From Global Research Priorities to Regional Strategies: Analyzing The Technological Agenda for Economic Development

This article develops a framework for translating global science and technology trends into priorities for regional development in Russia. The framework combines three analytical dimensions: global technological dynamics, federal priorities under National Projects for Technological Leadership, and the scientific, industrial, institutional, and investment capacity of regions. Its purpose is to avoid both mechanical imitation of global trends and inwardlooking regional planning. The analysis uses publication and patent data from Lens.org and compares two contrasting fields: “New Materials and Chemistry,” a broad, mature domain, and regenerative biomedicine within the project “New Technologies for Health Preservation,” a narrower, emerging field.

For new materials and chemistry, the 2015–2025 dataset contains 9 654 500 publications. Annual output increased from 778 554 publications in 2015 to 1 102 498 in 2024, with recent annual growth approaching zero. The patent dataset for 2017–2025 comprises 9 609 853 documents and is dominated by large corporate applicants. China leads publication activity, whereas both China and the United States occupy leading positions in patenting. Taken together, these indicators suggest that the field as a whole has moved beyond emergence and early practical validation toward a more mature stage of commercialization or industrial use, although individual technological niches remain heterogeneous.
Regenerative biomedicine displays a different trajectory. Publications increased from 426 in 2015 to 2 509 in 2024, a rise of 488 percent, while patents grew from 235 to 630, or 168 percent. The combination of rapid scientific expansion and slower, but sustained, patent growth identifies the field as emerging, with substantial potential to advance toward practical application. Claims about market growth, however, require separate investment and market data.

The regional component is illustrated through Rostov Oblast and micro- and small-tonnage chemistry, particularly microfluidic synthesis. The case shows how a broad federal priority can be narrowed to a regionally grounded technological niche supported by university infrastructure, workforce development, and industrial partnerships. At the same time, the evidence does not yet establish a fully formed specialization: patents, industrial demand, production volumes, and scaling outcomes require further monitoring. The study therefore concludes that publication and patent analysis is most useful as an initial screening instrument within a broader, place-based priority-setting process.

1. Ayres R. 1996. Technology, progress and economic growth. European Management Journal. 14(6). pp. 562–575. DOI: 10.1016/S0263-2373(96)00053-9.

2. Balland P.-A., Rigby D. 2017. The geography of complex knowledge. Economic Geography. 93. P. 1–23. DOI: 10.1080/00130095.2016.1205947.

3. Balland P.-A., Jara-Figueroa C., Petralia S.G., Steijn M.P.A., Rigby D.L. and Hidalgo C.A. 2020. Complex economic activities concentrate in large cities. Nature Human Behaviour. 4. P. 248–254. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-019-0803-3.

4. Chulok A., Kotsemir M., Radomirova Y., Shashnov S. 2024. Setting S&T perspective priorities in an era of complexity and uncertainty: a case for megacities. Foresight. Vol. 26, No. 2. P. 365–391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-10-2023-0215.

5. Broekel T., Klarl T. 2025. The long-term evolution of technological complexity and its relationship with economic growth. Technovation. 144. Article 103233. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2025.103233.

6. Gambardella A., Heaton S., Novelli E. and Teece D.J. 2021. Profiting from enabling technologies? Strategic Science. 6. P. 75–90. DOI: 10.1287/stsc.2020.0119.

7. Hidalgo C.A., Hausmann R. 2009. The building blocks of economic complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 106. P. 10570–10575. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0900943106.

8. Kapoor R., Teece D.J. 2021. Three faces of technology’s value creation: Emerging, enabling, embedding. Strategy Science. 6(1). P. 1–4. DOI: 10.1287/stsc.2021.0124.

9. Mewes L., Broekel T. 2022. Technological complexity and economic growth of regions. Research Policy. 51. Article 104156. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104156.

10. Nast C., Broekel T., Entner D. 2024. Fueling the fire? How government support drives technological progress and complexity. Research Policy. 53. Article 105005. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2024.105005.

11. Nepelski D., De Prato G. 2020. Technological complexity and economic development. Review of Development Economics. 24. P. 448–470. DOI: 10.1111/rode.12650.

12. Tapscott D. 1997. The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence. Leeds: McGraw Hill. 342 p.

13. Wei S.X., Wang H.Y., Deng S., Wang W., Ye F.Y. 2025. Measuring the university–industry– government relations synthesized by the Triple Helix and the diversity. Journal of Informetrics. 19(3). Article 101686. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101686.

14. Yu E., Jin J. 2024. Scientific research, technology, and economic growth in a cross section of countries. Applied Economics. 57(18). P. 2255–2266. DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2024.2323021.

15. Gershman M.A. et al. 2025. Nauchno-tekhnicheskaya politika: globalnye strategii dostizheniya tekhnologicheskogo liderstva [Science and Technology Policy: Global Strategies for Achieving Technological Leadership]. Ed. by L.M. Gokhberg, M.A. Gershman; National Research University Higher School of Economics. Moscow: ISSEK HSE. 248 p. (In Russian)

16. Torkunov A.V. 2022. Rossiya i politicheskiy poryadok v menyayushchemsya mire: tsennosti, instituty, perspektivy [Russia and Political Order in a Changing World: Values, Institutions, Prospects]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. 5. P. 7–22. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2022.05.02. (In Russian)