Abstracts of Main Articles

«THOUSAND AND ONE» TIMES AGAIN ON THE CHOICE BETWEEN STRATEGIES OF SOCIOECONOMIC DEGRADATION OF THE COUNTRY AND MODERN NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (notes of an attendee to the meeting of the Economic Council under President of the RF)

Author

Glaziev S.Yu., Fellow of Russian Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The author of the article summarizes the extensive insights on the contents and meaning of the discussion (which took place at the aforementioned meeting on May 26 this year) between himself along with Stolypin club representative B.Yu. Titov and the ex-»world best minister of finance» (now - head of Center for Strategic Research) A.L. Kudrin and the acting minister of economic development of the RF A.V. Ulyukaev, as follows. The country faces the following choice: either a continuous decline (down to 3% recession) of GDP and investments until 2018 along with a high inflation, given implementation of Kudrin-Ulyukaev approach, or transition to a sustainable development at yearly rates within the range of 4%—10%, given realization of Stolypin club and RAS scientists’ suggestions.

Key words

Economic Council under President of the RF, RAS, radically liberal (market—fundamental) course of economic policy, budget consolidation, targeting of inflation, strategic and indicative macroplanning, IMF, Washington consensus, Stolypin club, A.L. Kudrin, A.V. Ulyukaev, B.Yu. Titov.

 

ECONOMIC MEETING UNDER THE HEAD OF STATE: WHAT COULD BE EXPECTED FROM THE WIDELY HYPED EVENT?

Author

Boldyrev Yu.Yu., PhD (Economics), political writer, social scientist, columnist with a number of popular printed and web-based media (in 1992—1993 — head of the Presidential Control Directorate; in 1993—1995 — member of the Council of Federation and one of the authors of «Audit Chamber of the Russian Federation» Federal Law, in 1995—2001 — deputy head of the Audit Chamber of the RF)

Abstract

Trying, as far as possible, to make a general assessment of the «economic meeting under the head of state» as such, the author first assumes that the very PR-promotion of it as landmark for the nation is linked to serious problems with functioning of government administration mechanism. Second, he draws attention to the lack of a full-fledged official representation, at the meeting on 26th May this year, of the government and Bank of Russia, and in general an absence of official representation of both the most relevant (in relation to drafting strategic socioeconomic programs) social and public-government organizations (RAS, CCI RF, RUIE, FITUR, free economic society) and, above all, key political forces (United Russia and CPRF). Third, proceeding from the above, the author reasons that it was no nationwide but rather a partisan event devoted to selection of a strategy for the ruling party and a means for the PR-promotion of its satellites. Fourth, the author wraps up his reflections as follows: «If the widely publicized meeting was in effect a partisan event, then it would be reasonable to conclude with the question put in the caption, but this time absolutely rhetoric

Key words

economic meeting under the head of state (president of the RF), strategic concepts and programs of socioeconomic development of Russia, economic sovereignty of Russia, WTO, top-down governance, United Russia, CPRF, ruling party satellites, RAS, Stolypin club, S.Yu.Glaziev

 

INDUSTRY IN TERRITORIAL ENTITIES OF THE RF: PARAMETERS OF THE LATEST EVOLUTION AND PROBLEMS WITH LAWFUL REGULATION

Author

Anisimov V.F., ScD (Economics), Professor, dean of Economics and Management Faculty of Urals Humanitarian Institute (Yekaterinburg); Vinslav Yu.B., ScD (Economics), Professor, deputy head of Mineral Resources Sector Economics Department of Russian State Geological Survey University

Abstract

The lengthy piece finale (first section in No. 2 for 2016). The authors presume that neutralization of a set of threats of deindustrialization of the national economy and lower effectiveness and competitiveness of its industrial component as such will largely depend on the extent of industrial policy promotion on all administration levels, quality of the legal framework realizing the requirements of «Industrial Policy in the Russian Federation» Federal Law (No. 488-FZ as of 31 December 2014) including those as applied to regions of the country. Proceeding from the above the article undertakes a fact analysis of the key indicators of the state and dynamics of industrial development in subjects of the RF (in the first section) and reviews (in the second – fourth sections) the key lines of improvements (adjustment) of the effective federal and sub-federal legislation, including issues of law enforcement. The final (fourth) section «Systemic suggestions on improvement of regional industrial policy» highlights specific lines of boosting coherent law-making activities at federal, sub-federal and municipal levels. One of the lines is connected with promotion of the cluster forms of integration of industrial production, science and education, which on the authors’ opinion, requires fundamental amendments to the relevant effective laws at different levels.

Key words

industry (industrial estates in territorial entities of the RF, key indicators of industrial dynamics in the regions in terms of federal districts and territorial entities of the RF, industrial policy (national, state, federal, sub-federal, regional, municipal), industrial policy priorities, «Industrial Policy in the Russian Federation» Federal Law No. 488-FZ as of 31 December 2014, federal and regional legislation on industrial policy, integration of industrial production, science and education, industrial clusters.

 

«POINTS OF GROWTH» OR «BLACK HOLES»? (Concerning application effectiveness of «zonal» tools for government boosting of territories’ economic dynamics)

Author

Shvetsov A.N., ScD, Professor, deputy director of Federal Research Center «Informatics and Management» RAS

Abstract

The article evaluates the effectiveness of the tools of pump-priming territorial development within the frameworks of «points of growth», intensively applied by the «federal center» in recent years». The point is of specific legal regimes of entrepreneurial activities within the boundaries of local areas, where investors are provided with substantive tax, infrastructural and other benefits, i.e. of the mechanisms of territorially biased preferential boosting, envisaged by the latest laws, such as, in particular, special economic zones, regional development zones, and priority development areas. Based on the analysis of voluminous factual and statistical data on practical application of SEZs, RDZs and PDAs in different subjects of the RF, the author arrives at a distressing conclusion: though this direction came to be a priority one in the governmental policy of spatial development of this country, it not only failed to produce the expected results but rather turned to be actually counterproductive. Instead of playing the role of «points of growth» and powerful sources of distribution (diffusion) of technological and other innovations, the reviewed local areas happened to be, with rare exceptions, «black holes» – business enclaves excluded from cooperation ties with the surrounding economic space, and worth, discouraging its development, drawing out alien resources, primarily highly skilled labor ones. The author identifies as to why the expected (and effective abroad) benefits of «zonal» tools, turn into direct opposite in Russia, and substantiates quite positive recommendations. These relate primarily to (a) ceasing «cure-all and come-and-go» practices and preferential approach to the application of some or other zonal tool as a «custom-made» project; (b) coordination and harmonization of government decision making on the national scale; (c) consideration of any precedent of using such managerial tools as an investment project, whose performance evaluation, as is well known, is, first, a mandatory prerequisite for decision making on its implementation and, second, places demand on the use of correctly developed special methodology allowing identification of the benefits for all stake holders (both the state, region, and business); (d) transition from the regional policy known for «places» of governmental paternalism benefitting from sponging, to encouraging self-development of regions under the federal state.

Key words

state (federal) regional policy, state policy of regional (spatial) development, state paternalism in regional policy, independence (self-development) of regions, special legal regimes for entrepreneurial activities, special economic zones, regional development zones, priority development areas, ministry of East development (minvostokrazvitiya) of Russia, management company «Far East Development corporation», methodology and guidelines for evaluating investment project efficiency

 

GLOBALIZATION AND GLOBAL REGULATION: TRENDS AND CHALLENGES FOR ECONOMIC POLICY IN RUSSIA

Author

Silvestrov S.N., ScD (Economics), Professor, head of World Economy and International Financial Relations Department, director of Economic Policy and Economic Security Problems Institute under Financial University

Abstract

The lengthy (over two printer’s sheets) article, containing a non-trivial and multiple-subject array of information, looks into the modern globalization trends and attempts of various forms (on the part of the institutions such as G7 and G20, international finance and credit and trade organizations, supranational centers of integrated groups of states, transnational corporations) of regulation of the respective processes, identifies the thus generated uncertainties, risks and crisis situations (structured, in the first part of the article, into eight sub-sections). Suggested are some blueprint mechanisms for neutralizing foreign threats with the means of Russian state policy, primarily internal economic one (in the second section). The author presumes that the main problem of Russia’s economy adaptation comes to the choice of the type of modernization, which will prevent the country from falling out from the historical time and permit it to exercise systemic socioeconomic transformations within the timeframe consistent with the pace of global modernization. This principal thesis unfolds in the second section of the article, which substantiates suggestions on changing the socioeconomic course of the government in tune with the familiar conceptual insights by scientists from the Economics Section of Social Sciences Department, RAS

Key words

globalization and global regulation, new subjectivity of world order, turbulence of global development, uncertainties, risks and crisis pregnancy of global development, fundamental imbalances of global financial system, new global context, mega-regional associations: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership, re-industrialization of Europe, modernization of Russian economy, prospective documents on economic development of Russia: strategic indicative plan – long-term forecast – long-term concept – medium-term priority investment projects of development of industries and sectors, project and process approaches, mechanisms of special loan issue.

 

A CASE STUDY INTO «IRREALITY» OF MODERN MARKET-CAPITALIST SYSTEM (on V.T. Ryazanov’s book «(Non)Real capitalism». Political economy of crisis and its implications for global economy and Russia)

Author

Tenyakov I.M., PhD (Economics), senior lecturer at political economy chair of Economics Department of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University

Abstract

A review of the new landmark book (over 40 printer’s sheets) by an authoritative scientist, honored worker of higher education of the Russian Federation, head, Economic Theory Chair of Saint-Petersburg State University. The reviewer sets forth forcefully the following of his conclusion: «The new book by V.T. Ryazanov embodying the results of a thorough and integrated study into a wide range of pressing problems of Russian economy development in the context of global economy, is rather interesting and useful for the readership which the author is addressing to – for all groups of economists (academics and practitioners, including students) and a wide range of citizens not indifferent to the fate of Russia in the modern complex and controversial world

Key words

globalization crisis, global economy financialisation, political economy theory of crises under capitalism, Great Depression and Great Recession, post-globalization, neo-liberal utopia, rent and resource-based economy, anti-crisis policy of Russia, new industrialization of Russia, new post-crisis world and self-identification of Russia, anthropologic revolution and post-consumer society in Russia, Russian way

 

TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM AND NEW INSTITUTIONAL THEORY UNDER ONE COVER (in relation to textbook «Institutional economics» ed. by E.V. Ustyuzhanina)

Author

Zemlyakov D.N., ScD (Economics), Professor

Abstract

A review of a textbook authored by associates of G.V. Plekhavov Russian Economic University – ScD E.V. Ustyuzhanina (head of the pool of authors), V.E. Dementiev and I.V. Sukhinin as well as S.G. Yevsyukov (PhD in economics). It was compiled in line with the federal state standard of higher professional education – «3+» generation – and recommended by the academic association of higher educational institutions of Russia for education in the field of economics and economic theory as a textbook for HEI students majoring along the line of 38.03.01 (080100) speciality (Economics [qualification (degree) bachelor]. The reviewers first focus on two main adjacent specifics of the publication: (a) the textbook provides a holistic idea of the principles of modern economy functioning from the standpoint of institutional doctrine; (b) the major distinction of the textbook from the available analogues, giving it a competitive edge, — a complex, systemic, synthetic description of academic views of the leading scientific schools of both traditional and new institutional economic theory. Second, some remarks are made to be accounted for by the authors prior to preparing quite desirable, in D.N. Zemlyakov’s opinion, re-edition in volume form. It is suggested, in particular, to respond to the recently published results of the surveys in the field of development of institutionalism methodology drawing special attention to a growing opposition of the latter to its base per se – mainstream marginal neo-classicism and intensively applying the category of «holism».

Key words

traditional institutionalism, new institutional theory, neo-classical political economy, classical (Marxist) political economy, basic categories of institutionalism, property institution, transactions theory, contracts theory, firm institution, state institution, drafting institutional transformations, methodological institutionalism, holism.