* Correspondence: i.dezhina@skoltech.ru Group on Science and Industrial Policy, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Nobelya str., 3, Moscow 143026, Russia Full list of author information is available at the end of the article Introduction Russia has a relatively consistent innovation policy, despite significant changes in the political sphere, from the break-up of the Soviet Union to the re-centralizing of political control during the Putin era. Government was and is the central actor in the innovation system; this system continues to be hierarchical. A hierarchical innovation leadership format well precedes the Soviet Union and may be traced back to innovation modernizers like Peter the Great who established the key institutions of vertical innovation. Nevertheless, a minor key of horizontal triple helix interactions, exemplified by several universities that have explicitly taken on an entrepreneurial mission, has emerged as a complement to centralization, the persisting path dependent major key of Russian Innovation policy and practice. The Russian science and technology system, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, has experienced an ongoing attempt at reform. This effort is characterized by adoption of models from abroad, for example, universities that combine multiple missions of teaching and research as well as innovation and entrepreneurship. Previously, universities were largely confined to education in relative isolation from research institutes. Although this system persists, its importance is reduced, given the increasing significance of universities as research providers. Although instituted top down, complemented with research funding agencies, this reform introduces a horizontal and even bottom-up element into Russian innovation practice as universities are more or less expected to find their own way in implementing this reform. Indeed, the government’s sponsoring of university metrics may be seen as an effort, to influence and track these developments, without trying to exercise strict bureaucratic controls. Some horizontal linkages develop in selected innovative clusters (between large and small companies), in technology platforms that initiate new joint R&D projects. Aside from that, the current system becomes less disconnected as institutes become more involved in teaching, and teaching universities do research and some subset become entrepreneurial, spinning off start-ups, with government seeming to encourage this trend. But centralizing ambitions may be beyond the reach of attainment. In regions where administration cares about innovative development, external conditions for R&D and innovation may be fixed to some extent. Regional governments for that purpose use tax mechanisms, improve customs service, and invest in infrastructure.

中文翻译：

---

俄罗斯创新中的路径依赖和新颖性

*通讯：i.dezhina@skoltech.ru斯科尔科沃科学技术学院科学与产业政策小组，Nobelya str。，3，莫斯科143026，俄罗斯尽管政治领域发生了重大变化，但从苏联解体到普京时代政治控制权的重新集权，都采取了相对一致的创新政策。政府曾经是并且是创新体系中的主要参与者；这个系统仍然是分层的。分层式的创新领导形式早于苏联，并且可以追溯到像彼得大帝这样的创新现代化者，后者建立了垂直创新的关键机构。不过，水平三重螺旋相互作用的次要关键是 几所大学已明确承担了企业使命，这已成为集中化的补充，而集中化是俄罗斯创新政策和实践所依赖的主要途径。苏联解体后，俄罗斯的科学技术体系经历了不断的改革尝试。这种努力的特点是采用国外的模式，例如，结合了教学和研究以及创新和企业家精神的多重使命的大学。以前，大学基本上只限于与研究机构相对隔离的教育。尽管该系统仍然存在，但鉴于大学作为研究提供者的重要性日益提高，其重要性降低了。尽管自上而下成立，并辅以研究资助机构，这项改革为俄罗斯的创新实践引入了一种横向甚至自下而上的要素，因为人们或多或少希望大学找到自己的方式来实施这一改革。确实，政府对大学指标的赞助可能被视为是一种努力，以影响和跟踪这些发展，而无需尝试进行严格的官僚控制。在启动新的联合研发项目的技术平台中，在某些选定的创新集群（大型和小型公司之间）中建立了一些横向联系。除此之外，当前的系统变得越来越不紧密，因为各机构越来越多地参与教学，而教学型大学也进行研究，一部分子公司成为企业家，分拆初创企业，而政府似乎鼓励这种趋势。但是，雄心勃勃的野心可能无法实现。在主管部门关心创新发展的地区，研发和创新的外部条件可能在某种程度上是固定的。为此，地方政府使用税收机制，改善海关服务并投资基础设施。