UDC 001.895
DOI: 10.36871/ek.up.p.r.2025.12.19.012

Авторы

Marina Yu. Semenova,
Anastasia V. Fateeva,
Don State Technical University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

Аннотация

The research aims at studying how the academic world space is formed through the unification of scientific cities across the globe into a single global whole. Today, world science does not have a uniform controlling mechanism, so there is no single global regulator/centre that could take on the regulatory function and provide interaction between science parks and science cities across the globe. Such a regulator would ensure a smooth exchange of scientific R&D products between countries and result in the efficient cooperation in world science. The study examines the concept of “sovereignty” in its historic and contemporary perspective. The concept of sovereignty is analyzed and further discussed according to its main elements. More specifically, it is assumed to combine the fundamental mechanisms of the innovative development of science, which, in its turn, creates independent innovative technologies. As a result, this forms the national technological sovereignty. The article also determines the degree of participation that innovation centres have to ensure the national technological sovereignty and to contribute to the process of interaction between countries in the world economy. Finally, the study determines the influence of technological sovereignty on the structure of global interaction in trade relations between countries.

Ключевые слова

sovereignty, sovereign state, technological sovereignty, scientific innovation centres, production technologies, world scientific complex, science parks

Список литературы

  1. Díez-Vial, I., Montoro-Sánchez, Á. How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park. Technovation. 2016. Vol. 50. P. 41-52. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.001
  2. March, C., Schieferdecker, I. Technological sovereignty as ability, not autarky. International Studies Review. 2023. Vol. 25(2). DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad012
  3. Crespi, F., Caravella, S., Menghini, M. et al. European technological sovereignty: An emerging framework for policy strategy. Intereconomics, 2021. Vol. 56 P. 348–354. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/s10272-021-1013-6
  4. Kuratko, D. F. The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2005. Vol. 29. P. 577–597. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00099.x
  5. Baumol, W. J., and Strom, R. J. Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 2007. Vol. 1. P. 233–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.26
  6. Acs, Z., Bosma, N., and Sternberg, R. “Entrepreneurship in world cities,” in The Dynamics of Entrepreneurship. Evidence from the Global Entrepreneurship, ed. M. Minniti (Oxfort: Oxfort University Press), 2011, P. 125– 152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199580866.003.0007
  7. Estrin, S., Korosteleva, J., and Mickiewicz, T. Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations? Journal of Business Venturing. 2013. Vol. 28. P. 564–580. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j. jbusvent.2012.05.001
  8. Moore G., Davis K. Learning the Silicon Valley way. Building high-tech clusters: Silicon Valley and beyond. 2004. Vol. 7. P. 36.
  9. İsaxanlı, H. Texnopark: Pozitiv-neqativ təcrübələr və realist baxış. DSpace at Khazar University. Periodicals. Khazar – Review. 2015. Vol. 337. P. 1–4.
  10. Fan, P., Hou, M. Zhongguancun model: driving the dual engines of science & technology and capital. Asia Pacific Business Review. 2021. Vol. 27(4). P. 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13602381.2021.1957288.
  11. Zhang, C., Guan, J. Government sponsorship and innovation: the Gazelle Plan in China’s Zhongguancun Science Park. R&D Management. 2022. Vol. 53(1). P. 197–223. (2022). DOI: https://doi. org/10.1111/radm.12557
  12. Rodrigues da Guia Rosa, G. “Do povo, para o povo e pelo povo”: Origem e exercício da soberania popular na teoria política contemporânea. Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política. 2021. P. 19–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102- 019056/113.
  13. Dobrev, M., Garibova, M. Theory of Types of Sovereignty and Degrees of Sovereignty by Prof. Momchil Dobrev and Prof. Mariola Garibova-Dobreva from 2009 and Conquest of Countries and Nations by the Deep Mafia through their Control and Management. Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Studies. 2022. Vol. 05. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47191/jefms/v5-i12-46.
  14. Edler J., Blind, K., Kroll, H., Schubert, T. Тechnology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy. 2023. Vol. 52. DOI: https://doi.org/DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765
  15. Tekdogan, O., Tekin, H. Socio-Cultural Dimension of Innovation in Islamic Economics: A Comparative Analysis of Top Innovative Countries and Muslim Countries. Journal of King Abdulaziz University-Islamic Economics. 2023. Vol. 36. P. 87-112. DOI: https://doi. org/10.4197/Islec.36-2.4.
  16. Shimizu, H., Wakutsu, N. SBIR, Startups, and Subsequent Technological Development: Laser diodes in the United States and Japan. 2024.
  17. Hino, K., Fujii, S., Yamamoto, S., Murakami, A., Watanabe, Sh. The Living Environment in Tsukuba Science City, Japan: Progress and Current Challenges. 2014.
  18. Iwai, Y., Murayama, Y. Sustainability of Science City Tsukuba: From the viewpoint of cognitive–cultural capitalism. Cities. 2023. Vol. 142. P. 104522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104522.
  19. Dyakova, E., Vologdin, E., Grazhdankina, O. Characteristic Features of Finance in “Science Cities”. Vol. 2(6). P. 18–21. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-75483-9_12. 2023.
  20. Dong, X.-Y., Hu, Y., Yin, W., Kuo, E. Zhongguancun Model: Driving the Dual Engines of Science & Technology and Capital. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2267-9.
  21. Koskenniemi M. The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870- 1960. Cambridge University Press. (2001). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494222.
  22. Perrez F. X. Cooperative Sovereignty: From Independence to Interdependence in the Structure of International Environmental Law. (2000). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004478138.
  23. Batura, O., Flickenschild, M., Ramahandry, T., Bonneau, V., Bani, E., Vlasov, N., Tcholtchev, N., Lämmel, Ph., Boerger, M. Key enabling technologies for Europe’s technological sovereignty. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2861/24482.
  24. Fukugawa N. Heterogeneity among science parks with incubators as intermediaries of research collaborations between startups and universities in Japan. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation. 2013. Vol. 12(4). P. 231–262. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1504/IJTTC.2013.071355.
  25. Vásquez-Urriago Á. R., Barge-Gil A., Rico A. M. Science and technology parks and cooperation for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Research Policy. 2016. Vol. 45(1). P. 137–147.
  26. van Oostrom, M., Pedraza-Rodríguez, J., Fernández-Esquinas, M. Does the Location in a Science and Technology Park Influence University – Industry Relationships?: Evidence From a Peripheral Region. International Journal of Knowledge Management. 2019. Vol. 15. DOI: https://doi. org/10.4018/IJKM.2019070104.
  27. Cadorin, E., Klofsten, M., Albahari, A., Etzkowitz, H. Science Parks and the Attraction of Talents: Activities and Challenges. Triple Helix. 2019. Vol. 48. P. 1–33. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1163/21971927-00601002.