To Understand. To Prevent. To Overcome
Opening address of editor-in-chief.
Opening address of editor-in-chief.
Economy as an eternally living system does not stabilize at the equilibrium point, but passing through a structural crisis and renewing its technological and institutional framework, enters the new trajectory of growth. That is why, reduction of economic reality to search for equilibrium, applied by market fundamentalists, resembles attempts of medieval physiologists to disclose the mystery of life with the help of pathologic anatomy. Author of the article shows that neoclassical positive analysis, revolving around the doctrine of market equilibrium, is essentially a pseudo-scientific religion, substantiating the sacred right of private property. The conclusion is made that it is necessary to stop paying attention to the market fundamentalist demagogy and to pass to pragmatic economic policy in national interests — to implement a program of growth proposed by Stolypin club.
The Central Bank’s fight against inflation is doing more harm than good, because its method of reducing liquidity creates difficulties in crediting the economy, increases the key rate, the cost of money, which, of course, pulls down the economy.
The article draws parallels between the state of the present-day global economy and the Soviet economy in the 1980s. It is assumed that in both cases the diagnosis can be similar and is defined as the socio-economic stagnation. Its main features are: excessive and increasingly growing accumulation of commitments in economic, social, institutional and political spheres as well as lagging and eventually reducing in the course of time possibilities of their implementation. Accordingly, transition to a new model of the global economy may be associated with the same stages, which are known from domestic economic history — crisis, transition period, slow recovery. It is assumed that consumption boom unfolding in Asian countries, which is based on consumer crediting of the population, is becoming a key driver of transition from stagnation to crisis. The author analyses possible consequences for the global economy of a consumer society creation in Asian countries, especially in China. The basic painful consequences of competition between two models of consumer society are defined. The author formulates new global challenges with regard to such consequences and experience of the transition period in our country. It is proposed to take into account these challenges in developing long-term strategies for the development of certain countries or groups of countries, including Russia.
The article deals with strategic directions of development of the Russian economy monetary regulation based on the current state of the Bank of Russia monetary policy, paradoxes of modern economic theory, analysis of new global trends in the money and capital markets, as well as the priority areas of the Russian financial market development and its financial infrastructure, tools and products.
The article shows the consequences of the RF Central Bank current monetary policy, analyzes its theoretical prerequisites and the results of its application in practice. In particular, the authors consider the differences between the inflation targeting monetary policy, which is carried out in Russia, and the experience of its application in the EU and the USA. Particular attention is paid to the Central Bank activities during devaluation in 2014 – 2015, immediate consequences for the various sectors of the Russian economy of the measures taken are analyzed in detail. The authors also propose fundamentally different approach to pursuing this policy, necessary to overcome negative results of the previous actions of the Bank of Russia. These steps mentioned in the article imply introduction of a new emission model, transformation of the Russian ruble in the world currency, increasing stability of its exchange rate.
The article presents results of the analysis of inter-regional economic relations conducted using the Applied multiregional interbranch model, mathematical concepts of economic equilibrium and the theory of cooperative games, as well as methods of coalitional analysis, according to which the calculations by all possible regions’ coalitions are carried out. The authors compare results of studies of the USSR’s economic space on the eve of its collapse (in the context of the Union republics) and the modern Russia (in the context of Federal Districts). Economic space of modern Russia is significantly more homogeneous than the USSR before its collapse. But the level of heterogeneity of the existing Russian space is still far too high. The main and the only one (among the Union republics) donor in the USSR space was the Russian Federation. The most large-scale “literally obscene” recipient was Ukraine. Federal districts of modern Russia are sub-dividedon in donors and recipients exactly in half (four/four). Donors of “the first level” — the North-West and Far Eastern Districts, of “the second level” — the Siberian and the Ural districts. The Central Federal District, figuratively speaking, is parasitizing on the “body of Russia”. Its consumption from the all-Russia Fund exceeds its contribution more than by one third of this total fund.
When calculating the final integral index for the Russian Federation, determined according to the methodology of multifactor “Strategic matrix” model, the authors once again noted the low level of this indicator in 2015. It has not changed in comparison with the previous year. But in the factors context they have identified a tendency of compensating the key social indices lowering due to the growth of the secondary ones. Its presence is confirmed by opinion polls of the Public Opinion Foundation, that is, by how the Russians themselves assess changes in their daily life and the state of affairs in solving the problems they face.
One of the information sources for analyzing and evaluating the countries’ competitive positions are the reports of international rating agencies and institutions. In 2016 the Eurasian Economic Commission prepared the analytical report assessing the level of economic development of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Member States in the international ratings system. In the framework of the work carried out not only the position of each country was analyzed, but the EAEC consolidated position as a weighted average value in proportion to the contribution of the Member State in the aggregate GDP of the Union was also calculated.
The proposed article discusses an approach to determining the possible instruments for managing innovative activity of regions, based on the ratings results.