Article Innovation policy in Russia and the development of university–industry linkages Irina Dezhina Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Russia Abstract All the major science and innovation activity indicators for Russia have remained largely unchanged over the past 10–15 years. Expenditures on research and development (R&D) have stayed at a low level, with 70% of the funding provided by the federal government. During the last 7 years, the Russian government has introduced a number of instruments to improve research performance and stimulate closer cooperation between universities and companies. This article presents the results of a survey conducted in 2016 among 155 medium-sized technological companies with the purpose of identifying factors that encourage or hamper collaboration with universities in Russia. The survey revealed that the level of cooperation between companies and universities is relatively stable but insufficient. It is not low, especially in the area of educational activities, but it appears not to be growing. Companies often prefer to conduct R&D on their own, without outsourcing tasks to universities. Major problems that companies face in their attempt to partner with universities in R&D include (1) low levels of mutual understanding while conducting research projects; (2) unsatisfactory levels of training of graduate students; and (3) a lack of capability on the part of universities to solve specific scientific and technical problems quickly. Keywords Innovation policy, research and development, Russia, university–firm cooperation Historical overview of policy instruments The focus of Russian innovation policy has kept on chang- ing abruptly during the post-Soviet period. In the early 1990s, the government concentrated on the creation of technical infrastructure, such as technology parks and incu- bators. This policy decision was based on the assumption that small innovative companies develop faster and more productively if they are located in an appropriate infrastruc- ture. At that time, small innovative companies were new to the Russian innovation system since such private high-tech businesses did not exist in the Soviet Union. This approach, while partially successful, did not resolve the main issue of the low practical output of research and development (R&D). From the mid-2000s, the emphasis shifted to the establishment of various financial institutions aimed at sup- porting technological innovations – an approach that was called the ‘innovation lift’. The intention was as follows: At each stage of an idea development process from lab to market, it should be possible for researchers and/or inven- tors to obtain funding from an appropriate source. The ‘lift’ metaphor represents the step-by-step transformation of an idea from fundamental research to commercial product. To implement the ‘innovation lift’ approach, several institutes for development were established, such as the Russian Venture Fund, modelled after Yozma; the Israeli Venture Fund of Funds; or the Russian State Corporation for Nano- technologies, modelled after the Chinese experience. Com- panies, researchers and inventors could choose the type of financial support they wanted. However, the state has almost always been the source of funding, and this created certain difficulties for high-tech companies that did not want the government to interfere with their work. As a result, the impact of institutes for development was rather modest (Simachev et al., 2013). At the beginning of the 2010s, the government realized that horizontal linkages in the innovation system were missing and readjusted its focus to mechanisms for stimulating and strengthening coopera- tion between universities and industry. Indeed, these lin- kages were missing in the Russian system with its Corresponding author: Irina Dezhina, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, ul Nobelya 3, Moscow 143026, Russia. Email: i.dezhina@skoltech.ru Industry and Higher Education 1–8 ª The Author(s) 2018 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0950422218774974 journals.sagepub.com/home/ihe