The article considers social and economic challenges that Russia faces in the context of present-day global transformation. Key technological, economic, and social trends, which determine the contours of the post-crisis world, are analyzed. A long-term agenda for the country's development aimed at securing a new quality of economic growth is proposed.

Russian economic policy, innovation economy, public administration

The modern age is characterized by new priorities and challenges and by new approaches to problems facing Russia and other countries. This article attempts to analyze extensive changes taking place in the global economy that are directly affecting the situation in our country. They are creating new opportunities for accelerated growth while imposing restrictions that cannot be ignored.

This article does not offer a detailed action plan, nor does it describe a set of particular economic tools. There are other purposes for this article. First of all, decisions are prepared and adopted by the Russian President and Government on an almost daily basis. Of course, while Key Areas of Government Activity until 2018 is a major policy document, we focus on the Plan of First Priority Actions to Ensure the Sustainable Development of the Economy and Social Stability of 2015, which is often referred to as the Government's Anti-Crisis Plan.

Due to the presence of various points of tension and of local, regional and other crises, the world remains unstable, and there is no fast and easy way out. As for the situation in Russia, it is not likely to deteriorate swiftly (in spite of recent predictions) or quickly regain the growth momentum of the previous decade. Geopolitical conditions and sanctions are not the only reasons cited here. These factors only account for part of the problem, which has resulted from broader and more fundamental processes, i.e., a profound transformation of the world order.

The present situation is not unique to human history. Similar crises have occurred in the global economy and in individual countries quite recently. The crises of 1997—1998 and 2008—2009 are still fresh in our memory. Moreover, Russia's experience in the 1980s, when the country plunged into macroeconomic and structural crisis, is still relevant — unless we wish to repeat the mistakes of the past.

However paradoxical, statements that the world has more than once passed through a number of various crises and transformations (including deep and lengthy ones) and that we now find ourselves in a unique situation whereby we must solve completely new tasks are both true and correct.

Old problems and circumstances are re-emerging in a new guise. On the other hand, completely new events are occurring that sometimes take on an old appearance. Today, as in the past, controllable factors are being interlaced with those beyond our control. It is important for us not to mistaken one type for the other and to not back down in the face of external circumstances.

What are the specific complexities of challenges facing Russia today? The problem not only lies in overcoming new or long-standing difficulties, crises, deficits, or disproportions. Without belittling the significance of these tasks and the gravity of today's challenging circumstances, we must still formulate strategic goals and objectives that we ultimately want to achieve. That is, goals must be clearly articulated, even if some goals appear very distant and even when solutions are difficult and complex. On the other hand, a goal can be stated quite simply: join (“bridge-head establishment” comes to mind, although military terminology does not seem suitable here) the group of states with the highest standard of living. To become a member of this group, a country must meet certain levels of per capita GDP and economic efficiency, which are manifested, first of all, in labor productivity.

In regards to many social and economic parameters and to the development level of human capital and culture, Russia is ranked among developed countries of the modern world. However, the Russian economy still remains largely inefficient and lags, for instance, in terms of labor productivity behind leading countries, and this gap is measured by time rather than by percent levels. This problem has existed for longer than a few years or decades. In 1880, Nikolai Bunge (academician and later Minister of Finance) wrote to Alexander II: “Russia is half a century behind Western Europe” (Bunge, 2007, p. 208). Of course, history has not been so straightforward since then, with Europe trailing behind Russia in key industries such as nuclear energy, space exploration and rocketry over a lengthy period of time. However, our economic efficiency has remained back-ward throughout history. Neither the centralized administrative economy with absolute state domination (despite sacrifices made) nor the subsequent inertial commodity-based model have succeeded in closing this gap, although it has indeed been reduced over the past 10–15 years.

Against this historical and economic backdrop, the above-mentioned strategic goals can be regarded as unprecedented. They are not likely to be achieved by applying the essentially inertial development model or by reacting to external factors to only a certain extent. As experience shows, there is no so-called “catch-up development” along this path. On the other hand, the gap may expand and is bound to if our main efforts are only directed at explaining current problems and difficulties based on objective factors (e.g., long borders and distances, climates, and low population density levels in certain areas). These challenges are not insurmountable, as the global experience shows. Canada and Australia have become highly developed nations despite their small populations and vast, unpopulated areas. Japan, on the other hand, has a huge population and no free territory or abundant natural resources. One can build an endless chain of “objective factors” in any situation, in any position, and with any amount of resources: access to large stretches of land is undesirable because such land is difficult to cultivate; access to few land resources is undesirable because insufficient land is available for settlement and for growing crops; access to few mineral resources is undesirable as this results in high dependency on expensive imports; access to abundant resources is not preferable because the rest of the economy does not develop; a small population means a shortage of labor; a large population leads to food scarcity, etc.

Our goals cannot be achieved without conducting substantial reforms. This is an obvious fact to everyone today. We must adopt a development model that will allow for more successful competition than before. This is unlike the previous paradigm of “catching up and overtaking” via meat, milk, tractors, or metal. We must learn to be better and faster, as this constitutes the only way that we can achieve our goals in this fluid modern world.

Another problem relates to the fact that we must exercise prudence and care in reforming a commodity-based economy when commodity prices are so low. First of all, we must consider the impact that reforms may have on people's lives. The government should —frankly and without any illusions —evaluate its capacities to support those who find it difficult to adapt to new conditions.

Situations are changing very rapidly, and some people are not equally prepared to accept such changes quickly—some for psychological reasons and others for objective reasons. Children, disabled persons, the elderly and low-income families are the social groups that we must consider first when planning our future decisions.

Indeed, structural shifts in the economy, social sphere, and labor market are always painful to undergo. However, additional difficulties related to external factors have emerged, and the government is now facing processes of “double complexity,” i.e., to prevent a dramatic deterioration of living standards when structural transformations are made under challenging conditions.

Russia's development constitutes an essential component of global processes. The global agenda cannot be shaped without our country. However, Russia also cannot shape the global agenda alone and cannot ignore it while focusing solely on its own understanding of success and fairness.

The term new normal has been used increasingly often in discussions on current and future global development issues. The term was coined five years ago following the acute stage of the global crisis and is quickly gaining popularity.1 The term new normal is interchangeable with the term new reality. It covers key characteristics that will determine the development of the global economy over the coming period —in fact, until the next major structural crisis. While the correctness of the term may be questioned, it has achieved considerable recognition in economic and political discourse over the years. It has also been extended with respect to geography and content. Perceived at first as a purely economic term applicable only to developed countries, new normal now refers to the global space (both developed and leading developing countries) and carries political, social, and even ideological meaning.

It is becoming ever more evident that the world's leading countries are entering a new growth trajectory. This not only involves new growth rates but also the quality of growth and the emergence and geographic distribution of new industrial sectors. The term re-industrialization, which refers to an increasing share of industrial activity in developed economies, serves as an important manifestation of this trend. The above is also of relevance to Russia.

Developing countries are also entering a new growth trajectory. They are making dramatic changes to the architecture of the global economy. For example, whereas in the past almost every crisis in the American economy had an effect on the entire world and all attention was therefore focused on the American market, crises now occur without the presence of recession in the U.S. (e.g., in the case of a severe slowdown of the Chinese economy).

It is highly probable that we are now witnessing the first stage of such a crisis. Chinese and global economy developments over the past few months serve as convincing evidence of this. All global stock markets and the national currencies of many countries showed an explosive reaction to the state of the Chinese stock exchange and to the devaluation of the yuan. Volatility in the global oil market is also playing a role, although it is partly related to the role of the Chinese economy in the global economy. It is already becoming clear that attention to developments in the Chinese economy is going to increase.

China's economic transition to a new development stage is particularly being manifested in the slowdown of its growth. The economic model itself is changing. First of all, the importance of domestic demand for Chinese products is increasing relative to foreign demand, constituting a reflection of the growing wealth of the Chinese population. These changes occurred in other developing countries when they reached a certain wealth level. A more balanced growth model (in terms of relations between exports and imports, industrial and service sectors, and between investment and consumption) will be shaped in other economies.

We must also note that when analyzing economic processes in developing countries, many of which are becoming our principal partners, we must remember that stages and models of development may vary considerably. While China, for example, has witnessed excessive investments and shares of savings in its GDP, we struggle with their scarcity. While China anticipates growing domestic consumption, in Russia, domestic demand, formerly the main driver of develop ment, is losing its significance.

Despite generating mounting dangers of being left far behind or of the existing gap becoming wider, structural crises create opportunities to improve a country's position in the economic and political arena. Crises always generate risks and opportunities. Using a phrase by Lee Kuan Yew (2000), who led Singapore to success, breakthroughs “from third world to first” typically occur during structural crises, when opportunities to notice and introduce innovations emerge. This includes not only technological but also institutional innovations. The above point is especially important, as the experience of the XX century presents convincing evidence that for a country to qualitatively improve its situation, it must be able to combine advanced technologies with institutions and “rules of the game” related to those technologies. This approach may be referred to as Marxist in its support of consistency between productive forces and relations of production. It is, however, confirmed by the practical experiences of countries that have achieved breakthroughs: Germany, Japan, the USSR, Finland, South Korea, and Singapore.

Modernization is a very complex process that does not always lead to success. Previous experiences show that “cases of successful modernization are far fewer than attempts at such a breakthrough” (Mau, 2009, p. 387).

One can judge the magnitude of changes in the global sphere based on Russia's sensitive energy sector.

That which used to appear exotic, an advertising campaign or local event, is now changing the global economy and transforming the global political balance. The massive transportation of liquefied natural gas has connected formerly isolated markets on various continents, while shale production has turned fuel importers into exporters. The work of hundreds of small and midsized innovative companies now likely has a stronger effect on this market (as well as the economies of many countries) than major energy corporations. Moreover, such companies are proving to be quite stable: the almost three-fold decline in oil prices has not led to their mass bankruptcy. Of course, this situation may change if prices continue to fall. However, the efficiency of new technologies has turned out to be much higher than expected by many. This serves as an important lesson: one must not obstinately assert that the Earth still rests on three whales when the outline of the fourth can be seen clearly.

We cannot ignore opportunities generated by a sharp improvement in solar energy efficiency, which used to be looked down upon with skepticism, or by unrelenting advances in electric, hybrid and hydrogen engine technologies. If these sectors continue to progress at the same pace and if oil and gas prices do not drop, the world may experience an even more significant breakthrough than the shale revolution.

Another vital trend has been identified: several well-known energy companies have begun to revise their strategies, preferring to create relatively small facilities that are cheaper and more flexible in the market. Large and expensive energy facilities take many years to build and decades to generate profits. During such a period, dramatic changes may occur in terms of demand, energy prices, or in terms of state policies employed where a construction site is located. In the past, all of these parameters appeared to be more stable, whereas now planning and forecast horizons are much shorter. As strategists say, “the world has become faster.”

Innovations are penetrating all spheres of society: technological, economic, and humanitarian. We must heed these trends in order to develop a strategy for achieving our goals. Such trends are becoming the subject of deep analysis and discussion in political circles and expert communities. While a single article can only name these trends, each deserves separate research and discussion.

The following can be referred to as technological innovative trends:

1. growing levels of technological unpredictability, sharply reducing the capacities of centralized technological (scientific and technical) forecasting;
2. the dissolution of boundaries between the physical and digital, i.e., the penetration of digital technologies into all spheres of the material world and, if you will, the virtualization of the real lives of people, companies and entire nations;
3. new industrialization, i.e., the emergence of industrial technologies and sectors where labor costs are less significant than access to high-quality R&D and customer intimacy, which encourages product individualization;
4. and innovative technology transfer of increasing intensity from civil to military sectors, a process that used to be directed otherwise (innovations appeared in the military-industrial complex first).

The above point to a very important conclusion: that the modern world literally lacks industrial priorities in terms of innovation and backwardness. No industry can currently be regarded as an advanced or backward sector, though this was characteristic of the XIX and XX centuries. There may be supermodern as well as backward technologies in every sector or industry. Thus, questions concerning opportunities for technological or innovative breakthrough have been transferred from industries to companies.

It should be noted that countries with dominant agricultural economies used to be referred to as backward not long ago. However, today agriculture is becoming one of the key industries for innovation. For example, the highly developed state of the Netherlands is one of the top three countries in the world in terms of agricultural exports. We should also take into account an increasingly obvious trend:demand for agricultural products (mainly from developing countries) is growing and is very likely to grow at a more stable rate than demand for mineral resources. There is an explanation for this: as the world's poorest regions struggle with famine and still require significant agricultural product imports, rapidly develop-ing countries are also generating increased demand for food, transferring this additional demand to the global market. Accordingly, countries capable of increasing their export potential in the agricultural sector can seize these new opportunities.

We must closely monitor development trends in the social sphere, which determine the quality of human capital and country competitiveness. Such trends are as follows:

1. global competition for human capital is becoming the decisive factor in achiev-ing strategic objectives of any country. This form of competition is intensifying. One can predict even now that it will reach new levels in the near future, e.g., in resolving issues of machine translation quality. The removal of language bar-riers will sharply increase the dynamism of labor resource movement between countries;
2. this creates a new social state that can cope with challenges faced by modern developed countries. Its key feature is the individualization of services (pri-marily education and healthcare);
3. positions and prospects of the middle class will constitute some of the most compelling issues of long-term development as modern technologies become able to replace human labor not only in material production, but in the service sector as well.2 The answer to this question is not likely to be a simple one. It will most likely be associated with the development of human capital and with improvements in labor market flexibility;
4. finally, growth in inequality is coming to the forefront of the economic and political agenda as a factor that is directly influencing levels of social and political stability and as a possible constraint on economic growth.3

The following constitute important economic innovations:

1. the individualization of products and services is replacing standardized mass production. Of course, this is a new form of industrialization rather than a return to pre-industrial handicraft development. This involves production based on the needs of a particular consumer;
2. the emergence of new funding instruments allows for an expansion of investment limits of new projects. Financial innovations partially precipitated the global crisis. However, countries will inevitably master increasingly fine-grained regulation tools rather than simplifying or prohibiting them;
3. the emergence of industrial sectors with faster capital turnover rates than those of companies engaged in the same industries but with traditional technologies is drawing capital expenditures closer to operating expenses. This generates a dramatic increase in the flexibility of reactions to changes in markets and technologies, with shale production serving as a good example;
4. a new globalization model and relevant model of protectionism is emerging. Regional (international) associations of free trade are coming to the foreground, identifying solutions to issues that remained unresolved in the WTO for decades. Foreign exchange rate movements are becoming a more powerful market protection tool than customs duties. Rather than the protection of customs territory, the protection of added value chains generated by national businesses is now becoming the state's priority.

Macroeconomic challenges deserve special attention. Here, as in the case of technologies, we clearly observe a sharp increase in uncertainty levels. This is also related to still unobvious solutions to problems associated with the avoidance of high inflation caused by anticrisis policies pursued by many countries in the form of powerful financial therapy since 2008 (while inflation minimization constitutes a topical issue in some countries, other countries struggle with deflation). The future of monetary stimulus itself raises questions: it is unclear how to get rid of this “addiction.” Meanwhile, in a number of countries, while money is now offered at unprecedentedly low rates, businesses are reluctant to take it. At the same time, large multinationals have accumulated vast reserves that they are not investing in projects. That is, we now find ourselves in conditions of uncertainty and waiting and amidst concerns regarding the new reality to come (the new normal). The problem now is based less on the debts of companies and banks than on those of entire countries. While debt repayment prospects of countries that are able to issue reserve currencies look —to put it mildly —hazy, the debts of countries with no such opportunities have already become bad ones. There is still no honest and convincing answer as to how the global economy and monetary system will behave in this extraordinary situation.

How should society and the state react to all of these challenges? What should we do, not only to keep pace but also to become a leader? How can we combine our own historic advantages with general global trends?

The key condition, without which there can be no adequate answer to current challenges and to growing uncertainty and variability levels in development, is the encouragement of creativity and entrepreneurship and the continuity of education. This applies to states, businesses, and each individual person. People are naturally inclined to be creative, and the state's foremost objective is to encourage creativity in all spheres of life.

It is these features of the modern stage of technological progress that have formed key trends towards the global liberalization of economic life and towards the reduction of red tape in modern societies. This becomes inevitable when we realize that the “world is becoming faster.”

The attempts of developed countries to respond to the global crisis via stronger government intervention were shortlived and took place primarily in 2008 and 2009. Many of these countries are now trying to overcome the consequences of excessive regulation. China is lifting more and more barriers in its economy, and Mexico is even amending its constitution to allow foreign investors into its oil and gas industry. The above is relevant both to trade and industry. Most count ries that have achieved breakthroughs (South Korea, China, Brazil, Indonesia, etc.) have succeeded by taking advantage of free trade in order to strengthen specialization and the international division of labor. They have used global demand and exports for their own growth by increasing productivity levels through competition with imports and by identifying the most efficient companies. On the other hand, it is difficult to find a country that has achieved sustainable progress through long-term trade self-restrictions.

Of course, in numerous countries, existing policies and specific decisions are not in line with this agenda and even contradict it. Such measures include sanctions; however, they have rarely been effective and have seldom produced expected results. For example, sanctions against Cuba, which were directly aimed at deposing its government, actually encouraged its political longevity. Sanctions against the construction of the gas pipeline from Siberia to Europe led to the USSR creating the world's largest gas transportation system. Sanctions against China failed to isolate it or upset its economy. On the contrary, Beijing responded with market liberalization, which did much to enable the PRC to reach its current position in the global economy (see, e.g., Kadochnikov & Ptashkina, 2014). Those who have imposed such sanctions can be said to have encouraged the growth of their future global competitors. Sanctions are lifted sooner or later, and relations between countries get back on track. When responding to sanctions, it is important to address them pragmatically. They must first be turned in favor of a given country and to boost its domestic industries.

This also applies to our current relationship with the West. Notwithstanding the existing nature of this relationship, which has been critical for the most part, cooperation is bound to be restored. Russia is not going to leave the European continent economically, politically, or mentally. A full 250 years has passed since Catherine II stressed in her “Instruction to the Committee Charged with Drafting the New Code of Laws” that “Russia is a European power” (Catherine II, 2000, p. 38). This remains and will remain true despite vast changes that have occurred in the world. Nobody will succeed at detaching us from the European civilization with all of its cultural diversity. Relations may change in the future, but strategic directions will remain the same, i.e., cooperation, partnership, and given the favorable development of events, a single economic space.

Russia's geographic and geopolitical position not only allows but also in a sense requires that we more actively encourage cooperation in the “eastward direction” (i.e., countries such as China, Vietnam, Japan, and Korea and the Asia Pacific region as a whole) and with SCO and BRICS member countries located in various parts of the world. It would be a mistake to interpret such activities as Russia's intention to find a new “bearing.” In speaking about the importance of this vector of cooperation, we refer not only to historical ties, to our common history with many of these countries, or to the current global political situation. The global agenda itself; market trends; and the directions of financial, commercial and technological flows clearly point to the strategic implications that an underestimation of relations with these countries and regions may lead to. As has occurred in the past, Russia is certainly using the present situation to upgrade its economy amidst growing international tensions. However, the best outcome for all would involve modernization based on cooperation rather than adversity.

Many of key parameters, focuses, and risks related to Russia's social and economic development are covered in Main Areas of the Government's Activities until 2018. Long-term objectives and ways of achieving them will be addressed in the Strategy of Social and Economic Development until 2030.

First of all, our objective is to ensure dynamic and sustainable mid-and long-term economic growth. From the start, we must take note of two risks that are opposite in terms of form but that are similar in essence.

One refers to risks of artificial acceleration. We know from our own experience in 1986—1989 how the desire to quickly heat up the economy may lead to disaster, even when growth rates increase for a year or two. The Soviet Union had to pay for its short-lived acceleration with a sharp increase in foreign debt, which Russia had to pay out after the USSR collapsed.

On the other hand, there are risks of psychological adaptation to low and even zero growth rates and of a willingness to accept them as inevitable. This tendency has been central to economic and political discourse of the past few years. Not long ago, the objective was to achieve a 5% GDP growth rate, while 2% was regarded as low and even dangerous (though it was quite satisfactory for Europe and Japan). This year, after the initially predicted 5% decline, predictions that the economy would slow down by a “mere” 2% or 3% were welcomed as favorable forecasts, denoting the end of the acute stage of the crisis. If this psychological attitude becomes prevalent in society, it will pave the way to protracted recession. This is why the key objective today is to ensure not only rates but also a new degree of economic growth quality.

Much is being said about the need to build a new growth model. This is a sound statement, as both external and domestic conditions of Russia's development have changed dramatically and even fundamentally in some respects. Enough has been said about the exhausted opportunities for successful development dependent on the inflow of financial resources from foreign markets, resulting in the rapid growth of domestic demand. We can only add that this form of growth is not especially sensitive to the investment climate.

The stage is now being taken by factors that determine supply: operating conditions of our companies and organizations, labor productivity incentives, and conditions of human capital growth. A comfortable environment for economic entities, or rather a favorable investment climate, constitutes the general facet of a model that should ensure a new level of growth. To this end, we must consolidate efforts in four areas that determine the nature of a country's social and economic development: macroeconomics, structural policy, human capital development, and the public administration system.

In sum, certain principal conclusions can be drawn regarding ongoing changes in Russia and around the world and with regards to challenges we face today.

First, a new reality is emerging in the world as a result of the global crisis, which has affected the economy as well as all significant facets of life in modern society. The world's leading countries are entering a new growth trajectory that involves growth rates, growth factors, and growth quality levels. Many criteria used to evaluate development in the late XX and early XXI centuries will need to be revised.

New technologies and innovations implemented, inter alia, by small companies are quickly and radically transforming entire markets and industries. This requires new market behaviors, including new approaches to the implementation of major long-term projects. Industry-based criteria of “progressivism” and “back-wardness” are being abandoned in the modern world, with almost all industries presenting innovative potential.

Second, Russia—according to many social and economic parameters —is a developed country, and thus its problems should first be compared with those of other developed economies. At the same time, we enjoy certain advantages as a developing economy, which we can and must use to overcome the current crisis and to respond to long-term challenges.

Of course, this is no reason for pride and wishful thinking, as our place in the world creates additional challenges and problems for us. Russia's desire to be an organic part of the developed world generates opposition from our competitors. Geopolitical tensions in recent years have largely been associated with these circumstances.

Third, we must create a new model of economic growth that is relevant to contemporary realities in Russia and around the world. New long-term “rules of the game” are being created during the current global crisis. The new model should ensure dynamic and sustainable mid-term growth for the Russian economy at rates exceeding the world average, accompanied by qualitative structural changes.

Fourth, human capital is becoming the main area of global competition, and it is the most important and, at the same time, the most dynamic facet of modern industry. This form of competition will become severe due to a clear realization that has appeared in the world: leading positions are going to be occupied by countries that are attractive to educated and energetic people.

Fifth, the search for an adequate response to challenges of the quickly changing world has formed a key trend towards economic liberalization. This is understood not only by developed countries but also by many developing countries, which are striving to create conditions required for innovation, capital, and technological transfer.

This means that a number of high-priority objectives must be achieved to ensure our country's sustainable social and economic development.

First. We must ensure macroeconomic stability, as well as a well-balanced budget and a consistent reduction of inflation levels to a target value. This will improve the predictability of and confidence in the national economy. Decreasing inflation should be accompanied with decreasing interest rates, i.e., increased credit affordability for businesses and households. Finally, monetary policies must ensure the ruble's status as a regional reserve currency.

Second. We must increase the efficiency of budget expenditures via budget maneuvering and through improved budget procedures. Investments in infrastructure and human capital should be considered a top priority. The budget will need to be balanced in recognition of the fact that the fiscal burden must not increase over the next few years.

Third. We must ensure the consistent realization of plans for attracting private investment and for expanding their role in ensuring economic growth. The state is already using and will propose new forms of support for investment activity: they must acquire new momentum in the next year or two. However, government incentives must not be endless, and most importantly, the state must not replace private investors. The efficiency of government agency departments, including those of regional officials, should be evaluated in terms of their capacities to attract private investors.

Fourth. Domestic savings must become the most significant source of investments. While achieving this strategic objective will take many years, we must pursue it nonetheless. In this respect, we will evaluate the efficiency of the application of retirement savings. Pension reforms and subsequent insurance reforms constitute main sources of “long-term money” in the economy, and even a developed banking system cannot fully replace it.

Fifth. We must work toward the development of small and mid-sized businesses as a condition of sustainable economic growth and to ensure social stability. Dynamics of small and midsized businesses constitute some of the mostsignificant indicators of a country's economic and social health.

Sixth. The promotion of competition. A major source of weak competition is related to business and regional concerns regarding social stability. Therefore, modern labor market development is an economic and social issue. A perfunctory approach to its solution will hinder the accelerated creation of highly productive workplaces. We cannot increase our competitiveness without increasing the flexibility of this market.

Seventh. We should encourage the growth of non-commodity exports (in absolute terms and in terms of the percentage of total exports). Apart from other benefits, this would indicate that import substitution actually works and has begun to yield positive results.

Eighth. Qualitative changes must be made to the efficiency of public administration. We must create a system that holds public authorities accountable for their decisions. The attestation of public officials and program funding must be linked to particular results, and basic criteria should include incentives for investment and for business activities. The decision-making system should be integral and consistent to prevent tactical decisions from contradicting declared long-term targets.

Our experience shows that defining the right course is not enough. It is equally important to make it known to all of the society. Of course, the main issue relates to its implementation. This is our primary objective.

Theodore Roosevelt said: “I foresee a huge future for Russia. Of course, it will have to endure certain shocks and, maybe, heavy crises, but they all will pass, and Russia will rise to become a citadel for the entire Europe, probably the most powerful country in the entire world.” While even those who were not born in Russia view this kind of future as obvious, for us it is simply inevitable.