Perception of Scientific and Social Values in the Sustainable Development of National Innovation Systems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Materials and Methods
4. Main Results
5. Discussion of Results
“In Russia, distrust between various actors of the innovation system leads to an increase in transaction costs and a slowdown in development. It is obvious that Russia needs a conditional “exchange”, where, on the one hand, business representatives would come and form a request for innovative developments necessary for their companies, and on the other hand, scientists would offer their technological solutions. In today’s Russia, there exists certain distrust between these two parties: it seems to business that it is more reliable to invest in the search for new technologies abroad, and researchers believe that companies cannot formulate a task. If this distrust is not overcome, then it will be very difficult to change the situation. Thence, many stakeholders believe that in order to build trust between business and science, we need concrete examples of successful cooperation between them, success stories that we definitely have”.(Mikhail Kotyukov, Head of the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations) (Khlyustova and Podorvanyuk 2016)
“Our economy and its main agents have a high inertia. For many reasons, they still live in a model that does not encourage them to plan ahead and innovate ahead of time. Here and the absence of a real competitive environment, and the complexity of relations with the state. On the one hand, there is distrust and high risks of unpredictability, on the other hand, there is a consumer position in relation to the state and the expectation that the state will not quit in difficult times”.
“In 2010, [then] President Dmitry Medvedev instructed to prepare proposals for accounting for failed projects in the field of venture investments. But not only Rusnano is working on this order. “The other day I received a wonderful letter from the Prosecutor General’s Office, where they ask for a complete list of projects that ended in failure, and a complete list of people who carried out this project,” Anatoly Chubais said. After these words, the venture investors sitting in the hall laughed nervously: apparently, the letter from the Prosecutor General’s Office discouraged some from investing in start-ups. Thus, modernization plans are hampered by a lack of trust” .
“In the Russian business environment, value orientations have already been formed, focused on the priorities of the innovation economy. A pragmatic business audience believes that it is impossible to create competitive products without innovation (90%). Such attitudes are typical both for Moscow and for the regions. Despite the established value orientations, the interest in introducing new technologies into production among businesses remains at a low level. The reason is the poor development of the innovation infrastructure in Russia. Until a legal framework for innovation is created in the country, an effective patenting system is developed, a system for financing innovation is debugged, the risks of opening innovative production are reduced, the question of the reasons for the low level of business interest in innovation will remain rhetorical”.
“When preparing an application for a patent for an invention, it is necessary to remove the “zest” of technology from the patent application. <…> Then a potential competitor who decides to copy the patented technology in practice according to the description published in the patent will not be able to get the desired result. Therefore, the presence of our own R&D centre and vertically integrated production becomes an advantage—secrets and know-how remain inside the holding”.
“After the publication of an invention on the website of the federal service, intermediaries contact you with an offer to sell copyrights to third parties abroad. But what is sold is not always introduced abroad. Often a foreign company, seeing a threat to its established business, buys copyright and blocks the invention”.
6. Conclusions and Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Achmad, Willya. 2021. Citizen and netizen society: The meaning of social change from a technology point of view. Jurnal Mantik 5: 1564–70. [Google Scholar]
- Akerlof, George A., and Dennis J. Snower. 2016. Bread and bullets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 126: 58–71. [Google Scholar]
- Alblooshi, Mohamed, Mohammad Shamsuzzaman, and Salah Haridy. 2021. The relationship between leadership styles and organisational innovation: A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. European Journal of Innovation Management 24: 338–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashwin, Sarah, Chikako Oka, Elke Schuessler, Rachel Alexander, and Nora Lohmeyer. 2020. Spillover effects across transnational industrial relations agreements: The potential and limits of collective action in global supply chains. Ilr Review 73: 995–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baeva, Elena. 2010. Corruption Will Overcome Modernization. Business Does Not Believe in a Technological Breakthrough until 2020. RBC. Available online: http://www.rbcdaily.ru/print.shtml?2010/10/01/focus/515069 (accessed on 7 September 2020).
- Balatsky, Evgeny, and Natalia Ekimova. 2015. Effectiveness of the Russian institutional development: An alternative assessment. Теrrа Economicus 13: 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barinova, Vera, Sylvie Rochhia, and Stepan Zemtsov. 2022. Attracting highly skilled migrants to the Russian regions. Regional Science Policy & Practice 14: 147–73. [Google Scholar]
- Belova, Anna. 2015. “Generators of the Future”: How Russia Can Return to the Path of Innovation. RBC. September 18. Available online: https://www.rbc.ru/opinions/economics/18/09/2015/55fc0af39a7947508e46da19 (accessed on 17 September 2022).
- Bush, Paul. 1987. The Theory of Institutional Change. Journal of Economic Issues 21: 1075–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carayannis, Elias G., Gaye Acikdilli, and Christopher Ziemnowicz. 2020. Creative destruction in international trade: Insights from the quadruple and quintuple innovation Helix models. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 11: 1489–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castro, Robin. 2019. Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Education and Information Technologies 24: 2523–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavusgil, S. Tamer. 2021. Advancing knowledge on emerging markets: Past and future research in perspective. International Business Review 30: 101796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cecchin, Andrea, Roberta Salomone, Pauline Deutz, Andrea Raggi, and Laura Cutaia. 2021. What is in a name? The rising star of the circular economy as a resource-related concept for sustainable development. Circular Economy and Sustainability 1: 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuang, Li-Min, Yu-Po Lee, and Te-Hui Liu. 2022. Towards Sustainable Business Model Innovation for the Pharmaceutical Industry. Sustainability 14: 11760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, Charles M. A., and Aleksandr V. Gevorkyan. 2020. Artificial intelligence and human flourishing. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 79: 1307–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahesh, Mehran Badin, Gholamali Tabarsa, Mostafa Zandieh, and Mohammadreza Hamidizadeh. 2020. Reviewing the intellectual structure and evolution of the innovation systems approach: A social network analysis. Technology in Society 63: 101399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahlstrom, Robert, and Rhea Ingram. 2003. Social networks and the adverse selection problem in agency relationships. Journal of Business Research 56: 767–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Canto Viterale, Francisco. 2021. International Scientific Relations. London: Anthem Press. [Google Scholar]
- Didenko, Nikolay I., Gulnara F. Romashkina, Djamilia F. Skripnuk, and Sergei V. Kulik. 2020. Dynamics of trust in institutions, the legitimacy of the social order, and social open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6: 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edgren, John. 1996. Modeling Institutional Change: Some Critical Thoughts. Journal of Economic Issues 30: 1017–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faissal Bassis, Nihad, and Fabiano Armellini. 2018. Systems of innovation and innovation ecosystems: A literature review in search of complementarities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 28: 1053–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fedotova, Maria, Valentina Tarasova, and Elena Mallaeva. 2022. Factors and Conditions of Effective Dynamic Innovative Development of Aviation Industry Enterprises. In Proceedings of the International Conference Engineering Innovations and Sustainable Development. Edited by Svetlana Ashmarina and Valentina Mantulenko. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 210. Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Fortes, Patrícia, António Alvarenga, Júlia Seixas, and Sofia Rodrigues. 2015. Long-term energy scenarios: Bridging the gap between socio-economic storylines and energy modeling. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 91: 161–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gifford, Ethan, Maureen McKelvey, and Rögnvaldur Saemundsson. 2021. The evolution of knowledge-intensive innovation ecosystems: Co-evolving entrepreneurial activity and innovation policy in the West Swedish maritime system. Industry and Innovation 28: 651–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greif, Avner. 2006. Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Hermann, Arturo. 2018. The Decline of the ‘Original Institutional Economics’ in the Post-World War II Period and the Perspectives of Today. Economic Thought 7: 63–86. [Google Scholar]
- Inglehart, Ronald. 2018. Cultural Evolution: How People’s Motivations are Changing and How this is Changing the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Inglehart, Ronald, and Christian Welzel. 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy. The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Jewell, Donald O., Sandra F. Jewell, and Bruce E. Kaufman. 2022. Designing and implementing high-performance work systems: Insights from consulting practice for academic researchers. Human Resource Management Review 32: 100749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kar, Arpan Kumar, Vigneswara Ilavarasan, M. P. Gupta, Marijn Janssen, and Ravi Kothari. 2019. Moving beyond smart cities: Digital nations for social innovation & sustainability. Information Systems Frontiers 21: 495–501. [Google Scholar]
- Kesavan, Nandhini, Senthilkumar Seenuvasaragavan, Katie Burnette, Ashley Barbar Heim, Rishi Jai Patel, Juliet Johnston, Xiangkun Cao, Hafiz Arbab Sakandar, Yan Zhuang, Kathryn Oi, and et al. 2022. Pandemic-inspired policies. Science 377: 22–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khlyustova, Iana, and Nikolai Podorvanyuk. 2016. Big Challenges for an Undeveloped Country. A Draft Strategy for the Scientific and Technological Development of Russia until 2035. Available online: https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2016/06/23_a_8323121.shtml (accessed on 16 September 2022).
- Khodyrev, Vladimir. 2010. Murmanchanin Explained Why There Is No New Lefty in Russia. Komsomolskaya Pravda. Available online: https://www.murmansk.kp.ru/daily/24436/603374 (accessed on 20 September 2022).
- Kivimaa, Paula, and Karoline S. Rogge. 2022. Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: The case of mobility as a service in Finland. Research Policy 51: 104412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klain, Sarah C., Paige Olmsted, Kai M. A. Chan, and Terre Satterfield. 2017. Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE 12: e0183962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Klarin, Anton, and Pradeep Kanta Ray. 2019. Political connections and strategic choices of emerging market firms: Case study of Russia’s pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Emerging Markets 14: 410–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kołczyńska, Marta. 2020. Democratic values, education, and political trust. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 61: 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kryshtanovych, Svitlana, Olha Prosovych, Yaroslav Panas, Nataliia Trushkina, and Vladyslav Omelchenko. 2022. Features of the Socio-Economic Development of the Countries of the World under the influence of the Digital Economy and COVID-19. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 22: 9–14. [Google Scholar]
- Lacasa, Iciar Dominguez. 2014. Ceremonial Encapsulation and the Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technology in Germany. Journal of Economic Issues 48: 1073–93. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, Keun, Jongho Lee, and Juneyoung Lee. 2021. Variety of national innovation systems (NIS) and alternative pathways to growth beyond the middle-income stage: Balanced, imbalanced, catching-up, and trapped NIS. World Development 144: 105472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundvall, Bengt-Åke. 2010. The Learning Economy and the Economics of Hope. London: Anthem Press. [Google Scholar]
- Lupova-Henry, Evgeniya, Sam Blili, and Cinzia Dal Zotto. 2021. Clusters as institutional entrepreneurs: Lessons from Russia. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 10: 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maldonado-Villalpando, Erandi, Jaime Paneque-Gálvez, Federico Demaria, and Brian M. Napoletano. 2022. Grassroots innovation for the pluriverse: Evidence from Zapatismo and autonomous Zapatista education. Sustainability Science 17: 1301–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miceli, Antonio, Birgit Hagen, Maria Pia Riccardi, Francesco Sotti, and Davide Settembre-Blundo. 2021. Thriving, not just surviving in changing times: How sustainability, agility and digitalization intertwine with organizational resilience. Sustainability 13: 2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mokyr, Joel. 2016. A Culture of Growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Nilsen, Elin Anita, and Anne Grete Sandaunet. 2021. Implementing new practice: The roles of translation, progression and reflection. Journal of Change Management 21: 307–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ninan, Johan, Natalya Sergeeva, and Graham Winch. 2022. Narrative shapes innovation: A study on multiple innovations in the UK construction industry. Construction Management and Economics 40: 884–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- North, Douglass. 1989. Institutions and economic growth: An historical introduction. World Development 17: 1319–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- North, Douglass. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- North, Douglass. 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Nureev, Rustem, Vyacheslav Volchik, and Wadim Strielkowski. 2020. Neoliberal reforms in higher education and the import of institutions. Social Sciences 9: 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paptsov, Andrey, Vasiliy Nechaev, and Pavel Valerievich Mikhailushkin. 2019. Towards to a single innovation space in the agrarian sector of the member states of the Eurasian economic union: A case study. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 7: 637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pel, Bonno, Alex Haxeltine, Flor Avelino, Adina Dumitru, René Kemp, Tom Bauler, Iris Kunze, Jens Dorland, Julia Wittmayer, and Michael Søgaard Jørgensen. 2020. Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: A relational framework and 12 propositions. Research Policy 49: 104080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perry, Keston. 2020. Innovation, institutions and development: A critical review and grounded heterodox economic analysis of late-industrialising contexts. Cambridge Journal of Economics 44: 391–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proksch, Dorian, Julia Busch-Casler, Marcus Max Haberstroh, and Andreas Pinkwart. 2019. National health innovation systems: Clustering the OECD countries by innovative output in healthcare using a multi indicator approach. Research Policy 48: 169–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Risi, David, Laurence Vigneau, Stephan Bohn, and Christopher Wickert. 2023. Institutional theory-based research on corporate social responsibility: Bringing values back in. International Journal of Management Reviews 25: 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Abitia, Guillermo, and Graciela Bribiesca-Correa. 2021. Assessing digital transformation in universities. Future Internet 13: 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenberg, Nathan, and Luther Earle Birdzell. 1986. How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation of the Industrial World. London: IB Tauris & Co. Ltd. Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenberg, Nathan, and Luther Earle Birdzell. 1990. Science, technology and the Western miracle. Scientific American 263: 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roud, Vitaliy, and Valeriya Vlasova. 2020. Strategies of industry-science cooperation in the Russian manufacturing sector. The Journal of Technology Transfer 45: 870–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiller, Robert. 2019. Narrative Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Shmeleva, Nadezhda, Leyla Gamidullaeva, Tatyana Tolstykh, and Denis Lazarenko. 2021. Challenges and opportunities for technology transfer networks in the context of open innovation: Russian experience. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7: 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solis-Navarrete, José Alberto, Saray Bucio-Mendoza, and Jaime Paneque-Gálvez. 2021. What is not social innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 173: 121190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sołoducho-Pelc, Letycja, and Adam Sulich. 2020. Between sustainable and temporary competitive advantages in the unstable business environment. Sustainability 12: 8832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanas, Olga. 2010. “Yes, We Have Seen Your Modernization”: Business Explained Why It Does Not Believe in Modernization. Available online: https://www.gazeta.ru/financial/2010/10/06/3426367.shtml (accessed on 10 September 2022).
- Thompson, Paul, and Knut Laaser. 2021. Beyond technological determinism: Revitalising labour process analyses of technology, capital and labour. Work in the Global Economy 1: 139–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolstykh, Tatyana, Leyla Gamidullaeva, and Nadezhda Shmeleva. 2020. Elaboration of a mechanism for sustainable enterprise development in innovation ecosystems. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6: 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tortia, Ermanno C., Florence Degavre, and Simone Poledrini. 2020. Why are social enterprises good candidates for social innovation? Looking for personal and institutional drivers of innovation. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 91: 459–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsygankov, Andrei. 2019. Russia’s Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity. London: Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar]
- Tsygankov, Sergey, Vadim Syropyatov, and Vyacheslav Volchik. 2021. Institutional Governance of Innovations: Novel Insights of Leadership in Russian Public Procurement. Economies 9: 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuckett, David, and Milena Nikolic. 2017. The role of conviction and narrative in decision-making under radical uncertainty. Theory & Psychology 27: 501–23. [Google Scholar]
- Varadarajan, Rajan, Roman B. Welden, Sarav Arunachalam, Michael Haenlein, and Shaphali Gupta. 2022. Digital product innovations for the greater good and digital marketing innovations in communications and channels: Evolution, emerging issues, and future research directions. International Journal of Research in Marketing 39: 482–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbeek, Arnold, Koenraad Debackere, Marc Luwel, Petra Andries, Edwin Zimmermann, and Filip Deleus. 2002. Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes. Scientometrics 54: 399–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volchik, Vyacheslav. 2017. Narrative and Institutional Economics. Journal of Institutional Studies 9: 132–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Webb, Justin W., Theodore A. Khoury, and Michael A. Hitt. 2020. The influence of formal and informal institutional voids on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 44: 504–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welzel, Christian. 2013. Freedom Rising. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- West, Sarah Myers. 2019. Data capitalism: Redefining the logics of surveillance and privacy. Business & Society 58: 20–41. [Google Scholar]
- Whalen, Charles. 2021. Storytelling and Institutional Change: The Power and Pitfalls of Economic Narratives. In Institutional Economics: Perspectives and Methods in Pursuit of a Better World. Edited by Charles Whalen. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- World Values Survey. 2022. Available online: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org (accessed on 20 August 2022).
- Yang, Fengwei, and Sai Gu. 2021. Industry 4.0, a revolution that requires technology and national strategies. Complex & Intelligent Systems 7: 1311–25. [Google Scholar]
- Yerznkyan, Bagrat. 2012. Institutional Economics at the Crossroads: A View from Russia. Montenegrin Journal of Economics 8: 27–45. [Google Scholar]
- Zambon, Ilaria, Massimo Cecchini, Gianluca Egidi, Maria Grazia Saporito, and Andrea Colantoni. 2019. Revolution 4.0: Industry vs. agriculture in a future development for SMEs. Processes 7: 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, Jianyu, Guangdong Wu, Xi Xi, Qi Na, and Weiwei Liu. 2018. How collaborative innovation system in a knowledge-intensive competitive alliance evolves? An empirical study on China, Korea and Germany. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 137: 128–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Qin, and Carl Mitcham. 2020. Liu Zeyuan’s philosophy of engineering and technology: An introduction to his Marxist socioeconomic theory. Technology in Society 63: 101351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziablov, Evgeny. 2019. Factory-Inventor: How to Keep Production Secrets Secret. Available online: https://legal-support.ru/information/publications/zavod-izobretatel-kak-sohranit-v-taine-sekrety-proizvodstva (accessed on 28 September 2022).
- Živojinović, Ivana, Alice Ludvig, and Karl Hogl. 2019. Social innovation to sustain rural communities: Overcoming institutional challenges in Serbia. Sustainability 11: 7248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power: Barack Obama’s Books of 2019. London: Profile Books. [Google Scholar]
- Zuo, Siming, Mingxia Zhu, Zhexiao Xu, Judit Oláh, and Zoltan Lakner. 2021. The Dynamic Impact of Natural Resource Rents, Financial Development, and Technological Innovations on Environmental Quality: Empirical Evidence from BRI Economies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zysk, Katarzyna. 2021. Defence innovation and the 4th industrial revolution in Russia. Journal of Strategic Studies 44: 543–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Questions from WVS Database | Answers |
---|---|---|
Comfortable | Science and technology are making our lives healthier, easier, and more comfortable | A scale from 1 to 10, where 1—totally disagree, 10—totally agree |
Opportunities | Because of science and technology, there will be more opportunities for the next generation | |
Science_faith | We depend too much on science and not enough on faith | |
Bad_effects | One of the bad effects of science is that it breaks down people’s ideas of right and wrong | |
Importance | It is not important for me to know about science in my daily life | |
World_better | The world is better off, or worse off, because of science and technology | A scale from 1 to 10, where 1—is much worse, 10—is much better |
Variable | Questions from WVS Database | Answers (Answer Types in the Survey) |
---|---|---|
People_trust | Most people can be trusted | % of respondents in i-th country who believe that most people can be trusted |
Confidence_Press | Confidence: The Press | scale from 1 to 4, where 1—completely trust, 4—do not trust at all |
Confidence_TV | Confidence: Television | scale from 1 to 4, where 1—completely trust, 4—do not trust at all |
Variable | Within Standard Deviations | Between Standard Deviations | Coefficients of Variation (Wave 6) | Coefficients of Variation (Wave 7) |
---|---|---|---|---|
GII | 3.194 | 11.504 | 0.277 | 0.344 |
Comfortable | 0.338 | 0.568 | 0.068 | 0.087 |
Opportunities | 0.339 | 0.551 | 0.068 | 0.080 |
Science_faith | 0.378 | 0.919 | 0.169 | 0.155 |
Bad_effects | 0.464 | 0.727 | 0.132 | 0.132 |
Importance | 0.424 | 0.758 | 0.155 | 0.179 |
World_better | 0.400 | 0.727 | 0.095 | 0.113 |
People_trust | 4.739 | 14.964 | 0.695 | 0.713 |
Confidence_Press | 16.365 | 32.398 | 2.511 | 2.010 |
Confidence_TV | 16.653 | 37.070 | 17.274 | 4.677 |
Variable | FE Model | RE Model |
---|---|---|
Const | 33.005 *** (11.602) | 50.392 *** (9.912) |
Comfortable | −7.309 *** (1.999) | −5.665 *** (1.570) |
Opportunities | 2.277 (1.656) | 0.066 (1.479) |
Science_faith | 4.002 ** (1.691) | 1.583 (1.317) |
Bad_effects | −0.723 (0.930) | −0.185 (1.091) |
Importance | −2.490 ** (1.026) | −1.718 ** (0.849) |
World_better | 4.528 *** (1.211) | 3.229 *** (1.087) |
People_trust | 0.200 *** (0.074) | 0.365 *** (0.072) |
Confidence_Press | 0.0628 * (0.036) | 0.112 ** (0.050) |
Confidence_TV | −0.020 (0.049) | −0.104 ** (0.046) |
τ | −2.232 *** (0.821) | −3.177 *** (0.721) |
N | 136 | 136 |
R2-within | 0.697682 | - |
LSDV R2 | 0.991971 | - |
Wald joint test on time dummies - Null hypothesis: No time effects Asymptotic test statistic: Chi-square (1) = 7.384 with p-value = 0.0066 | ||
Robust test for differing group intercepts - Null hypothesis: The groups have a common intercept Test statistic: Welch F (67, 45.8) = 88.840 with p-value = P(F(67, 45.8) > 88.8403) = 5.7572 × 10−34 | ||
Breusch-Pagan test - Null hypothesis: Variance of the unit-specific error = 0 Asymptotic test statistic: Chi-square (1) = 15.579 with p-value = 7.91149 × 10−5 | ||
Hausman test - Null hypothesis: GLS estimates are consistent Asymptotic test statistic: Chi-square (10) = 89.853 with p-value = 5.72882 × 10−15 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Volchik, V.; Maslyukova, E.; Strielkowski, W. Perception of Scientific and Social Values in the Sustainable Development of National Innovation Systems. Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 215. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12040215
Volchik V, Maslyukova E, Strielkowski W. Perception of Scientific and Social Values in the Sustainable Development of National Innovation Systems. Social Sciences. 2023; 12(4):215. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12040215
Chicago/Turabian StyleVolchik, Vyacheslav, Elena Maslyukova, and Wadim Strielkowski. 2023. "Perception of Scientific and Social Values in the Sustainable Development of National Innovation Systems" Social Sciences 12, no. 4: 215. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12040215