Managerial Mechanisms, Criteria, and Core Determinants of Scientific Systems’ Stability in Times of Crisis: An Overview
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58423/2786-6742/2025-10-166-180Keywords:
state science system, resilience, science policy, scientific institution, crisis management, dual-use technologies, war, R&D and innovation policy, economic development, basic research, applied researchAbstract
The resilience of national science and innovation systems plays an important role in ensuring sustainable scientific and technological progress and economic security, especially in times of crisis. Scientific institutions contribute to the generation, dissemination and implementation of knowledge, ensuring economic stability and regional development. However, external shocks such as economic crises, armed conflicts, climate change and pandemics create unprecedented challenges that require the adaptive capacity of science and innovation ecosystems and scientific systems in particular. Despite a significant body of research on the role of science and innovation systems in ensuring economic growth and competitiveness of regions, as well as on the impact of innovation on economic stability, the concept of the resilience of state scientific systems and their adaptability to socio-economic and political shocks remains under-researched, especially in the context of long-term crises and developing economies. This article is devoted to the study of this issue. The paper provides examples of international experience, in particular post-war Germany, South Korea, Israel in the context of security threats and the EU's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and provides an analytical justification for the need to study key mechanisms for strengthening the resilience of science in the face of systemic threats. The results obtained form the basis for further research on the development of indicators for a unified methodology for assessing the resilience of national science and innovation systems, and state science systems in particular. They allow for a more comprehensive approach to assessing the ability of such systems to respond effectively to global challenges, taking into account their interaction with other critical infrastructure sectors, political stability, organisational culture and resource autonomy. The conditions of full-scale war in Ukraine create a need to formulate parameters for assessing the resilience and adaptation mechanisms of state scientific structures to prolonged systemic shocks. The analysis provides a theoretical and practical basis for modernising scientific policy and management in conditions of uncertainty.
References
1. Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.
2. Arora, A., Belenzon, S., Dionisi, D. (2021). Economics of science policy: Institutional reforms and funding models. Research Policy, 50(4), 104183.
3. Baycan, T., Pinto, H. (2018). Resilience, innovation and regional development: Exploring the linkages. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 10(2), 67–85.
4. Bristow, G., Healy, A. (2018). Innovation and regional economic resilience: An exploratory analysis. The Annals of Regional Science, 61(3), 411–437.
5. Cantelmi, T., Di Gravio, G., Patriarca, R. (2021). Critical infrastructure resilience: A review of concepts and methodologies. Safety Science, 136, 105129.
6. Clark, J., Huang, H. I., Walsh, J. P. (2010). A typology of innovation districts: What it means for regional resilience. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(1), 39–68.
7. Eberle, J., Brenner, T., Mitze, T. (2020). Public research, local knowledge transfer, and regional development: Insights from a structural VAR model. International Regional Science Review, 43(6), 547–584.
8. European Union. (2023). Common EU response to COVID-19. URL: https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/common-eu-response-covid-19_en
9. Fakir, A. E. (2008). South Korean system of innovation: From imitation to frontiers of technology, successes and limitations. In M. H. Sherif & T. M. Khalil (Eds.), Management of Technology Innovation and Value Creation: Selected Papers from the 16th International Conference on Management of Technology (pp. 275–292). World Scientific Publishing.
10. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter Publishers.
11. Ganguli, I., Waldinger, F. (2023). War and science in Ukraine. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, 3(1).
12. Gryga, V., Ryzhkova, Y. (2022). Science and innovation in Ukraine: Approaches to policy making in times of war. Ekonomika i prognozuvannya, (4), 35–49. [in Ukrainian].
13. Gyeong gi, M. (2003). History of policies for science and technology in Korea since 1960. Science Policy and Organization of Research in the Republic of Korea: Ministry of Science and Technology report.
14. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.
15. Howard, G., Weinstein, R., Yang, Y. (2024). Do universities improve local economic resilience? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 106(4), 1129–1145.
16. Hynes, W., Trump, B. D., Love, P., Linkov, I. (2020). Bouncing forward: A resilience approach to dealing with COVID-19 and future systemic shocks. Environment Systems and Decisions, 40, 174–184.
17. Israel Trade & Economic Mission to Ukraine. (2024, October 2). Israeli Innovation: A Beacon of Hope Amidst Challenges. URL: https://shorturl.at/0QyqG [in Ukrainian].
18. Jump, R. C., & Scavette, A. (2024). Do research universities recession proof their regions? Evidence from state flagship college towns. SSRN. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4812119
19. Lundvall, B. Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publishers.
20. Lundvall, B. Å. (2002). The university in the learning economy. DRUID Working Paper No. 02-06.
21. McManus, S. T. (2008). Organisational resilience in New Zealand [Master’s thesis, University of Canterbury]. University of Canterbury Research Repository.
22. Michaelis, A. R. (1981). The recovery of science in Germany. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 6(4), 283–311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1179/isr.1981.6.4.283
23. Orth, K., Oberkrome, W. (Eds.). (2010). Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 1920–1970: Forschungsförderung im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft und Politik (Vol. 4, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft). Franz Steiner Verlag.
24. Pendall, R., Foster, K. A., Cowell, M. (2010). Resilience and regions: Building understanding of the metaphor. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 71–84.
25. Radosevic, S., Savic, M., Woodward, R., & Yoruk, E. (2010). Knowledge-based economy and innovation capabilities in CEE: A firm-level perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing.
26. Sathurshan, M., Saja, A., Thamboo, J., Haraguchi, M., & Navaratnam, S. (2022). Resilience of critical infrastructure systems: A systematic literature review of measurement frameworks. Infrastructures, 7(5), 67.
27. Segal, J. (2000). La société Max Planck de 1946 à la réunification allemande: entre continuité et ruptures. La revue pour l’histoire du CNRS, (3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/histoire-cnrs.2902
28. Soete, L., Verspagen, B., Ter Weel, B. (2010). Systems of innovation. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, vol. 2, 1159–1180). Elsevier.
29. Stryjek, J. (2021). Counteracting the COVID 19 crisis with innovation policy tools: A case study of the EU’s supranational innovation policy. European Research Studies Journal, XXIV(3, Part 1), 450–468.
30. Sychenko, V., Vilkhova, T. (2023). Problems and prospects of the development of public administration in the sphere of science in Ukraine during the war. Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald. Series: Public Management and Administration.
31. Wagner, P. (2021). Notgemeinschaften der Wissenschaft: Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) in drei politischen Systemen, 1920 bis 1973 (Vol. 12, Studien zur Geschichte der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft). Franz Steiner Verlag.
32. Whitley, R. (2010). Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation. Oxford University Press.
33. Yoon, J. (2014). Evolution of science and technology policy in Korea. Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Anastasiia Lutsenko, Volodymyr Rodchenko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC License.
