A SCENT OF INNOVATIONS: ABOUT THE WAYS OF MIGRATION FOR

UKRAINIAN SCIENCE
Igor Iankovskyi

A new discussion on migration

whether to go or to stay emerges in
Ukraine not for the first time. The main
reason for such a question is the lack
of understanding of the societys
development thrust. Meaning either
the absence of the real vision, or the
lack of consensus within society on
where exactly are we going. And
what are we trying to build in Ukraine.
Lets find out which communities supported the discussion and their reasons for
that.
Firstly the creative cluster, meaning the citizens who know already what they
want and see the possibilities for their ideas realization regardless of the territory or
State where they could realize them. For these people there are no problems with
migration they regard it only as a way for more qualitative self-development.
Secondly the entrepreneurs. For this cluster what matters the most are the
conditions for doing business. They will overcome all the difficulties if in the end
they receive fewer headaches from the State. This includes not only taxes or fiscal
methods introduction to fight the informal, but also omnipresent bureaucracy
and being out of simple Ukrainian businessmans problems. Which are quite
numerous regardless of the States reforming agenda, being implemented already
for several years. Yes, if the entrepreneurs have the possibilities and the vision of
better conditions they will be the first to leave.
Thirdly the young people. Which is the most active and passionate part of the
society. What are they lacking here? Maybe, the quality of education that doesnt
automatically mean the competitiveness on the marketplace. In reality, the most
talented youngsters will gladly go to study abroad. Theres nothing bad in this at
least a part of them will return in order to try to make some changes here. That is
why the discussion on migration concerning the young people is not totally
correct. Rather it is a matter of personal choice, implying the existence of
possibilities nowadays, making the idea of studying abroad absolutely realistic.
The last but not the least is the scientific and innovative cluster. For them the
migration presents both the opportunity and the risk. On one hand, they could
accomplish more in the specific sector, but on the other their ideas could simply
dissolve in more potent scientific clusters or become another commercial victim
in long-lasting plans of some multinational corporation.
In reality, all the above mentioned communities have a vision of their future in
Ukraine that is different from the State (meaning contemporary politicians and

bureaucrats). Nowadays we observe the most confrontational situation in those

spheres where there is a competition for resources speaking first of all about
business and entrepreneurship development.
However, the science has escaped from the keen interest of the State. New
edition of the Bloomberg Innovation Index, issued in January, for the second year
in a row testifies on the Ukrainian upsetting realities. The rating puts us on the 42nd
place between Croatia and Serbia, which is one position lower than the previous
year. Bloomberg Innovation Index considers such indicators as the intensity of
research and innovations, productions added value and economic output.
The first place in the rating has been kept by the Republic of Korea, Sweden is on
the second place and Germany on the third. For example, the Republic of
Korea leads the rating due to the highest rate of spending on scientific research
and development, patenting activity, added-value industry and level of higher
education.
Despite of the States declarations on the need for scientific and innovative
development, the State budget for 2017 pledges only 4 billion UAH for science.
Which means only 0,16% from countrys GDP. Last years spending on research
and development in Ukraine was only 0,8% of GDP or 2,5 billion UAH. Notionally the
volume of State spending on science has increased, but in terms of percentage
from GDP, on the contrary declined.
In developed countries, this indicator is on the level of 1,5% - 3% from GDP: these
States invest dozens, if not hundreds billions of dollars into scientific research and
development. The States leading the innovations ratings spend from 1,5% to 3%
from their GDP, which is incomparable to our realities. For example, the United
States budget in 2016 pledged $ 405 billion (or 2,7% GDP) for scientific research
and development, China - $ 338 billion (2,1% GDP), Japan - $ 160 billion (3,7%
GDP).
It proves that the States interest in science and innovations in Ukraine is minimal. Is
it good thing or bad thing? Does it make a good reason to leave? In my opinion
certainly not!
As we speak, Ukraine has all the conditions for the new scientific clusters
emergence, which could become the driving force of the economy in the nearest
future. We possess maybe the most important thing the absence of overregulating and the possibility to create the terms of game in the innovative
scientific cluster form square one.
The most important thing is placing less hope into the providing role of the State.
The civil society and its demand for the new quality of life are the most important
horizontal links for innovative scientific development. There is no need to physically
leave the country to fulfill the dream about Ukrainian scientific cluster. In times of
digital technologies and hegemony of the Internet the main factors that matter
are our ideas and strive for success.