Regional Aspect of Technological Modernization of Russia: Experience of 1990s

Abstract

The regional dynamics of the Urals had repeated the Russian trends of development. By the 18th century, the Urals had all the prerequisites to become a testing ground for modernization. It had passed through three basic stages. The first stage of modernization – the protoindustrialization covered the period from the 18th century to the first half of the 19th century. The mining sector has become an important factor of the Urals modernization. The second stage - the early-industrial modernization took place in the second half of XIX - beginning of XX centuries. Throughout this period, a lot of factories and plants were built in the mining industry. Continuation of the early-industrial modernization occurred in the 1930s. It was a period of the accelerated industrialization, when the Ural has become a central link of the Ural-Kuznetsk complex. The third stage - the late-industrial modernization began in the second half of the 1950s. The technological revolution was at the heart of the late-industrial modernization. In the second half of the 1980s, there was an objective need to create a high-tech industry. But in the early 1990s, the Liberal Democrats came into power in Russia. They took the concept of transition to a postindustrial society as soon as possible. The loss of half of the industrial potential of the country was the result of this scientific and technical policy in the 1990s.

Keywords: Modernizationregionalizationregionscientific and technical progressdeindustrializationtechnical and technological security

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results of research and discussion

By the early 1990s, the Urals region was composed of the Republic of Bashkortostan, the Udmurt Republic, Kurgan, Orenburg, Perm, Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk oblasts. In this regions, the expanding threat to scientific and technological security has occurred very fast. By the end of the 1990s, the Urals region was in a state of deepening crisis. Social, economic and political processes, occurring in the country in the 1990s, have led to a significant decline in the Urals region basic indicators of the scientific and technological development. These included training of researchers, diffusion of innovation, financing of science and other indicators.

First of all, the share of researchers employed in industrial enterprises decreased significantly. Three of the seven regions of the Urals - the Republic of Bashkortostan, Orenburg and Sverdlovsk oblasts ― were at a critical stage of the crisis by this indicator. In 1998, the indicated rates made up 25.3, 25.69 and 57.28 of researchers per 10,000 populations, respectively. These regions had 42, 69 and 36 seats among the 80 Russian regions surveyed. The main reason for this situation was a sharp drop in demand for research and development on the part of industrial enterprises in the 1990s.

The situation was worse by the indicator of the number of highly qualified specialists, including Doctors of Science and Candidates of Science per 10,000 populations. Two Ural regions of Russia - Perms and Chelyabinsk oblasts ― were in a critical phase of the crisis, four regions - the Republic of Bashkortostan, Kurgan, Orenburg and Sverdlovsk oblasts ― were at a threatening stage of the crisis by the pointed out indicator. In the late 1990s, these regions had 48, 60, 41, 57, 62 and 42 seats, respectively, by the indicator of the number of highly qualified specialists among the 80 Russian regions, in which the assessment of scientific and technological security was held.

The situation was unfavourable also in terms of training of researchers. The regions of the Urals belonged to that half of the Russian regions, which were in a state of crisis by the indicator of the number of postgraduate students and doctoral students per 10,000 people. The regions of the Urals occupied the following seats among the Russian regions: Kurgan oblast - 66; Chelyabinsk oblast - 56; Sverdlovsk oblast - 49; Orenburg oblast – 48 (Tatarkin, Lvov, & Kuklin, 2000).

In the 1990s, some of the trends in the training of researchers in the Urals were revealed. The number of postgraduate students enrolled in daytime courses increased, principally owing to the decline number of postgraduate students enrolled in distance education courses.

The age structure was characterized by a much higher proportion of postgraduate students at young ages - less than 26 years old. They have accounted for 72 per cent of the total number of postgraduate students. The postgraduate students over 30 years old have accounted for 14 per cent. The men have predominated among postgraduate enrolled in daytime courses and in distance education courses. In the 1990s, there was a significant outflow of highly qualified specialists directed to commercial organizations and foreign research centres. At the same time, there was a decline in the prestige of scientific work (Gorshkov, 2002).

The efficiency of industrial production was directly dependent on the level of scientific and technical support. The situation was dire in terms of dissemination of innovations at the Ural enterprises. In the late 1990s, all regions except Kurgan region were at the stage of crisis by such an indicator as the share of innovative products in the total industrial output. The regions of the Urals had quite low ranks by this indicator among the 80 Russian regions surveyed. Orenburg, Chelyabinsk region and the Udmurt Republic were at 55, 54 and 49 places respectively. The main reason for this situation was the absence of domestic innovative technologies. The financial capacities of the regions for the production of innovative products were the weakest.

However, the trend of deindustrialization was not the only development trend. There was a tradition of development of the Urals as a “polygon” of scientific and technical progress. This tradition was started in the preceding period and manifested itself in the fact that the Urals retained the features of the past and contemporary, which coexisted together. Traditional production was focused on large enterprises, and therefore was in need of centralized management. The robotic technology, flexible production lines, electronic computation systems could be effectively used on a modern small enterprises. This determined a tendency to dispersion of production. The tendency to dispersion of production was the cause of decentralization of management of the scientific and technical progress. Economic power began to grow in the regions.

There was another tradition which had influenced the development of science and technology in the Urals in the 1990s. The territorial division of labour in the production was accompanied by territorial division of labour in the field of scientific activity. There had been a trend towards the geographical dispersion of the scientific and technical potential.

This trend manifested itself in the process of institutionalization of science in the region. A broad life-support system of science was created. The network of applied research institutions and plants laboratories was formed. The scientific research in the regions was coordinated by the Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. More than 400 Doctors of Sciences and 1500 Candidates of Sciences were employed in 37 institutions of the Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences; more than 1770 Doctors of Sciences and 5040 Candidates of Science worked in the higher education institutions (Lebedev, 2005). In particular, in the early 2000s more than seven per cent of all Russian researchers were employed in the research units of the Urals. The region's share in all Russian domestic expenditure on research and development was more than eight per cent.

A positive development was the increase of prestige of higher education and the growth of inflows of young people into higher education institutions in the 1990s. The results of calculations of scientists of the Institute of Economics of the Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences showed that all regions of the Urals were in a satisfactory situation by the indicator of the number of university students per 10,000 populations.

In addition, the scientific and technological progress has become an independent object of social regulation in the preceding period. The structures of territorial management of the development of science and technology began to be formed. In particular, the Centers of Standardization and Metrology, the Centers of scientific and technical information, the interdepartmental Council on coordination of research in the Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Councils of Rectors and the Councils of Directors of industrial enterprises were formed. These structures were effective forms of territorial organization of scientific and technical progress. The institutionalization of territorial subjects of management was a manifestation of the action of such phenomenon of modern scientific and technological progress as its regionalization. This phenomenon is one of the essential characteristics of economic development in the period of the late-industrial modernization.

Conclusions

The processes of modernization and the regional development go together and interact with each other. The regional development and the regional policy are important tools for expanding the range of possibilities of the society and accessing new resources. In the industrial and especially in the post-industrial societies, there is such phenomenon of the modern scientific and technological progress as its regionalization. It has contributed to the acceleration of the process of the development of science as a productive and social force in the period of the late-industrial modernization.

However, the modernization could change its trajectory if there was a slowdown in the technological progress. The trend towards the deindustrialization of Russia was manifested in the 1990s. The country has lost half of its industrial capacity. The deindustrialization has caused a threat to scientific and technological security in the Russian regions.

When finding positive and negative outcomes of the modernization of one of the Russian regions - the Urals ― in the 1990s, we can make the following conclusions. Firstly, a slowdown in technological progress has coincided with the period of deceleration in the growth of Russia's economy. This has contributed to deindustrialization of the country. Such coincidence was not accidental. It was indicative of a stable connection of scientific, technical and socio-economic progress.

Secondly, the experience of modernization of the Urals confirms the conceptual ideas that economic progress in modern conditions is not associated with episodic achievements of experimental science. It is based on the development of fundamental knowledge.

Thirdly, the stagnation of the science and technology activities of the 1990s was caused at first the decrease of the effectiveness of the Soviet social and political system. Then in the early 1990s, the Liberal Democrats came into power in Russia. They took the concept of transition to a post-industrial society as soon as possible. But this experiment failed. Fourthly, the transition to market relations does not automatically provide a high rate of technological progress. The centrally planned economy was not also the determining factor in the promotion of technological innovation and scientific advancement. These judgments can clarify the reasons for the successes and the failures of the modernization of the Russian society in the 1990s.

References

1. Alekseev, A. A. (2004). Social potential history (pp. 338-340). Yekaterinburg: Publishing House of the Ural humanitarian institute.
2. Alekseev, A. A. (2014). The role of state in the regional modernization model of Russian empire. Ural Historical Journal, 4(45), 76-8.
3. Artemov, E. T. (2006). Scientific and technical policy in the Soviet model of late industrial modernization (pp.5-6). Moscow: Publishing House of Russian Political Encyclopedia.
4. Gorshkov, A.V. (2002). The scientific potential and the Ural industry. In V. P. Chernobrovina (Ed.), Industrial Urals in the XIX - XX centuries (p. 379). Moscow: Publishing House of Association of Researchers of Russian society-XX.
5. Kharitonova, O. N. & Laktionova D. G. (2003). On the issue of assessment of the socio-economic situation of the Ural region. In M. V. Mnukhin. (Ed.), Socio-economic problems of the city-forming enterprises in the Urals region. (pp. 5-11). Magnitogorsk: Publishing House of Magnitogorsk State Technical University.
6. Lebedev, V. E. (2005). Scientific and technological development of the region is a component of national security. In A. V. Speransky (Ed.), The Urals contribution to the defeat of fascism: historical experiences and contemporary problems of national security (349-353). Yekaterinburg: the Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
7. Lebedev, V. E. (2008). Regional dimension of the state scientific and technical policy (on the materials of the Ural region). Ural Historical Journal, 3(20), 20-30.
8. Makarov, V. L. & Varshavsky, A. E. (2001). Science and High Technologies of Russia on the Border of the Third Millennium (social and economic aspects of development) (pp. 2-12). Moscow: Publishing House Nauka.
9. Poberezhnikov, I. V. (2006). The transition from traditional to industrial society: theoretical and methodological problems of modernization (pp. 233-235). Moscow: Publishing House of Russian Political Encyclopedia.
10. Tatarkin, A. I., Lvov, D. S. & Kuklin, A. A. (2000). Scientific and technological security of regions of Russia: Methodological approaches and diagnostic results (pp.17-26). Yekaterinburg: Publishing House of Ural Federal University.