Geography of Research Networks in the Big South of Russia

The geography of research and innovation activity is a traditional topic of research in human geography. Classical studies of the clustering and diffusion of innovation in the 1960s and 70s received a new impetus in the 21st century with the understanding of the openness of innovation and the importance of interregional collaborative networks. Digitalization has played an important role, providing access to new sources of large geocoded data on the movement of key elements of the knowledge economy, including publications as a formalized outcome of scientific activity. The purpose of the article is to identify the center-periphery research ties of one of the largest macroregions of Russia – the Big South of Russia. The aim was to assess the territorial patterns of interregional research networks with the identification of gravity poles and interconnections at the local and national levels. The study uses the method of spatial scientometrics. Geocoded data on publications from the Scopus bibliographic database were used. In the course of the study the hypotheses of “Moscow-centricity” and “St. Petersburg-centricity” of the knowledge domain of the macroregion are tested, the influence of the factor of geographical proximity and the role of the diversity of interregional ties are evaluated, and the “heights-lowlands” of the landscape are revealed. The results of the research have shown a high degree of connectivity between the regions of the Big South of Russia in the research area. The hypothesis about the presence of several centers of gravity of scientific activity in the macroregion was confirmed. First of all, the peaks of the “scientific ridge” of the Big South form Rostov oblast with the largest urban agglomeration in the south of the country, the Rostov urban agglomeration, as well as the Krasnodar krai and Volgograd oblast. The hypothesis of the existence of several centers of scientific activity in the macroregion was confirmed. The influence of the factor of territorial proximity in the formation of research ties is not high and is manifested mainly in the southern Russian regions with relatively low indicators of research output (primarily, it is typical for national republics). Interregional research cooperation between advanced regions is not limited to immediate geographical proximity but is due to a combination of non-territorial factors. The “Moscow-centricity” of the scientific agenda of the regions of the Big South of Russia is true for most of the southern regions of the Russian Federation, which is particularly pronounced in regions with low internal scientific potential and in new regions undergoing a period of transformation of their scientific systems.

1. Alisov N.V. Geography of world science. Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5: Geogr., 1993, no. 6, pp. 7–16. (In Russ.).

2. Adler P., Florida R., King K., Mellander C. The city and high-tech startups: The spatial organization of Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. Cities, 2019, no. 87, pp. 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.013

3. Baburin V.L., Zemtsov S.P. Geography of innovation processes in Russia. Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5: Geogr., 2013, no. 5, pp. 25–32. (In Russ.).

4. Baburin V.L., Zemtsov S.P. Factors of patent activity in Russian regions. Mir Econ. Upravl., 2016, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 86–100. (In Russ.).

5. Bathelt H., Malmberg A., Maskell P. Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Prog. Hum. Geogr., 2004, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph469oa

6. Belyaev D.O., Moisburg P. Geography of knowledge as one of the leading trends of modern geographical science. Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Geogr., 2011, no. 2, pp. 7–16. (In Russ.).

7. Bottazzi L., Peri G. Innovation and spillovers in regions: Evidence from European patent data. Eur. Econ. Rev., 2003, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 687–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(02)00307-0

8. Camagni R. Territorial capital, competitiveness and regional development. In Handbook of regions and competitiveness. Huggins R., Thompson P., Eds. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publ., 2017, pp. 232–244. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783475018.00016

9. Cooke P., Asheim B., Boschma R., Martin R., Schwartz D., Tödtling F. Handbook of regional innovation and growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publ., 2011. 648 p. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857931504

10. De Noni I., Orsi L. Belussi F. The role of collaborative networks in supporting the innovation performances of lagging-behind European regions. Res. Policy, 2018, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.006

11. Druzhinin A.G. South of Russia: notional-terminological conception. Nauch. Mysl’ Kavkaza, 1999, no. 3, pp. 56–64. (In Russ.).

12. Druzhinin A.G. South Russia in the changing geo-strategic context: major structural components and trends (socio-economic geographer scientist view). Nauch. Mysl’ Kavkaza, 2014, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 58–66. (In Russ.).

13. Druzhinin A.G. Actual problems of systematization and unification of geographical terminology in the research of south Russian regionogenesis. Nauch. Mysl’ Kavkaza, 2023, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 5–15. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18522/2072-0181-2023-113-5-15

14. Druzhinin A.G., Rednova I.F. Positioning of the regions of the South of Russia in the interaction between Russia and Turkey: foreign trade aspect. Yuzh.-Ross. Forum: Ekon., Sotsiol., Politol., Sots.-Ekon. Geogr., 2015, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 39–47. (In Russ.).

15. Feldman M.P., Avnimelech G. Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation – revisited: A 20 years’ perspective on the field on geography of innovation. In Handbook of research on innovation and entrepreneurship. Audretsch D.B., Falck O., Heblich S., Lederer A., Eds. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publ., 2011, pp. 150–160. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849807760.00020

16. Frenz M., Lambert R. Open and closed innovations: A comparative analysis of national practices. Forsait, 2008, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 16–31. (In Russ.).

17. Garin E.V. The main factors influencing the indicators of the development level of science, education, innovation economy. Vestn. RGNF, 2018, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 100–112. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22204/2410-4639-2018-099-03-100-112

18. Gonçalves E., de Matos C.M., de Araújo I.F. Path-dependent dynamics and technological spillovers in the Brazilian regions. Appl. Spat. Anal. Polic., 2019, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 605–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-018-9259-5

19. Gorbanyov V.A., Kochurov B.I. The problem of territorial zoning of the Russian federation: domestic and international aspects. Vestn. MGIMO Univ., 2018, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 23–54. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2018-4-61-23-54

20. Kaneva M.A., Untura G.A. Evolution of theories and empirical models of a relationship between economic growth, science and innovations (part 2). Mir Econ. Upravl., 2018, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 5–17. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25205/2542-0429-2018-18-1-5-17

21. Korepanov E.N. Paradoxes in science and innovations. Vestn. Inst. Ekon. RAN, 2019, no. 1, pp. 47–56. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24411/2073-6487-2019-10003

22. Lorentzen A. Knowledge networks in local and global space. Entrep. Reg. Dev., 2008, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620802462124

23. Mikhaylov A.S., Mikhaylova A.A., Hvaley D.V. Sustainable development of the city territorial capital: adaptive policy through the geography of knowledge. Vestn. Balt. Fed. Univ. Kanta, Ser.: Gum. Obshch. Nauki, 2020, no. 2, pp. 38–52. (In Russ.).

24. Morrison A., Rabellotti R., Zirulia L. When do global pipelines enhance the diffusion of knowledge in clusters? Econ. Geogr., 2013, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2012.01167.x

25. Mosconi F., D’Ingiullo D. Institutional quality and innovation: evidence from Emilia-Romagna. Econ. Innov. New Tech., 2023, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2021.1893140

26. Panikarova S.V., Vlasov M.V., Kusnetsov P.D. Assessment of scientific productivity of the universities: institutional approach. Univ. Upravl.: Practika Analiz, 2016, no. 5, pp. 80–89. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15826/umj.2016.105.046

27. Pilyasov A.N., Klimenko N.A. The Baltic macroregion: geographical macrostructures, communication features, innovative potential. Balt. Reg., 2011, no. 3, pp. 61–75. https://doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2011-3-8

28. Platonov V.V., Statovskaya E.Yu., Statovskiy D.A. Localization of innovation processes: beyond the concept of geographical proximity. Innovations, 2015, vol. 201, no. 7, pp. 76–79.

29. Tödtling F., Grillitsch M., Höglinger C. Knowledge sourcing and innovation in Austrian ICT companies – how does geography matter? Ind. Innov., 2012, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2012.694678

30. Tödtling F., Trippl M. Innovation and knowledge links in metropolitan regions: The case of Vienna. In Metropolitan Regions. Advances in Spatial Science. Klaesson J., Johansson B., Karlsson C., Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2013, pp. 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32141-2_19

31. Trippl M., Tödtling F., Lengauer L. Knowledge sourcing beyond buzz and pipelines: evidence from the Vienna software sector. Econ. Geogr., 2009, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01047.x

32. van den Broek J., Benneworth P., Rutten R. Institutionalization of cross-border regional innovation systems: The role of university institutional entrepreneurs. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci., 2019, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2018.1562367

33. Volchik W, Maslyukova E.V., Panteeva S.A. Investigating the approaches to national innovation systems modeling. Econ. Sots. Perem.: Fakty, Tendents., Prognoz, 2021, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 135–150. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2021.5.77.8

34. Zamyatina N.Yu. Figurative relief of Russia (based on the materials of the official websites of the regions of the Russian Federation). Vestn. Evrazii, 2006, no. 2, pp. 5–24. (In Russ.).

35. Zamyatina N.Y., Pilyasov A.N. Concept of proximity: Foreign experience and prospects of application in Russia. Reg. Res. Russ., 2017, vol. 7, pp. 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970517030108

36. Zemtsov S., Kotsemir M. An assessment of regional innovation system efficiency in Russia: the application of the DEA approach. Scientometrics, 2019, vol. 120, no. 2, pp. 375–404.

37. Zemtsov S.P., Barinova V.A., Muradov A.K. What factors affect regional innovation activity? Innovatsii, 2016, vol. 211, no. 5, pp. 64–73. (In Russ.).

38. Zemtsov S.P., Smelov Y.A. Factors of regional development in Russia: Geography, human capital and regional policies. Zh. Novoi Ekon. Assots., 2018, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 84–108. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2018-40-4-4

39. Zemtsov S.P., Baburin V.L., Barinova V.A. How to measure the immeasurable? Assessment of the innovation potential of Russian regions. Kreativ. Ekon., 2015, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 35–52. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18334/ce.9.1.79