Evidence-Based Policy of Technological Sovereignty and Its Design | South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences
Evidence-Based Policy of Technological Sovereignty and Its Design
Vol. 23 (2022) No. 3, Public Politics
Vol. 23 (2022) No. 3
Public Politics

Evidence-Based Policy of Technological Sovereignty and Its Design

Smorgunov L.V.
St. Petersburg State University
ORCID ID 0000-0002-2581-2975
PDF (Russian)
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-23-3-6-19
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-23-3-6-19

How to Cite Array

Smorgunov L.V. (2022) Evidence-Based Policy of Technological Sovereignty and Its Design. South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences, 23 (3), pp. 6-19. DOI: 10.31429/26190567-23-3-6-19 (In Russian)
Submission Date 2022-12-10
Accepted Date 2022-12-28
Published Date 2023-02-28

Copyright (c) 2023 Леонид Владимирович Сморгунов

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The paper is devoted to the study of ensuring the policy of technological sovereignty in Russia. The primary objective is to explore public strategies for justifying an evidence-­based policy of technological sovereignty as the basis for building the public trust in it. The content of three strategies for substantiating the policy of technological sovereignty – the technocratic, the economic, and the civilizational – is disclosed. This article substantiates the mixed nature of the use of strategies in the public discourse of power with a certain dominance of the technocratic strategy. The specific features of the coalition of evidence-­based policy of technological sovereignty are also described. In Russia, the coalition rests on a centralized vertical model for managing scientific and technological development progress, but it also includes financial, expert, manufacturing, civilian, and other interest groups. The paper reveals the coalition’s system of beliefs, which consists of the deep underlying foundation – the core of policy (the primary normative commitments) – and the secondary aspects of policy. It describes the perspectives of evidence-­based policy design for technological sovereignty, which includes goals, actors, resources, capabilities, tools, mechanisms, and evaluation. The problems covered in the article are based on the discourse analysis of a purposive sample of texts carried out in the course of the grant research, consisting of 21 speeches given by politicians and experts (from May to September 2022) and three Resolutions of the Russian Government (issued between September and December 2022) on the formation of the policy of technological sovereignty. The description of the conceptual foundations of evidence-­based technological sovereignty policy in the context of trust and the strengthening of technological sovereignty may be regarded as a definite contribution to the theory of evidence-­based public policy under challenging and contingent settings.

Keywords

technological sovereignty, evidence-­based policy, policy justification strategies, evidence-­based policy coalition, policy design, Russia

Acknowledgements

The material was prepared under the EISI grant and task of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation “Evidence-­based policies of technological sovereignty and trust: A study of public justification strategies”.

References

  1. A European Strategy for Data. European Commission. Brussels (2020). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0066&from=EN
  2. Afanas’ev, A.A. (2022). Tekhnologicheskiy suverenitet kak nauchnaya kategoriya v sisteme sovremennogo znaniya [Technological Sovereignty as a Scientific Category in the Contemporary Knowledge System]. Ekonomika, predprinimatel’stvo i pravo [Journal of Economics, Entrepreneurship and Law], 12(9), 2377–2394. DOI 10.18334/epp.12.9.116243
  3. Amir, S. (2013). The Technological State in Indonesia: The Co-constitution of High Technology and Authoritarian Politics. London and New York: Routledge.
  4. Bassens, D., & Hendrikse, R. (2022). Asserting Europe’s Technological Sovereignty amid American Platform Finance: Countering Financial Sector Dependence on Big Tech? Political Geography, 97, 1026–1048. DOI 10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102648
  5. Bilotta, N. (2020). Chto stoit za tsifrovym nalogom: vyzovy bor’by Yevropeyskogo soyuza za tekhnologicheskiy suverenitet [Beyond the Digital Tax: The Challenges of the EU’s Scramble for Technological Sovereignty]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy [Bulletin of International Organizations], 15(4), 30–47. DOI 10.17323/1996-7845-2020-04-02
  6. Couture, S., & Toupin, S. (2019). What Does the Notion of “Sovereignty” Mean when Referring to the Digital? New Media & Society, 21(10), 2305–2322. DOI 10.1177/1461444819865984
  7. Danilin, I. (2021). Amerikano-kitayskaya tekhnologicheskaya voyna cherez prizmu tekhnonatsionalizma [The U. S.-China Technological War Through the Prism of Techno-Nationalism]. Puti k miru i bezopasnosti [Pathways to Peace and Security], 1(60), 29–43. DOI 10.20542/2307-1494-2021-1-29-43
  8. Dmitriy Chernyshenko: Obespecheniye tekhnologicheskoy nezavisimosti trebuyet novykh kompetentsiy ot upravlentsev v sfere nauki i vysokikh tekhnologiy [Ensuring Technological Independence Requires new Competencies from Managers in the Field of Science and high Technology]. Sayt Pravitel’stva RF [Website of the Government of the Russian Federation]. Retrieved from http://government.ru/news/47232/
  9. Globerman, S. (1978). Canadian Science Policy and Technological Sovereignty. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques, 4(1), 34–45.
  10. Gruin, J. (2019). Financializing Authoritarian Capitalism: Chinese Fintech and the Institutional Foundations of Algorithmic Governance. Finance and Society, 5(2), 84–104. DOI 10.2218/finsoc.v5i2.4135
  11. Heclo, H. (1995). Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. Public Policy Theories, Models, and Concepts. An Anthology / Ed. By McCool D. (pp. 268–287). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
  12. Kim, S. E., & Urpelainen, J. (2014). Technology Competition and International Co-operation: Friends or Foes? British Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 545–574.
  13. Koptev, Yu. N., Kutakhov, V. P., Rusinov, A. A. (2015). Tekhnologiya realizatsii gosudarstvennoy politiki Rossii po ukrepleniyu oboronosposobnosti, suvereniteta i tekhnologicheskomu razvitiyu promyshlennosti [The Technology of Russia’s State Policy Implementation as for the Defense Potential and Sovereignty Strengthening, and for the Industry Technological Development]. Rossiyskoye predprinimatel’stvo [Russian Journal of EntrepreneurshiP], 16(21), 3649–3658. DOI 10.18334/rp.16.21.2016
  14. Polnogo tekhnologicheskogo suvereniteta dostich’ nevozmozhno, zayavil Gref [Full Technological Sovereignty is Impossible to Achieve, Gref] (2022). RIA Novosti [RIA News]. Retrieved from https://ria.ru/20220907/suverenitet-1815005465.html
  15. Reytingi doveriya politikam, otsenki raboty prezidenta i pravitel’stva, podderzhka politicheskikh partiy [Ratings of Trust in Politicians, Evaluation of the President and the Government, Support for Political Parties] (2022). VTSIOM Novosti [VCIOM News]. Retrieved from https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/reitingi-doverija-politikam-ocenki-raboty-prezidenta-i-pravitelstva-podderzhka-politicheskikh-partii-20221209
  16. Rohe, S., & Mattes, J. (2022). What about the regional level? Regional configurations of Technological Innovation Systems. Geoforum, 129, 60–73. DOI 10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.01.007
  17. Sá, C., Kretz, A., & Sigurdson, K. (2013). Techno-Nationalism and the Construction of University Technology Transfer. Minerva, 51(4), 443–464.
  18. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  19. Sem’ya, G. V., Stanilevskij, V. V., Gazaryan, A. A., Nekrasov, A. S. (2022). Dokazatel’nyy podkhod v upravlenii: dokazatel’nyy menedzhment i dokazatel’naya politika [Evidence-Based Approach to Governance: Evidence-Based Management and Evidence-Based Policy]. Social’naya psihologiya i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 13(1), 209–223. DOI 10.17759/sps.2022000001
  20. Shkodinskiy, S. V., Kushnir, A. M., & Prodchenko, I. A. (2022). Vliyaniye sanktsiy na tekhnologicheskiy suverenitet Rossii [The Impact of Sanctions on Russia’s Technological Sovereignty]. Problemy rynochnoy ekonomiki [Problems of the Market Economy], 2, 75–96. DOI 10.33051/2500-2325-2022-2-75-96
  21. Smorgunov, L.V. (Ed.). (2015). Upravleniye publichnoy politikoy: Kollektivnaya monografiya [Governance of Public Policy]. M.: Aspekt-Press.
  22. Solleiroa, J. L., & Castanon, R. (2005). Competitiveness and Innovation Systems: The Challenges for Mexico’s Insertion in the Global Context. Technovation, 25, 1059–1070.
  23. Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 14.04.2022 № 203 “O Mezhvedomstvennoy komissii Soveta Bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii po voprosam obespecheniya tekhnologicheskogo suvereniteta gosudarstva v sfere razvitiya kriticheskoy informatsionnoy infrastruktury Rossiyskoy Federatsii” [Presidential Decree of 14.04.2022 № 203 “On the Interagency Commission of the Security Council of the Russian Federation on Ensuring the Technological Sovereignty of the State in the Development of Critical Information Infrastructure of the Russian Federation”]. Retrieved from http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202204140035?index=0&rangeSize=1
  24. Wriston, W.B. (1988). Technology and Sovereignty. Foreign Affairs, 67(2), 63–75.