Remarks by Dmitry Medvedev during the Open Region panel discussion (part of the “Government” section):
< …> I liked the presentations by Moscow and Tatarstan. In this sense, Tatarstan is a trendsetter in Russia, a model region, and has been involved in this work for a long time. Moscow got involved in this work only when Mr Sobyanin became Mayor, but we’ve already seen some results. I would like to say a few words about the Open Region concept, because it also includes Electronic Government and civil society. I have several specific proposals that I believe should be the focus for the entire nation, the government and the regions.
The first thing we need to do is to establish a reasonably functioning system. As a user of social networks, I receive a lot of messages that make it clear that people see me as the go-to guy for all their concerns. They write to the Prime Minister and the President for all their problems. I can’t tell them to go and see other authorities for all their questions. These things should be properly structured and people should know which service or website to use to get answers to their questions. Then 80% of requests and complaints will reach the right places and people will be able to obtain quality services.
Establishing the proper structure is closely related to the issue of education, which we just spoken about with Mr Minnikhanov (Rustam Minnikhanov, President of Tatarstan). We will not get anywhere until people understand that they can use these services to obtain services, not just criticise the authorities, which they have no problem doing on social networks. The responsibility to educate people on where to address their concerns belongs to the Russian Government and regional authorities. We should be pro-active and tell people where to go if they are able to use electronic services and paperless communication with authorities. As we can see from the work of our colleagues, that’s much more convenient and faster in certain walks of life.
The third issue, legislation, is also our responsibility. Here we still have many issues that haven’t been touched upon yet, because they are difficult to deal with and because bureaucrats are not interested in resolving them, because for them it’s a source of illegal income, I mean bribes. However, we need to carefully review all legislation. Our colleagues just told us about on-line registration and notaries. Allow me to remind you that Russia is part of the so-called Latin Notariat system, which involves complex paperwork based on conventions. Its strength (I can’t help mentioning this information) is precisely the paper: that’s the way it was designed. This does not mean that we should abandon this system, no. We just need to try to align the foundations of our law and order, especially in the field of administrative law and civil rights which regulate life in between the commercial, administrative and family law and new approaches.
We will have quite a lot to do here, because transitioning from paper to e-communication won’t be easy, especially given the size of our country. They often cite examples of various advanced countries, such as Singapore, that everyone has been to and pushed buttons, including myself. However, with due respect for Singapore, its business climate and its place in the rankings, you can’t compare one with the other: we are completely different countries.
Finally, a lot depends on identification. It is critically important for us to establish a universal electronic identification system for Russian citizens starting with an appropriate card that will be used for more than just financial purposes (that’s not enough in Russia and I spoke about it with our colleagues). This should be an ID card with a variety of optional functions, because Russia is a bureaucratic and complex country and will remain such for a long time.
The last thing I want to say…We have just mentioned this issue with Mr Sobyanin: we must have a meeting to discuss this card. Mr Nikiforov, hold a meeting first and then I'll call a meeting because there are all kinds of snags between economic departments, businesses, law enforcement agencies and so on. It’s time to set things straight.
Nikolai Nikiforov: We will set up a conference call with deputy governors in charge of these issues.
Dmitry Medvedev: Please do so, and then we’ll have a meeting to discuss any outstanding issues. I don’t think there’s any point in discussing this now. This technology is our future. Goodbye everyone.
***
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev’s speech as part of the discussion on The state in the innovation market: Is it a development institution or a rival of the private capital? (Innovation and Technology Panel):
Dmitry Medvedev: Once again, good afternoon everyone. We didn’t coordinate this together with Mr Vilyakaynen (Pekka Vilyakaynen, Advisor to the President of the Centre for the Development and Commercialisation of New Technology Foundation), but that’s exactly what I was going to talk about… What has to be done to get business leaders to support young entrepreneurs?
What needs to be done in Russia to get our largest companies to invest in research and development, support start-ups, and develop innovation? The issue is relevant worldwide, and is addressed differently in the United States and Israel, as well as in our country… However, the solution is problematic everywhere.
But we have a recipe... When I initiated the establishment of the Commission for Economic Modernisation and Technological Development, we had to include an unpopular concept – "the enforcement of innovation." But this can only be applied to state-owned companies.
I had to do this… I’m not joking. Essentially, I had to assign specific research and development tasks to major public companies. The work moved along with significant difficulty, as nobody was interested in moving forward in this way.
They submitted all kinds of paperwork to show that they had invested a great deal in innovation and supported various start-ups and young entrepreneurs. But to speak directly, it was all a sham. It did not correspond to reality. This theme, though, has gradually become quite popular, which I think is good in itself.
At the moment, I think that even state-owned companies are not trying to steer away from this issue – not to mention private companies. In other words, they aren’t avoiding the topic as they were, say, 2-3 years ago. Some companies genuinely enjoy this... To answer your question, I would simply say that the government has to apply an “administrative resource”, as we call it in Russia, to some companies, and once this has been done, to develop a proper environment.
I am not a proponent of excessive state involvement in the economy – not a statist according to my beliefs. On the contrary, I believe that the government’s presence is overly excessive. It is terribly slow. Unfortunately, this contributes to corruption in a whole number of cases. But with regard to innovation – I'm sure that you have discussed this here, as a colleague and others have just spoken about this matter – the state will always have a tremendous role to play because it is an area that is risky and it will always remain so no matter what we do.
The question is rather where the state directs its efforts.
Until now, up to 75%-80% – Mr Agamirzyan (Igor Agamirzyan, General Director of Russian Venture Company) will correct me if I am wrong – of research and development in Russia was funded by the government.
Igor Agamirzyan: More.
Dmitry Medvedev: Even more... In Russia, this is due to our economy’s structure. In other countries, though, this rate is also quite high. I remember speaking with our colleagues in major universities in the United States and asking them about the level of government funding for such research. The answer was 90%! Therefore, the government cannot abandon the field. With all of my dislike for the state’s presence in other economic spheres, the government will maintain its presence. But its role must be modernised, and it will have to allocate its efforts efficiently.
Our colleagues mentioned grants here… Grants are probably not an ideal institution, but they are still necessary. Grants are needed to award the most distinguished individuals and companies. Of course, the grants distribution system must be open, fair, and free from corruption, but we can’t do without grants. Moreover, we are just starting to test the grant system.
They are just reaching a more or less acceptable level – when a grant is not $3,000, but rather a larger amount that is sufficient for starting a business or stimulating an individual to keep his job and not go abroad. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this, but we would prefer to award people who stay and work in Russia. So, I believe that the government will always have a role here – and it will be a very significant role.
And the role of business leaders – whether they are the leaders of large public companies or private business representatives – is to lead young entrepreneurs. We should move in this direction from administrative enforcement to a system where support for young entrepreneurs becomes a vital interest of private businesses.
Remark: Mr Prime Minister, a quick comment. There was a discussion on start-ups and support for students, as the institutions are there and the funds are available. But there are few young people starting their own business. We support young entrepreneurs in Microsoft. We have a suggestion. We know you as a leader who supports technology in our country. It would help if you were personally involved, such as in our start-up project Dnevnik.ru, shook hands and appeared on TV... The more examples of personal involvement that we have, the more helpful it would be.
Dmitry Medvedev: Well, to be honest with you, I try to do this on a regular basis – almost every day. I am not being ironic here. It’s important given all of the work that we do in innovation and technology. You were right to mention the media. It should be popular. Thus, one thing that I did not say here, but I mentioned in the discussion at the Open Government panel, is the need to promote innovations.
Our Moscow colleagues noted here that “our poor innovators and entrepreneurs” don’t know where to go. Frankly, this means that you are not doing a good job, as this is the Government’s task. Well, we are not doing a good job in a wider sense. It is the Government’s task to provide guidelines and to say which doors should be knocked on, especially in a huge metropolis like Moscow with 12 million people.
That’s what we need to do. Hence, promoting innovation is a vital element of the Government’s work in general and of my work in particular. I am even trying to hold meetings in different places, so that people know that we do not only have Skolkovo, although it is a sound example, and it is good that we have created separate legislation. I’ve been there recently. There is already a building there, so it’s all moving along, and everything will work out. There is no doubt about this. But Russia is not just Skolkovo and Moscow. This should happen everywhere.
<…>