2.2 R&D Trends since 1991
2.2.6 Human resources of Russian R&D
Microlevel adjustments by R&D institutions to the economic environment explain to a considerable extent the current trends in R&D employment, which at first glance look puzzling. From 1990 to 1994 R&D expenditures measured in real terms were reduced by almost 77 percent, while employment in R&D institutions decreased by only 43 percent (Exhibit A2.1). This is an indirect indication of the worsening renumeration of researchers and the decline of actual R&D activity by the remaining research staff.
The process of reduction in employment in R&D institutions has been uneven.
During the first stage between 1989 and 1991, the employment reductions were concentrated in the technical and support staffs in an effort to keep research teams together. The reduced number of technicians, laboratory assistants, and support workers inevitably reduced the productivity of scientists who were often forced to combine research with support activities. By 1994, the proportion of support per-sonnel stabilized at 42 percent of the total employment, compared with 37 percent in 1990 (Exhibit A2.2). The share of researchers continued to decline, reflecting the fact that many research institutes are gradually turning toward economic activities and away from scientific activities.
Most of the staff reductions were voluntary departures, reflecting the outflow of scientists and engineers to the business sector – the so-called internal brain drain. The opportunities and rewards in business have made the sector increas-ingly attractive to qualified and enterprising people. Seventy-one percent of those leaving R&D employment list higher salaries as a prime reason for their decision.
Highly qualified researchers can easily find employment in the rapidly growing business sector, and many top-level managers of banks, industrial groups, joint
ventures, and newly privatized companies have doctoral degrees in scientific fields.
This redistribution of talent in favor of new market segments is probably a gain for the national economy as a whole but a loss to research. Less-qualified staff members, experiencing difficulties in employment, are returning to the relatively low-salaried positions in the budgetary-supported R&D sector, thus restaffing the support positions.
With the reduction in the number of R&D personnel, the share of researchers with advanced degrees increased from 7 to 10 percent from 1989 to 1994 (Exhibit A2.2). Over this same period there was an absolute growth of 16.2 percent in the number of doctors of science. The change reflects the tendency of the young staff members without advanced degrees and holding junior positions in the R&D institutes to leave in large numbers.
The Academy sector has had the smallest reduction in personnel. R&D per-sonnel in the RAS decreased by only 14 percent from 1990 to 1994, which is almost one-third of the average decline in Russia (38 percent) and in industrial R&D in-stitutions (38 percent). Full-time R&D staff declined by 60 percent at universities and by 42 percent at R&D units in enterprises.
Employment in R&D is determined in part by noneconomic motivations. Ac-cording to a 1995 survey conducted by the CSRS almost 60 percent of all researchers and 70 percent of those in the Academy were planning to continue as researchers since they regard research as a lifelong commitment. Only 3 percent of respon-dents declared a firm intention to change their jobs. Approximately 72 percent of respondents emphasized that their interest in the profession is the main reason for staying in science; 34 percent hoped for an improvement in the R&D situation.
The improvement that they hope for is primarily better salaries. In 1988, the introduction of a contract-based management mechanism in R&D institutions contributed to a sharp increase in researchers’ salaries. At the beginning of 1989, for the first time in many years, the average monthly salary in R&D rose above that in industry. Salaries began to decline in relative terms in subsequent years, and by 1992 the average salary in R&D was 64 percent of the average for the economy as a whole. Only special efforts by the government allowed this ratio to increase to 73 percent in 1995.
Averages hide an important fact: salaries in the R&D sector can rarely match salaries in other sectors, so few talented young researchers will remain in R&D.
Conversely, researchers 60 years and older are less likely to leave R&D institutions and earn almost 40 percent above the average in the R&D sector. The research institutes’ inability or unwillingness to offer competitive salaries is an important factor in the outflow of persons in the more active working-ages and in the reduced inflow of young scholars. The result is the aging of R&D personnel. As many as 44
percent of the doctors of science are over 60 and the average age of RAS members is between 63 (for economists) and 72 (for international relations experts).
Many scientists who continue their research careers frequently supplement their income with a second salary. Arrears in R&D salary payments by the institutes leave many without any income for months at a time and even those who are paid regard their salaries as inadequate. To survive, many researchers take part-time employment outside their institutes. According to a CSRS estimate, 57 percent of all researchers have contracts with private firms and 80 percent of these researchers are mainly employed by the Academy.
In addition to the internal brain drain and diversion of effort from R&D insti-tutions, there is an international migration of Russian scientists. A recent study by the CSRS, using data from the Ministry of the Interior, provides a good estimate of the proportion of R&D personnel that has emigrated from Russia (Exhibit A2.13).
Emigrants accounted for only 0.5 percent of the total outflow of staff from the R&D sector. This indicates that the process of external brain drain has not taken on serious dimensions. Furthermore, part of the flow of emigration is driven by ethnic factors with the economics of the labor market playing only a minor role.
In addition to migration of R&D personnel, there has been an outflow of researchers for temporary work abroad. The most frequent participants in this type of migration are researchers from the Academy sector. In 1991–1992, 1,101 researchers of the RAS were on long-term tours abroad, in 1993 the number increased to 2,639 (3 percent of total RAS employment). Fifty-five percent of these individuals were under 40; 19 percent were doctors of science; and 51 percent were candidates of science.
These numbers include the “double-life” scientists who spend considerable time abroad but retain their connection with the Russian institute and their Russian residence. While the numbers cited suggest a rather modest quantitative impact, one should realize that it is the highly qualified, talented specialists who are placing their efforts abroad rather than in the work of domestic Russian R&D. If they return with greater skills, Russian R&D gains, but if they do not return to full-time employment or return only when their productive years are over, Russia loses.
The absence of these researchers may have serious consequences on a number of highly qualified scientific groups and promising research areas (Gokhberg, 1996b;
Nekipelova et al., 1994).
Our analysis has shown that Russian S&T has approached a turning point: the demand for R&D has already radically shifted and the supply (including efficiency and quality) is also going through changes. Its future depends more on the re-forms for the entire economy than on rere-forms specific to S&T. These rere-forms will determine whether the post-Soviet R&D system becomes a high-value, economi-cally adjusted, and effectively operating entity in a flourishing industrial state or
a marginal element in a raw-material-oriented economy. It is obviously important to create the conditions under which the vital forces of Russian R&D can make Russia a prosperous member of the international community.
Notes
[1] Such estimates do not include grants and scholarships allocated to separate scientists for individual research since the statistics are traditionally oriented to legal entities as reporting units. Besides, such grants, as a rule, are for basic research.
[2] Thus, what we are observing is not simply “polarization of R&D spectrum” (Radosevic, 1994). Between 1989 and 1995, small changes in the shares of the extremes or “poles”
– namely, those of basic research and development – were offset, but now some of the former share of applied research is filled by non-R&D activities.