DOI: 10.32609/j.ruje.12.180870

Authors: Alexander M. Karminsky, Nikolay V. Voytov

Abstract: Digital multi-sided platforms intermediate a growing share of household expenditure, yet direct cross-country measurement of platformization remains infeasible owing to the absence of publicly available data. This paper treats platformization — defined as the ratio of household consumption expenditure intermediated by platforms to total consumer spending — as a latent variable and estimates it using a Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes (MIMIC) model for a panel of 86 countries over 2000–2023, drawing on the World Bank’s World Development Indicators. The selection of causal and reflective variables is grounded in the Aghion–Howitt endogenous growth model, operationalizing the creative destruction mechanism in the context of platform economics. The methodological contribution consists in applying a Mundlak decomposition within the MIMIC specification, separating short-run (within-country) and long-run (between-country) determinants of platformization while preserving the random-effects structure required for latent variable identification. Bootstrap analysis and leave-one-country-out procedures identify a robust core of determinants: financial depth, broadband access, regulatory quality, urbanization, and R&D expenditure (the latter exhibiting a negative between-effect interpreted as a crowding-out effect: countries with lower average R&D intensity exhibit higher platformization because they are recipients of platform technologies originating in a small number of R&D-intensive exporting economies). Country-level estimates reveal conditional β-convergence alongside persistent absolute gaps among income groups, consistent with technology diffusion under institutional heterogeneity. The resulting estimates are benchmarked against independent point estimates from the literature and can serve as a basis for cross-country comparison of platformization levels and assessment of long-run regulatory effects.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.32609/j.ruje.11.134875

Authors: Mayya V. Dubovik, Irina P. Komarova, Dinh Trong An

Abstract: After each economic crisis, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic, governments have used public investment as a crucial tool to help economies recover quickly. However, a significant concern is how to structure such investments to meet the intended objectives while avoiding risks during implementation. The crowding-in/out effect of public investment on private investment remains a hotly debated topic. To address this issue, the study utilized data from 63 provinces in Vietnam over the period from 2000 to 2023. Through the use of the Cross-Sectionally Augmented Autoregressive Distributed Lag model (CS-ARDL) model and robustness checks using the Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares (FMOLS) and Dynamic Ordinary Least Squares (DOLS) models, the research demonstrated that public investment has a crowding-in effect on private investment in the long term. Furthermore, the study identified two main causes of public investment crowding out private investment: first, when public investment exceeds the production capacity of the economy, and second, when public investment is inefficient. This conclusion is drawn from the analysis of the Russian economy. Additionally, the study employed the dynamic panel threshold model and found that if the ratio of public investment to GDP in Vietnam exceeds 8.532%, the crowding-out effect on private investment will occur. Moreover, the research also assessed the effectiveness of public investment in the context of climate change to identify shortcomings that need to be addressed immediately. These findings serve as important bases for proposing measures to improve the efficiency of public investment and avoid the crowding-out effect on private investment.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/j.ruje.4.33617

Authors: Sergey Drobyshevsky, Georgy Idrisov, Andrey Kaukin, Pavel Pavlov, Sergey Sinelnikov-Murylev

Abstract: In this paper, we present a methodology of GDP growth rate decomposition adapted for the Russian economy. We calculated the indicators for structural unemployment (NAWRU) and total factor productivity in Russia. We estimated the structural, foreign trade and cyclical components of GDP growth rates under various macroeconomic scenarios for the period from 2018 through 2024. The study shows that a significant contribution to growth rates for the period 2018 through 2024 will be made by the sum of the business cycle and random shock component, which, combined with the revitalization of investments in 2017, may indicate the beginning of a new cycle of economic growth in Russia. In the scenarios reviewed, the contribution from the foreign trade component will be negative from 2018 to 2024. The calculations indicate further stagnation of structural growth rates in the Russian economy from 2018 to 2024 at the level of approximately 1.5 p.p. in all of the basic macroeconomic scenarios reviewed. This points to the inexpediency in postponing structural reforms to create conditions for Russia’s economy to achieve growth rates that exceed world averages.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/j.ruje.4.27726

Authors: Christopher A. Hartwell

Abstract: The idea of a middle-income trap is now over a decade old and continues to be applied to growth paths which have not been self-sustaining. With the bulk of emerging markets now approaching middle-income status, and given the reality of slower growth for many countries (and the policy recommendations that currently exist for overcoming this problem), is the middle-income trap still a relevant framework? Using reference to the BRICS countries, the key finding of this analysis is that the middle-income trap conceptualization is of little value-added, as fundamentals still matter, especially in relation to macroeconomic stability. Similarly, we note that “quality” institutions are necessary, both political and economic, including (smaller) size of government and property rights. The “trap” as currently formulated is thus nothing new or particularly relevant, as it repackages some familiar structural issues while avoiding other crucial ones.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.1016/j.ruje.2017.12.003

Authors: Ilya B. Voskoboynikov

Abstract: Although productivity decline in the global economy was observed before 2008, the global financial crisis of 2008 stimulated study of its source. In this context, recent literature mentions inefficient investments in machinery, human capital, and organizational processes. This can include skill mismatch and the lack of technology diffusion from advanced to emerging industries and firms. To what extent is this global view helpful in understanding recent productivity decline in the Russian economy? The present study reports that at least some of these sources can be observed in Russia as well. Using conventional industry growth accounting, it compares pre- and post-crisis sources of growth for the Russian economy. Specifically, it presents aggregate labor productivity growth as the sum of capital intensity and total factor productivity (TFP) growth in industries, and the contribution of labor reallocation between industries. It shows that the stagnation of 2008–2014 is more the result of the TFP decline and the deterioration of the allocation of labor than the lack of capital input. Moreover, the TFP decline started in Russia a few years before the crisis, as it did in major global economies, such as the United States, OECD countries, China, and Brazil. At the same time, relatively stable capital intensity made the Russian pattern to some degree similar to resource abundant Australia and Canada. Furthermore, the contribution of information and communications technology capital to labor productivity growth in Russia declined after 2008, which could have also hampered technology diffusion. Finally, the structure of the flow of capital services in Russia changed after 2008. Before the crisis, the contribution of machinery and equipment dominated, while after the crisis, construction provided the lion's share of capital input.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.1016/j.ruje.2017.02.003

Authors: Ivan Lyubimov

Abstract: This paper compares two popular views on the evolution of income inequality. The article by Simon Kuznets, which was published in American Economic Review in 1955, considers inequality as a byproduct of economic growth and suggests that a relatively rich economy should also be less unequal. In contrast, Thomas Piketty indicates that inequality is progressing, and an internationally coordinated policy is required to bring inequality under control. My paper applies the arguments of Kuznets and Piketty to the problem of income inequality in modern Russia.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.1016/j.ruje.2016.02.004

Authors: Andrey Yushkov

Abstract: The article addresses the theoretical and empirical relation between fiscal decentralization and economic growth. An empirical analysis of Russian regions for 2005–2012 shows that excessive expenditure decentralization within the region, which is not accompanied by the respective level of revenue decentralization, is significantly and negatively related to regional economic growth. In contrast, regional dependence on intergovernmental fiscal transfers from the federal center is positively associated with economic growth.

HTML

XML

PDF