Distribution of responsibility for science, technology and

Distribution of responsibility, or authority rights²⁰, is the expression of distribution of power vested in actors in the research system to:

• decide on funding;

• decide on research priorities (including infrastructure issues); and

• act (e.g. to distribute grants).

This distribution of responsibilities is the mechanism through which priorities are decided and implemented in the STIS. These also provide the opportunities and limitation for designing and implementing research evaluation systems (performance-based research funding system).

Grasping the distribution of responsibilities, strategic, operational and executive, in the Georgian STIS has probably been the most challenging part of our work.

Figure 2 presents the current structure of the STIS in Georgia and indicates the nominal distribution of responsibility.

20 Please note that in this part of the report ‘division of responsibilities’ and ‘authority rights’ are interchangeable.

Figure 2: Georgian STIS structure and distribution of responsibility

Source: MOESD and GITA with adaptations by authors

The top-level coordination body is the Research and Innovation Council (RIC), which was created in 2015. The RIC is chaired by the prime minister and the members are the ministers of the MOESD, MES, finance, foreign affairs, justice, regional development and infrastructure, defence, labour, health and social affairs, agriculture; heads of the two parliamentary committees; three business representatives, the president of the National Academy of Science, the director of the SRNSFG, the director of the IPR Agency (National Intellectual Property Center of Georgia - Sakpatenti), and four scientists. In this respect, the RIC is rather large in terms of members. The executive secretary is the director of GITA, which also provides the operational support for it. The RIC does not have its own budget. One of its main tasks is to identify Georgia’s thematic priorities by government decree, which has yet to be done.

Until now, the RIC has proved limited in its operational capacity. It is not yet carrying out strategy and broad policymaking, but is solving lower-level practical issues. In 2017, the RIC met twice, in both cases to decide on innovation-related matters; one meeting was on crowdfunding and the second on whether it should be possible for an actor from abroad to be a GITA beneficiary. The RIC’s work is rather imbalanced in that it is focused on the innovation sphere, which reflects the leading role of GITA in its management, and

Prime Minister

MES – Ministry of Education and Science

MOESD – Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development MRDI – Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure MOF – Ministry of Finance

MCS – Ministry of Culture and Sports

MEPA – Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture

MOH – Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs MOD – Ministry of Defence

SRNSFG – Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation of Georgia GITA – Georgian Innovation and Technology Agency

EDA – Enterprise Development Agency (Enterprise Georgia) GNAS – Georgian National Academy of Sciences thematic working groups

Research and Innovation Council (RIC)

Executive level

MOH MOD

MOF ^MEPA

the priority that top government actors attach to innovation activities compared to research. Once again this confirms our finding that R&I are somewhat separated, and are not managed and working in an aligned and synergetic way.

Looking at Figure 2, and based on our interviews with representatives from all the relevant organisational actors in Georgia, the following is worth noting:

(1) The RIC, the Office of the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Committee on Education, Science and Culture, nominally, represent the strategic level in the system.

(2) In effect, our investigation indicates that the RIC has not lived up to its strategic responsibilities. It does not meet often enough and its large and extensive membership means that decision-making is almost impossible.

(3) RIC’s weakness regarding strategic matters in the system has been offset by the Office of the Prime Minister taking on further responsibility. Unfortunately, this is where the strategic, operational and the executive start to blur.

Following numerous discussions with stakeholders in Georgia, our impression is that the operational, and even the executive, have come to dominate, and even replace, the strategic²¹.

(4) The operational, or ministerial level in the system is fragmented and there is no coordination of policy²².

(5) The executive level is well developed (mainly through the two agencies SRNSFG and GITA) but it reflects, and suffers from, fragmentation at the operational level.

We believe that these deficiencies at strategic, operational and executive level ought to be addressed to allow for positive changes in the STIS in Georgia. The two major issues here are the need to strengthen the strategic level and to develop, and implement, measures for coordination and cooperation at the operational level.

Another matter worth noting is the position of Georgia’s universities in the STIS.

According to the country’s legal framework, universities in Georgia are autonomous²³; this means that they have complete discretion over their

21 One theme that was voiced in most accounts of the role of the Office of the Prime Minister was the need to have its approval for purchasing equipment and submitting research proposals to international funding bodies.

22 Ministers meet at RIC sessions which, even assuming this body fulfilled its strategic functions, is not the level at which operational policy happens. There is no mechanism to coordinate ministerial policy at the departmental level.

23 The principle of autonomy of the higher educational institutions is stipulated in the Law of Georgia on Higher Education as one of the leading principles of the national higher education system. See more at https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/eacea-site/files/countryfiche_georgia_2017.pdf, Sections 1.6, 2.1. and 2.2.

recruitment, teaching and research activities. However, our meeting with the university rectors indicated the following:

(1) University leadership appeared to have little leadership experience. Most of their activities are better described as ‘administration’ rather than ‘leadership’.

(2) Externally, university leaders have authority mainly as part of personal histories and trajectories.

(3) Internally, university leadership has very limited strategic capacity because there is no strategic budget in the organisation that can be used to trigger changes. Tuition fees are just about enough to cover recurrent spend (salaries, basic facilities) while research funding only covers research staff salaries at a very low level.

Hence, we assume that the autonomy of Georgian universities is in fact restricted rather than enhanced (as the discourse goes) by previous rounds of reforms. The universities can be truly autonomous only when involved in structural and policy arrangements that incentivise them to exchange knowledge for funding, thereby making them active contributors to society and economy.

To summarise, the three governance problems of Georgia’s STIS likely to affect its ability to introduce research priorities, implement a PRFS and bridge the gap between research and economy are:

(a) unclear strategic, operational and executive responsibilities;

(b) fragmentation at the operational and executive level; and

(c) universities’ limited strategic and leadership capacity while assuming autonomy.