TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 16 (no. 3),

The article is focused on the problem of the existing imbalance in the age structure of S&T personnel in Russia, expressed in the strong dominance of the group of young researchers. Highlighting examples demonstrated the influence of the government on the occurrence of such an imbalance. The literature review contains analysis of approaches to measure the most productive scientists’ age in different fields of knowledge and to construct research labs’ age structure models. The optimal S&T personnel age structure in Russia is estimated using the model «predator–victim». It is shown that the role of three age groups: young, mature and elderly researchers – in different countries (Russia, France and the UK) is different. To build the model, the hypothesis is formulated that only two age groups are active, and the third plays the role of balancing the staffing segment. Experimental calculations have confirmed this hypothesis. Two scenarios of its formation – demographic (natural inflow and outflow of personnel) and competitive (model reproduction of researchers’ interaction) are considered to identify the degree of intensity of the S&T personnel age structure, which set the interval of acceptable values for the actual shares of age groups. It is shown that the problem of shortage of mature researchers is not a typical Russian problem, but to a large extent is typical for developed European countries; the specificity of the Russian model of scientific personnel reproduction, in which all the problems are aggravated, is considered. The issues of choosing an adequate policy to reduce the negative trend in the formation of the age structure of Russian researchers are discussed.

Keywords: S&T personnel; young researchers; STI policy; model «predator-victim»

  • Andrews, F. (1979). Scientific Productivity. The effectiveness of research groups in six countries. Paris: Cambridge University Press. UNESCO.
  • Baram-Tsabari, A. et al. (2009). Asking scientists: A decade of questions analyzed by age, gender, and country. Science Education, 93(1), 131–160.
  • Bonaccorsi, A. and Daraio, C. (2003). Age effects in scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 58(1), 49–90.
  • Carayol, N. and Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production?: Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33(8), 1081–1102.
  • Diamond, A. M. (1984). An Economic Model of the Life-Cycle Research Productivity of Scientists. Scientometrics, 6, 189–196.
  • González-Bambrila, C. and Veloso, F. M. (2007). The determinants of research output and impact: a study of Mexican researchers. Research Policy, 36, 1035–1051.
  • Jin, B. et al. (2003). Production and productivity of Chinese scientists as a function of their age: the period 1995–1999 // Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 112–128.
  • Lakhtin, G. A. (1979). Economy of scientific organization. Moscow: Ekonomika, 207 p. (In Russian.)
  • Lehman, N. C. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton: New Jersey.
  • Nesvetailov, G. A. (1997). The aging of research personnel. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 9(4), 86–102.
  • Simonton, D. K. (1988). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research? Psychological bulletin, 104(2), 251–259.
  • Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 1199–1235.
  • Stephan, P. and Levin, Sh. (1993). Age and the Nobel Prize revisited. Scientometrics, 28(3), 387–399.
  • Weiss, Y. and Lillard, L. (1982). Output Variability, Academic Labor Contracts, and Waiting Times for Promotion. Research in Labor Economics, 5, 157–188.
  • Zhang, J. Y. (2010). The organization of scientists and its relation to scientific productivity: Perceptions of Chinese stem cell researchers. Biosocieties, 5(2), 219–235.
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606