University–industry–government relations are in a period of transition in Eastern and Central Europe. This transformation is a complex and multidimensional historical and social process. Eastern and Central European countries are being forced to make structural shifts not only in regard to the collapse of communist regimes, but also in relation to the worldwide changes in the production, dissemination and application of scientific knowledge. This article is concerned with the barriers which are preventing a more rapid transformation of the university research system in the region. Key problems include: a dramatic decline in the resources dedicated to R&D at the national level; rigid separation of the different components of the R&D system; the concentration of research outside the universities; and the influence of traditionalist lobby groups which do not understand the role of the modern university. There is also insufficient awareness among academics about issues relating to intellectual property, too much reliance in industry on the linear model of innovation, and an inadequate recognition among political decision makers that universities must now organize new forms of cooperation with industry, as well as with society in general. Against this background, the paper makes it clear that the institutional restructuring of academic research and its cooperation with industry in transitional post-communist countries is far from concluded.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LeydesdorffLEtzkowitzH.‘Emergence of a triple helix of university—industry—government relations’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 23, No 4, 1996, pp 279–287.
2.
In particular, state (governmental) expenditures on R&D in the transition economies have fallen sharply, significantly below the OECD average. Measured in constant prices, gross domestic expenditures on R&D (GERD) decreased by 29.5% in Hungary and 45.8% in the Czech Republic between 1991 and 1995, and by 76.9% in Russia between 1990 and 1994. In all countries, except Russia, this drastic reduction in R&D spending has been accompanied by an even greater reduction in R&D personnel (see further, AuriolL., ‘Developments in university research of Central and Eastern European countries since 1990: Statistical analysis’, in SyzmonskiM.GuzikI., eds, Research at Central and East European Universities, Jagiellonian University Press, Krakow, 1997, pp 25–37.
3.
Although the Soviet model was widely imitated throughout the communist bloc, there were differences from country to country. For example, R&D carried out in the ‘branch sector’ in Hungary was even then similar to industrial R&D in the West. This was even more the case with the R&D units of industrial companies in former Yugoslavia (KacprzynskiB., ‘Pro-innovative policy’, in KulinskiA., ed, Science — Technology — Economy, State Committee for Scientific Research, Warsaw, 1994, pp 330–339; DarvasG., ‘Transformation of the science and technological development system in Hungary’, in MaynitzR.SchimakU.WeingartP., eds, Transformation mittel- und ost-europaeischen Wissenschaftssysteme, Leske and Budrich, Opladen, 1995, pp 853–977.
4.
EtzkowitzH.‘Losing our bearings: The science policy crisis in post-Cold War Eastern Europe, former Soviet Union and USA’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 23, No 11996, p 14.
5.
For example, Hungary has a very fragmented system (see ForgacsC.TemesiJ.‘New system of funding research in Hungary’, in Syzmonsky and Guzik, Op cit, Ref 2, pp 223–227).
6.
SztompkaP.‘University and society: Between autonomy and engagement’, in Syzmonsky and Guzik, Op cit, Ref 2, pp 83–93).
7.
MaliF.‘The changing role of university education and research in modern societies’, The School Field — International Journal of Theory and Research in Education, Vol 7, No pp. 1–2,1996, pp 33–44; CleryH., ‘European universities in transition’, Science, Vol 271, No 21996, pp 681–701.
8.
MaynitzR.Aufbruch und Reform von oben — Ostdeutsche Universitaeten im Transformationsprozess, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt, 1994.
9.
H Etzkowitz and A. Webster have summarized many of the key socio-economic processes that have stimulated the commercial exploitation of science in the modern world. The most important factors encouraging commercialization of academic knowledge in recent years are — in short — the appearance of new strategic technologies, the emergence of the new division of labour which facilitates greater linkage between the public science sector and industry, the system of production based on ‘flexible specialization’, and the contemporary role played by higher education in regional development (see further, EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.‘Science as intellectual property’, in JasanoffS., eds, Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Sage, London, 1995, pp 480–506).
SlaughterSRhoadesG.‘The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology’, Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol 21, 1996, pp 303–339.
12.
GibbonsM., eds, The New Production of Knowledge — The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage, London, 1994.
13.
Linda L. Lubrano maintains that leading scientists in the former Soviet Union behaved in ways that were quite similar to the professional behaviour of scientists in other countries. According to her study, the development of a complex system of interlocking and overlapping channels of professional communication cut across the formal, hierarchical chains of command in the USSR Academy of Science (LubranoLinda L., ‘The hidden structure of Soviet science’, Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol 18, No 21993, pp 147–175.
14.
DykerD.A.‘Technology and economic transformation’, in KulinskiA., ed, Production of Knowledge and the Dignity of Science, European Institute for Regional and Local Development, Warsaw, 1995, p 184.
According to some views the autonomy of researchers in the choice of collaborative projects should be strongly favoured, with scientific organizations having almost no control over the external links of their members. Kreiner and Schultz speak of a certain amount of ‘anarchy’ in this respect — KreinerK.SchultzM.‘Informal collaboration in R&D — the formation of networks across organizations’, Organization Studies, Vol 14, No 21993, pp 189–209.
LeydesdorffL.‘Does the triple helix metaphor provide us with an evolutionary model?’, paper presented at the conference Triple Helix II’, Purchase, NY, 1998; LeydesdorffL., ‘Luhmann's sociological theory: Its operationalization and future perspectives’, Social Science Information, Vol 35, No 2, pp 283–307.
19.
SchimankU.‘Die Transformation der Forschung in Mittel und Osteuropa — Gelegenheiten, Ziele und Zwaenge’, Leviathan, Sonderheft 15, 1995, pp 321–345; AmsterdamskiS., ‘Transformation of the national higher education and research systems of Central Europe’, Minerva, Vol 31, Winter, pp 505–523.
20.
A comprehensive critique of the imitative character of Eastern European science in the communist era was provided by MedvedevZ., ed, Soviet Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979.
21.
StichwechR.‘Science in the system of world society’, Social Science Information, Vol 35, No 21996, pp 327–340.
22.
Dyker, Op cit, Ref 14.
23.
PavittK.‘Transforming centrally planned systems of science and technology: The problem of obsolete competencies’, in DykerD.A., ed, The Technology of Transition — Science and Technology Policies for Transition Countries, Central European University Press, Budapest, 1997, p 45.
24.
NesvetailovG.‘Center-periphery relations and transformation of post-Soviet science’, Knowledge and Policy—the International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, Vol 8, No 21995, pp 53–67.
25.
SalvatoreD.‘The economic performance of small versus large nations’, Development and International Cooperation, Vol 13, No 11997, pp 21–43.
26.
WalterGuenther H., eds, Slovenian-German Cooperation in the Field of Technology Policy, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, 1997.
27.
For example, institutions of this kind have been established in Germany since the 1970s. A well known case is that of the network of specialized regional transfer offices in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg, ‘Steinbeis-Stiftung’ (Bundesbericht Forschung, Bonner Universitaets Buchdruckerei, Bonn, 1996).
28.
For example, after the political upheavals at the beginning of the 1990s, there was a dramatic increase in the number of SMEs in Hungary. The causes of this increase in (mainly) individual entrepreneurs can be traced back to factors which have nothing to do with innovation and development strategy (see VarszegiG.ImreJ.‘The transformation of science and technology in Hungary’, in Kulinski, Op cit, Ref 14.
29.
Leydesdorff, Op cit, Ref 18.
30.
In the USA and Western Europe universities have generated spin-off enterprises, science-based firms which provide income and employment for their regions (EtzkowitzH.StevensA.J., ‘Inching toward industrial policy: The university's role in government initiatives to assist small, innovative companies in the US’, Science Studies, Vol 8, No 21995, pp 13–31; HodgsonB., ‘The growth of new technology-based firms in and around Cambridge’, in Kulinski, Op cit, Ref 2, pp 275–286.
31.
Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, Op cit, Ref 1.
32.
An ‘internal’ brain drain (that is, one which happens within the country) is worse than one in which talented scientists leave the country to find a job abroad. The latter is not necessarily entirely negative. The loss of young scientists in this way is painful to a country but it is understandable: Even a short stay in a renowned laboratory overseas mayhave a fundamental influence on their professional careers, regardless of the material advantages.
33.
A case for the Czech Republic has been described by MuellerK.ProvazikS. (see MuellerK., ‘The Czech national R&D system in a post-transformative environment’, in Kulinski, Op cit, Ref 3, pp 243–251; and ‘Transformation des Wissenschaftssystems in der tschechischen Republik’, in Maynitz, Schimak, and Weingart, Op cit, Ref 3, pp 712–807.
34.
SyzmonskiM.‘A concept of science and technology parks in the environment of a transforming economy’, in Syzmonski and Guzik, Op cit, Ref 2, pp 265–269.
35.
VarszegiGImreJ.‘The transformation of science and technology in Hungary’, in Kulinski, Op cit, Ref 14, pp 231–243.
