The globalization of science leads to an increase in the transaction costs of scientific work due to the specifics of the institutional, linguistic, cultural, infrastructural and other conditions of this activity in individual countries, institutions, scientific fields, etc. In addition, the increase in transaction costs is also influenced by the increasing interdependence between scientists around the world. Science is, in principle, collective creativity, but today it is truly global, and global collective work is more difficult to organize and provide than local or regional. The article discusses the role of international government organizations in the governance of global science in the field of basic research. International governmental organizations are viewed primarily as bureaucratic structures, and basic science as club goods or a specific asset that is more effective to manage with the help of hierarchical bureaucratic structures. As a case study, the activities of the international government organization of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research are investigated. The globalization of science leads to the need for its governance, as well as to the definition of criteria for the effectiveness of such governance. The article discusses two dimensions of effectiveness: endogenous (bureaucratic) and exogenous (real). Endogenous effectiveness suggests that the organization effectively implements its decisions. In case of international governmental organizations in the field of science, it means conducting planned scientific events, organizing conferences, workshops, field trips, signing cooperation agreements, and publish articles in authoritative journals. Exogenous effectiveness implies that the implementation of the measures taken leads to the solution of the general problem for which the organization was created – scientific discoveries, innovations, etc. In other words, the organization can extremely effectively ensure the implementation of extremely inefficient measures. Moreover, if the measures developed are effective, and the organization implements them inefficiently, the result will also be low. Therefore, it is important to consider both aspects when analyzing the effectiveness of an organization.
The purpose of the article is to consider the contradictions associated with the diversity of governance forms using the example of international governmental organizations in the field of science. Science as a social practice develops in a network form of self-organization, while international governmental organizations are instruments of bureaucratic (hierarchical) governance. The main thesis of this article is that under the conditions of globalization, the governance of basic science is carried out more effectively with the help of international intergovernmental organizations. To prove this thesis, the article uses the case study method, namely, the case of an international intergovernmental organization in the field of nuclear physics, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in the Russian city of Dubna.
Key words: globalization of science, transaction costs, international bureaucracy, JINR
References
1. Bourdieu P. Pole nauki [Field of Science]. Sociologie et Sociétés. 1975, no. 7 (1), pp. 91-118 URL: http://bourdieu.name/content/burde-pole-nauki (In Russian).
2. Zinovieva E.S. Mezhdunarodnopoliticheskiye aspekty razvitiya Interneta [International political aspects of the development of the Internet]. MGIMO-Review of International Relations. 2013, no. 4 (31), pp. 135-140. (In Russian).
3. Zinovieva E.S. Rossiyskiye interesy v sfere upravleniya internetom [Russian interests in the field of Internet governance] International processes. 2009, vol. 7, no. 19, pp. 101-108. (In Russian).
4. Itskovitz G. Troynaya spiral'. Universitety - predpriyatiya - gosudarstvo. Innovatsii v deystvii [Triple Helix. Universities - enterprises - the state. Innovation in action]. Tomsk, 2010. 237 p. (In Russian).
5. Kharkevich M.V. Transformatsiya «publichnogo» i «chastnogo»: tendentsii v finansirovanii fundamental'nykh issledovaniy v razvitykh stranakh [Transformation of “Public” and “Private”: Trends in Funding for Fundamental Research in Developed Countries]. International Affairs. 2016, no. 11, pp. 158-166. (In Russian).
6. Barnett M., Finnemore M. Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Cornell University Press, 2004. 240 p.
7. Bernal J. D. The Social Function of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1967. 482 p.
8. Borrás S. Legitimate governance of risk at EU level? The case of GMOs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2006, vol. 73, pp. 61–75.
9. Borrás S. Three tensions in the governance of science and technology. The Oxford handbook of governance. 2012, pp. 429-440.
10. Braun D. Organising the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy. 2008, vol. 35, pp. 227–239.
11. Dong Y. et al. A century of science: Globalization of scientific collaborations, citations, and innovations. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 2017, pp. 1437-1446.
12. Edler J., Kuhlman S., Behrens, M. (eds.) Changing Governance of Research and Technology Policy: The European Research Area. Edward Elgar. 2003. 360 p.
13. Haas P. M. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International organization. 1992, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 1-35.
14. Holland J. H. Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus. 1992, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 17-30.
15. Irwin A. STS perspectives on scientific governance. In: E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman (eds.) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Boston: MIT Press, 2008, pp 583–607.
16. Kaiser R., Prange H. Managing diversity in a system of multi-level governance: The open method of coordination in innovation policy. Journal of European Public Policy. 2004, vol. 11, pp. 249–266.
17. Lane J. Let's make science metrics more scientific. Nature. 2010, vol. 464, no. 7288, pp. 488-489.
18. Lyall C., Tait J. New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. 208 p.
19. Polanyi M. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva. 1962, vol. 1, pp. 54–74.
20. Slaughter S., Rhoades G. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. JHU Press, 2004.
21. Smits R., Kuhlmann S. The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy. 2004, vol. 1, pp. 4–32.
22. Williamson O. E. Markets and hierarchies: some elementary considerations. The American economic review. 1973, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 316-325.
The article was prepared as part of the project (unique identification number RFMEFI57217X0005) with financial support from the Ministry of Higher Education and Science of the Russian Federation
