Summary Chernysh (Институционализация государственной поддержки инноваций в России 2000-х годов кейс бизнес-инкубаторов), страница 2

The subject of thisresearch is the process of institutionalization in Russia in the period from 2005 to 2012.A number of objectives are planned to be accomplished in order to achieve the goal:1) To systematize the ideas of new institutionalism in organizational theory andeconomic sociology concerning the essence of institutions, the process ofinstitutionalization, opportunities for institutional entrepreneurship, and applythese ideas to the analysis of the formation of the Russian state support for thedevelopment of innovation and technological entrepreneurship.2) Identify the characteristics of technological entrepreneurship as a type ofeconomic activity, affecting the process of institutionalization.3) To study the specificity of the federal policy of supporting innovations byanalyzing the history of its formation, in order to show the possibilities andlimitations of the creation of the institution of state support for the developmentof innovation at the regional level.4) Analyze the process of the establishment of regional business incubators toshow who was involved in it, what resources were used and how this affectedthe formation of rules for the incubation of technological companies.5) Highlight the main features of the process of institutionalization of state supportfor the development of innovations at the regional level using comparativeanalysis of empirical cases of the two business incubators of our choice.The author's personal contribution to exploring the problem and gathering dataIn this work, the author showed how the ideas of new institutionalists cancomplement the ideas developed in innovation studies, and presented an originalinterpretation of the emergence of the incubation institute for technological companies inRussia in the 2000s.The author described two cases of setting up regional business incubators.

On theseexamples the author showed why the sphere of innovation support works in a developed6way in Russia, and also in what conditions the institutional construction initiated at thefederal level can achieve its goals. The results of the research can be the basis foranalytical reports and recommendations on institutional formation for supportinginnovation and technological business.The contribution of institutional entrepreneurship and social skills to theinstitutionalization process was shown on the example of the state support for thedevelopment of innovation and technological entrepreneurship.The results were presented by the author at five conferences.

The program"Technology parks and Business Incubators: spaces for innovations' creation" at theFaculty of Technological Management and Innovations ITMO University was based onthe results reported in this thesis.Theoretical framework of researchInstitutions are defined as a set of routinely reproducible rules that are shared byall members of society, reduce the uncertainty of the environment and increase thepredictability of the social interactions6. By integrating various approaches that reflect thenature of institutions, we will assume that the institutions consist of three pillars regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive. The normative and cultural-cognitive pillarsprovide the functional base of the institution, and the regulative pillar controls therelations between people7.

Any of the pillars forming the institution can be represented ina set of formal and informal practices. In addition, we will take into account thatinstitutions are not isolated from each other, but are connected in related areas. Also,6North D. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Moscow: Economic BookFund «Nachala», 1997. 180 p.

(in Russian).7Scott W. Richard. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Los Angeles; London; NewDelhi: Sage Publications, 2008. 360 p.7institutions that regulate specific areas are complemented by controlling rules. These rulesare created to support the institutions and to track how well they are respected8.Institutionalization is the process of gradual formation of social agreements, whichcement the institute, so that these agreements become indisputable9. In this sense,institutionalization is understood as a process that ensures the establishment of aninstitution.As far as the emergence and consolidation of new rules is concerned, one shouldacknowledge that institutionalization is organized in such a way that the institutionalstructures do not suppress the agents completely, instead they mutually construct eachother10.There are two arguments for understanding the institutionalization as a process:1.

The creation of institutions can be the result of purposeful (strategic)actions, but their outcome and success can not be predicted in advance.2. Institutionalization is the product of political efforts. Thus, the resultof institutionalization will depend on the interests of the actors involved in thedispute over the rules, and on their ability to mobilize others and impose theiropinions on them.Institutional entrepreneurs are the actors who attempt to construct the institutions.They start the process of institutionalization and create new organizational forms.Institutional entrepreneurs start to take action operate in two cases:• they have sufficient resources which enable them to realize their key interests;• the current rules do not meet their interests, and they begin to struggle for newresources, being in a less favorable position as compared to other participants11.8Kouzminov Ya., Radaev V., Yakovlev A., Yasin E.

Institutions: From Import to Raising (Lessons fromthe Russian Reforms and Opportunities for Cultivation of Institutional Change) // Voprosy Ekonomiki.2005. № 5. P. 5−27 (in Russian).9Jepperson R. Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalization.10Garud R., Hardy C., Maguire S.

Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency: An Introductionto the Special Issue // Organization Studies. 2007. Vol. 28 (7). P. 961.11DiMaggio P. Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory // Zucker L. (ed.). Institutional Patterns andOrganization. Cambridge, Ma.: Ballinger Press, 1988. P. 3−21; North D. Institutions, InstitutionalChange and Economic Performance.8Organizations or coalitions of organizations from a specific area can act in the roleof institutional entrepreneurs. In this case, they are fighting for a wider expansion,legitimization of their organizational forms, as well as for redefining conventional rulesin the area as a whole. Only new organizations can make a significant change to theinstitutions. The rest are immersed in the existing networks of relations and are subjectedto organizational inertia12.

It is important to note that in the modern world manyinstitutional understandings are interpreted so broadly that free resources for institutionalentrepreneurship are liberated13.Similar to any entrepreneurial activity, institutional entrepreneurship is to someextent a deviation from the norm and a risky undertaking.

This is because a newconfiguration of ideas and meanings is formed which did not exist before and is notfamiliar to the other agents. As a result, the new rules face a crisis of legitimacy amongthe actors and groups who encounter them14.In case of the new organizational forms, the crisis of legitimacy is connected to thenecessity to adapt them to existing institutions and create an atmosphere of trust aroundthem. To do this, they go through a period of legitimation, which consists of twocomponents — cognitive and socio-political.

Through cognitive legitimation neworganizational forms become clear to other actors and take on the status of somethingself-evident. Then others actors can easily copy this form. Through socio-politicallegitimation, new forms become acceptable to the norms and laws of the socialenvironment in which they exist15.The lack of cognitive legitimation at the first stages of the existence of the neworganization is closely linked with the principle of ‘liability of newness’16. New12Ingram P.

Changing the Rules: Interests, Organizations, and Institutional Change in the U.S.Hospitality Industry // Brinton M. C., Nee V. (eds.) New Institutionalism in Sociology. New York:Russel Sage Foundation, 1998. P. 258–276.13DiMaggio P. Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory.14Garud R., Hardy C., Maguire S. Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency.15Aldrich H. Entrepreneurial Strategies in New Organizational Populations // Journal of EconomicSociology. 2005. Vol.

6 (4). P. 39–53 (in Russian).16Stinchcombe A. Social structure and organizations // March J. (ed.). Handbook of Organizations. RandMcNally: Chicago, 1965. P. 142−193.9organizations are likely to face more difficulties than the old ones, as their organizationalroutine is not complete yet, and most acts of actors require new roles and rules to beinvented. In existing organizations, rules and roles are transmitted through observation,daily communication of the experienced members and newcomers. As a result, thenewcomers acquire the specific professional skills together with the criteria for decisionmaking, boundaries of responsibility within roles, ways to reduce tension and handleconflict situations, as well as loyalty to the organization as a whole.New organizations, on the contrary, have to take into account the skills its membersformed outside of this organization and make extra efforts to encourage them to adoptnew roles and rules.

In addition, the situation is complicated by the absence of trust bothbetween the newcomers in new organizations and between the new organizations andtheir potential partners that might be willing to use their services.In new organizations stable links with customers and partners, which are the mainresource of established organizations, do not exist. As a result, the activities of theseorganizations are not well-understood, and are not reproduced neither within theorganization nor outside it.In order to overcome the crisis of legitimacy, institutional entrepreneurs shouldmobilize as many social groups as possible, organize a coalition and take a collectiveaction.

They will be able to achieve this if they act strategically. Acting strategicallyimplies knowing the existing system of formal and informal rules well and being able touse it in order to demonstrate the changes in such a way that other groups are encouragedto cooperate17. In this process, institutional structures play the role of a material that isused intensively in entrepreneurial activities18. Thus, an institutional entrepreneur can beconsidered embedded in them.17See: DiMaggio P. Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory; Fligsein N.

Fields, Power and SocialSkill: a Critical Analysis of the New Institutionalisms // Journal of Economic Sociology. 2001.Vol. 2 (4). P. 28–55 (in Russian); Fligsein N., McAdam D. Towards a General Theory of StrategicAction Fields // Sociological Theory. 2011. Vol. 29 (1). P. 1–26; Fligsein N., McAdam D. A Theory ofFields.