation in the total number of SMEs (3.41% at the beginning of 2017; 4.45% in 2011) and the proportion of SMEs engaged in joint innovation projects (0.43% at the beginning of 2017; 0.68% in 2011).14

Anemic growth is observed with respect to the main indicators of innovation. The coefficient of creative outputs shows a 0.1% decline, while the proportions of organizations dealing with technological innovation and industrial organizations that spend on technological, organizational and marketing innovations increased 0.6% each. With the increase in the proportion of shipped innovative products, works and services (3.2%), the imbalance in the changes in the proportion of shipped innovative products, new for the domestic (up 7.8%) and the world innovation markets (down 1.3%),15 is escalating. The increase in the proportion of Belarusian innovative products on the domestic market and its decline on the world market puts in question the quality of Belarusian innovative products (according to international, rather than in-country criteria).

Conclusion

Regretfully, the Year of Science did not become a turning point in science and innovation policy: it was still going down the old path of tight administrative mobilization of catastrophically shrinking financial, personnel and economic resources. The fact that a number of the most significant indicators (knowledge intensity, expenditure on R&D, the number of personnel) approach the threshold values challenges Belarus’ mobilization model when it comes to innovation-driven development.