Moldova's Research, Development and Innovation Sector: Is a Reform Necessary?

The study shows that the current state policy in the sphere of research, development and innovation (RDI) is not adequate for achieving the expected results. Under the current system, the Academy of Sciences is the main authority responsible for practically all stages and components of the policy, for determining research priorities and for carrying out research activities. This situation does not comply with the principles of good governance, one of which states that policy-making activities must be separated from those of implementation and reporting.

The 2004 reform of the state policy in the RDI sphere had certain positive effects on the funding of the sector, but less on its results. Insufficient resources are one of the causes of this state of affairs; another cause is the combination of shortcomings identified in the institutional organisation and administration of the system. No strategic goals have been formulated for the RDI sphere, so it is not surprising that the sector has practically no role in achieving the national development objectives identified in the strategic planning documents. State policy in the RDI sphere is not adequately evaluated, and policy authority is too diluted. The current model of organisation of the RDI sector lacks a clear separation between the authorities responsible for policy formulation / implementation / monitoring / reporting.

The composition and institutional placement of the Supreme Council for Science and Technological Development are not conducive to fulfilling its role: the Council is an executive body of the Assembly of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova (ASM), and its members represent exclusively the interests of the scientific community. The system discriminates in the funding of institutional, specialised and affiliated members. The role given to universities in the RDI sector is very weak compared with the potential that some universities have. The current institutional structure also does not allow the technology absorption and innovation potential of the private sector to be fully exploited.

The role of the accreditation procedure is unclear, as it is too rigid and inappropriate for some research activities oriented towards practical applications. The internal control policies and procedures used within the ASM are not such as to ensure the judicious use of public resources and to manage conflicts of interest effectively. At the same time, the model of unconditional institutional funding from the state budget, without clear criteria, has many negative consequences, including moral hazard and a lack of incentives to optimise extensive administrative and auxiliary staff structures. Finally, a good part of the resources allocated to the RDI sphere end up financing activities unsuited to research institutions – such as education – while the purchase of equipment is underfunded.

In order to identify the optimal model for reorganising the RDI sphere, four scenarios were analysed: 1) the status quo; 2) the reform proposed by the ASM; 3) a reform based on a decentralised model; 4) a reform based on a dual model. Maintaining the status quo is risky from all points of view. The reform proposed by the ASM includes several purely formal aspects, but one essential proposal is the reform of the funding system. However, in the long term this scenario risks degenerating into the status quo scenario. For a decentralised model – in which research would be based primarily on universities – the universities do not appear to be ready, and the political risks linked to the dissolution of the ASM are prohibitively high. Scenario 4 – based on the dual model of organising the RDI sphere – appears to be the optimal one: it would ensure the maximum possible convergence of the interests of the actors in the sector, minimise the political risks of the reform, ensure the separation of policy-making from implementation, reduce the risks of conflicts of interest and create the necessary incentives for innovation and research entities to secure a more sustainable financial base. Therefore, the dual model is the one recommended as the basis for the concept of a future reform of the RDI sphere. At the same time, this reform must be designed within the broadest possible participatory framework, including representatives of all social groups with an interest in the research, development and innovation sector.

The study was prepared under the Joint Programme of the Council of Europe and the European Union on supporting democracy in the Republic of Moldova. The statements and conclusions in this document belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or views of the funder.