Science and Innovation in the Face of Political Turbulence

Andrei Lavrukhin

Summary

The year 2020 summed up the results of the implementation of the State Program for Innovative Development (SPID) for the next five-year period (2016–2020). The forecast of the growth of the R&D/GDP intensity of Belarus of 1.0% presented in the SPID 2016–2020 did not prove to be practically relevant: as of the beginning of 2020, the growth was only 0.09%, and the level of R&D/GDP intensity stopped at 0.59%. This means that according to the results of the implementation of two state programs – SPID 2011–2015 and SPID 2016–2020 – it was not possible to reach the level of R&D/GDP intensity that had taken place before their implementation (in 2010, the R&D/GDP intensity was 0.69%). At the same time, as 10 years ago, the current level of R&D/GDP intensity is almost twice lower than the threshold value required to ensure the scientific and technological security of the country (according to the calculations of EU experts, it should be at least 1.0%).

Trends:

Results of the implementation of the SPIR 2016–2020

According to the results of 2020, 89 projects for the creation of new production facilities were completed, and 37 more projects were completed in 2016–2019. Of the BYN 11.5 billion allocated for the implementation of projects in 2016–2020, more than 70% were foreign investments (including credit lines). The volume of production exceeded BYN 5.8 billion, and more than 60% of the products were exported.

74 new production facilities were put into operation, 13 units of which – in 2020. In general, according to the results of the implementation of the SPIR 2016–2020, more than 11,000 new high-performance jobs were created (with a task of just over 10,000), the share of exports of high-tech products, according to the results of January–November 2020, was more than 38% (with a goal of 33%).

In 2020, 1,157 innovations were developed and brought to the stage of practical application within the framework of state, industry and regional scientific and technical programs. The total value of scientific and technical products sold exceeded BYN 1.240 billion. At the same time, the budget costs for the development on the basis of which this product was created and sold did not exceed BYN 70 million.1

The effectiveness of the implementation of the GPIR 2016–2020 is estimated by seven indicative indicators, two of which are completed, two more are close to implementation and three are not implemented.

The “hare of innovation-active organizations” in the industry increased from 19.6 to 24.5% (it was planned to reach 26.0%). The share of innovative products in the total volume of industrial products sold increased from 13.1 to 16.6% (21.0% was planned). “The share of extra-budgetary sources in domestic research and development expenditures” increased from 55.3% to 55.8%, although it was planned to reach 60.0%. A negative result was also obtained for the indicator “internal expenditures on research and development, as a percentage of GDP”: with the planned growth of 1.0% (from 0.5 to 1.5%), at the beginning of 2020, the real growth was only 0.09%. The planned 5% increase in the share of exports of high-tech products in total exports was almost achieved by the beginning of 2020 (4.7%).2

A more detailed analysis of domestic and European (European Innovation Scoreboard) indicators of the level of development of science and innovation based on the results of the implementation of the SPID 2016–2020 (in comparison with 2015) gives the following picture: the share of domestic expenditures on research and development (as a percentage of GDP) increased by 0.09% and amounted to 0.59% by the beginning of 2020, which is still below the threshold value according to the standards of the EU countries and similar indicators of Belarus in the 1990s (in 1990, for example, it was 1.47%);3 the share of the higher education sector in domestic research and development expenditures decreased by 0.7% and is currently 10.1%; the share of R&D expenditures in the GDP of the public sector (including the higher education sector) increased by 0.04% (to 0.21%), in the commercial sector – by 0.05% (to 0.38%); the number of personnel engaged in research and development increased by 1,582 people; the number of organizations that performed research and development increased by 21 units; the coefficient of inventive activity (the number of domestic patent applications for inventions filed in Belarus per 10,000 people) fell by 0.2 percentage points and at the beginning of 2020 was 0.4; the share of innovation-active organizations in the total number of organizations surveyed increased by 0.9%, primarily due to an increase in the share of industrial organizations (by 4.9%) against the background of a decrease in the share of service organizations (by 4.9%).4

Innovative development of Belarus in the context of GII 2020 indicators

In the Global Innovation Index 2020 (GII 2020), Belarus improved its position in the ranking by 8 points, rising from the 72nd place in 2019 to the 64th place in 2020 (Table 1).

Years 2019 2018 2017 2016 2020
Global Innovation Index
Index value ∗ 32.07 29.35 30.0 30.9 31.27
International position 72 86 88 79 64
 
Entry indicators 50 60 63 64 67
Institutions
Index value 57.7 55.5 54.1 56.0 58.4
International position 83 81 81 77 84
Human capital and research
Index value 41.6 41.9 41.9 42.6 40.9
International position 39 34 36 35 37
Infrastructure
Index value 48.2 42.2 46.1 43.6 43.2
International position 60 73 67 63 58
Market stability
Index value 50.0 42.5 41.9 39.1 39.1
International position 56 91 90 89 107
Business sustainability
Index value 32.6 33.0 32.2 28.7 24.9
International position 56 53 65 81 67
Output indicators 95 110 109 103 61
Results of the use of knowledge and technology
Index value 25.5 21.7 21.7 28.1 27.7
International position 51 65 61 49 46
Creative results
Index value 10.8 9.7 11.7 9.5 14.8
International position 126 122 123 124 97
Table 1. Global Innovation Index data, Belarus, 2016–2020
Note. The index values range from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum).
Source: The Global Innovation Index 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020.5

Academic organizations and personnel: commercializing, feminizing, aging, and retiring

As of early 2020, the number of employees engaged in research and development increased by 1,582 people (compared to 2015). The growth was provided primarily by researchers without a degree (+910 people), technicians (+226 people) and support staff (+446 people).

The number of researchers with an academic degree, on the contrary, decreased: doctors of science – by 41 people (–6.3%), candidates of science – by 19 people (–0.67%). This negatively affected the change in the proportion of researchers with academic degrees in the total number of researchers: over five years, the share of candidates of science decreased by 0.9% (to 15.7%), the share of doctors of science – by 0.4% (to 3.4%). However, in general, the growth was “made” by researchers with higher education (+1838 people), and the decline was provided due to researchers with secondary special education (-199 people) and “other” types of education (-57 people).

All these changes did not significantly affect the structure of staff by category. For example, the share of researchers (by 0.4%) and support staff (by 0.1%) decreased slightly over the past five years, and the share of technicians (by 0.5%) also increased slightly. The changes in staff structure by level of education are slightly more significant: the share of researchers with higher education increased by 2.1% (compared to 2015), with secondary specialized and “other” education decreased by 1.3 and 0.8%, respectively.

It is noteworthy that the decline in academic personnel took place in the public sector (–252 people), and the growth – in the sector of commercial organizations (+1565 people) and in the higher education sector (+276 people). As a result of these changes, as of the beginning of 2020, the distribution of academic personnel by sector of activity has acquired the following form: 24.2% – the public sector, 65.4% – the business sector, 10.4% – the higher education sector.

At the organizational level, the same trend of decline in the public sector and growth in the business sector and the higher education sector is noticeable: in the public sector, the number of organizations performing research and development increased by two units, in the business sector and the higher education sector – by ten in each. As a result of these changes, the structure of organizations that performed research and development, as of the beginning of 2020, was as follows: the share of public sector organizations was 19.3% of all organizations engaged in research and development, the share of the business sector – 64.3%, the higher education sector – 16.0%.

In the gender dimension, the trend of feminization of Belarusian science remains unchanged: against the background of a slight decrease in the share of women in the total number of researchers (by 1.5% compared to 2015), their share increased among doctors (by 2.2%) and candidates of science (by 0.9%). At the same time, if the increase in the share of women among doctors of science (by 6 people) was determined primarily by a significant decrease in the total number of doctors of science (–41 people), then in the category of candidates of science, a delicate balance was provided mainly by women: against the background of a decrease in the total number of candidates of science by 19 people, the number of women candidates of science increased by 16 people. The increase in the number of women among researchers is observed in all fields of science, with the exception of technical (-35 people) and medical (–58 people): in the natural sciences, it was 127 people, in agriculture – 13 people, in socio-economic and social – 40 people, in the humanities – 15 people.

In the age structure, the trend of aging of academic personnel remained. Despite the increase in the total number of researchers in the age cohorts of 30–39 years (by 60 people) and 40–49 years (by 239 people), for the period from 2018 to the beginning of 2020, there was a decrease in all age cohorts of researchers with candidate degrees (except for the cohort of 40–49 – an increase of 30 people) and doctors of science. Only one age cohort – “70 years and older” – consistently grew. As a result, in just 1 year (from the beginning of 2019 to the beginning of 2020), the proportion of scientists of retirement age (age cohorts 60–69 years and 70+) increased by 0.5% in the total number of researchers (up to 19.5%), by 2% – among doctors of science (up to 82.5%) and by 0.1% – among candidates of science (up to 37.4%). A slightly smaller increase in the proportion of scientists of the age cohort 40–49 years occurred among candidates of science – by 1.28% (up to 24.2% of the total number of candidates of science).6

One of the significant factors of aging of academic personnel at the highest level of qualification (Doctor of Science) is the small number of doctoral dissertations: in 2020, four people defended their doctoral dissertation at the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. For comparison: in 2000, with the number of all employees of the NASB 1.5 times less, 31 people defended their doctoral theses (almost 8 times more).

In addition to the traditional systemic problems that negatively affect the human resource potential of science, a new factor has emerged since August 2020 – political. According to the Office for Education of the Cabinet of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, over the past six months, 113 university teachers and scientists have experienced pressure for political reasons. 30 teachers of the country’s universities were dismissed, 17 employees of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus were also dismissed or they left themselves, as a sign of solidarity with their colleagues who were deprived of their jobs.”7

Funding: science at your own expense, preferably without research

The trend of commercialization of science can also be seen in the structure of internal research and development costs by sector of activity. As of the beginning of 2020, the size of financing of internal expenditures on research and development of the business sector (of the total funding) amounted to 64.8%, the public sector – 25.0%, higher education – 10.1%.

Over the past 5 years, the structure of internal research and development expenditures by source of funding has changed quite significantly. If at the end of 2015 – beginning of 2016 the share of own funds was 19.1% of the total funding, by the beginning of 2020 it increased to 34.0%. The share of “funds of other organizations”, on the contrary, decreased by almost 2 times: from 22.1 to 10.9%. The share of “funds of foreign investors, including foreign loans and borrowings” decreased by 3.1%. Only the share of “budget funds” remained virtually unchanged (it decreased by 0.5%).

Changes in the structure of internal operating costs for research and development by type of work indicate a decrease in research funding (both fundamental and applied). Over 5 years (from 2016 to 2020), the share of funds allocated to support basic research (from the total amount of internal current expenditures) decreased by 0.9% (to 13.8%), and applied research – by 5.2% (to 26.5%). The growth in the share of experimental developments during this period was respectively 6.1% (up to 59.7%).8

Conclusion

To the systematic factors that hinder the development of science and innovation in Belarus such as underfunding, reduction in the number of researchers and aging of academic personnel, marginalization of publication activity – new factors have been added: the dominance of the business sector (against the background of a reduction in the public sector) and the reduction of academic personnel for political (ideological) reasons.

The dominance of the business sector in the organizational and personnel structure of science, on the one hand, makes scientific research less dependent on public funding, which has been declining in all previous years and will inevitably decline in the conditions of political and economic turbulence in the coming years. On the other hand, this will also inevitably exacerbate the existing imbalance between research (fundamental and applied) and experimental development, since research is practically not supported in the business sector.

Meanwhile, the full, long-term and sustainable development of science is impossible without research – both applied and strategically significant fundamental. This is extremely important in a situation where the accumulation of scientific and innovative potential of the country is slowing down, as noted in the GII 2020 report.

The only reasonable solution in this situation is to prioritize government funding for research. But to what extent such a priority is possible and relevant for a state that is primarily concerned with building up its repressive apparatus and military potential is an open question.