DOI: 10.32609/j.ruje.12.171619

Authors: Aleksei A. Popov

Abstract: This paper examines the impact of economic reforms in the USSR and the Comecon countries, in particular the Kosygin reform (1965), on the development of a system of international economic comparisons in 1962–1969. Using previously unpublished archival materials from Comecon and Soviet statistical agencies, the author shows that reform initiatives stimulated methodological innovations, such as purchasing power parity (PPP) comparisons. However, institutional conflicts, ideological constraints, and technological limitations hindered the system’s integration into global practice, notably the UN International Comparison Program (ICP). The article argues that, despite partial successes, the stagnation of the project after 1969 reflected deeper systemic deficiencies within planned economies, including bureaucratic inertia and unresolved competition among research centers.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.32609/j.ruje.12.171595

Authors: Aleksandr A. Fokin, Nikita Y. Pivovarov, David Brandenberger

Abstract: This article reinterprets the Third Program of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) in 1961 as a rational, auditable social contract for the Soviet one-party state rather than a utopian manifesto. Reconstructing its Stalin-era prehistory—from drafts by Dmitry Manuilsky, Mark Mitin, Pavel Yudin, and Andrei Zhdanov between 1938 and 1947 to those generated under Nikita Khrushchev between 1958 and 1961—we show how successive elites translated ideological rivalry with the West into a ledger of quantifiable welfare obligations (expressed in per capita food, housing, goods, and the duration of the working day). The program’s distinctive function took shape within the traditional context of foundational Soviet documents: constitutions which codified the status quo and party programs that projected a development path for 20–30 years into the future. Under Khrushchev, academic economists “scientized” this practice, elevating consumption indicators and “scientifically grounded norms” to the core of a national strategy for the USSR: “communism in the main” by 1980. Conceptually, the program operated as an authoritarian commitment to build a socialist welfare state—a self-binding social contract that stabilized the post-Stalin transition but also generated path dependence, constraining later reform efforts. Empirically, we document the program’s internal tensions (communal services vs. individual household needs; socialist ethics vs. personal ownership) and its comparative ambitions (to catch up and overtake the United States in per capita welfare). The result is a reframing of Soviet modernity as a project in which technocratic calculation, welfare egalitarianism, and Cold War benchmarking were fused into a pragmatic, auditable program of one-party rule.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.32609/j.ruje.7.72368

Authors: Aizhan Bolatbayeva

Abstract: This paper introduces a multicountry macroeconometric model for the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The model consists of five single-country models of the union member states: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. The purpose of the research is to explain the structural relationship between the economies, evaluate the impact of internal and external shocks, and analyze the transmission mechanism of shocks across countries. The single-country models are linked to each other by the equations of bilateral trade and bilateral exchange rate. We find that the model fits actual data on main macroeconomic indicators of the countries in a dynamic ex-post simulation over 2004–2018. We also evaluate the effect of world trade and monetary policy shocks on the economies of the EAEU member states.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.32609/j.ruje.7.58034

Authors: Harald Hagemann

Abstract: Wassily Leontief jun. (1905–1999) moved to Berlin in April 1925 after getting his first academic degree from the University of Leningrad. In Berlin he mainly studied with Werner Sombart and Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz who were the referees of his Ph.D. thesis “The economy as a circular flow” (1928). From spring 1927 until April 1931 Leontief was a member of the research staff at the Kiel Institute of World Economics, interrupted by the period from April 1929 to March 1930 when he was an advisor to the Chinese Ministry of Railroads. In the journal of the Kiel Institute, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Leontief had already published his first article “Die Bilanz der russischen Volkswirtschaft. Eine methodologische Untersuchung” [The balance of the Russian economy. A methodological investigation] in 1925. In Kiel Leontief primarily worked on the statistical analysis of supply and demand curves. Leontief’s method triggered a fierce critique by Ragnar Frisch, which launched a heavy debate on “pitfalls” in the construction of supply and demand curves. The debate started in Germany but was continued in the USA where Leontief became a researcher at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in summer 1931. The Leontief–Frisch controversy culminated in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (1934), published by Harvard University, where Leontief made his subsequent career from 1932–1975. His later analysis of the employment consequences of technological change in the 1980s had some roots in his Kiel period.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.32609/j.ruje.7.57963

Authors: Denis V. Melnik

Abstract: The paper provides an interpretation of Lenin’s earliest contributions (made in 1893–1899) to the study of economic development. In the 1890s, Lenin joined young Marxist intellectuals in their fight against the Narodnik economists, who represented the approach prevalent among the Russian radical intelligentsia in the 1870s–1880s. That was the fight over the right to control the Marxist narrative in Russia. Lenin elaborated his theoretical interpretation of Marxism as applied to the contentious issues of Russia’s economic development. The paper outlines the context of Lenin’s activity in the 1890s. It suggests that the main theoretical challenge to “orthodox Marxist” intellectuals in applying Marx’s theory to Russia stemmed not from their designated opponents, but from Marx himself, who presented two divergent scenarios — the dynamic and the breakdown — for capitalist development. Lenin provided an analytical substantiation for the dynamic one but eventually allowed for consideration of structural heterogeneity in the development process. This resulted in the notion of unevenness, on which he would rely upon later, in his studies of imperialism. The paper also briefly considers the place of Lenin’s early development studies in his legacy.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.32609/j.ruje.7.56826

Authors: Natalia A. Makasheva

Abstract: This article addresses Kondratiev’s approach to the problems of economic dynamics, cycle and conjuncture in the context of a new methodological agenda which was formulated in the 1920’s in Europe and the USA by representatives of the “brilliant generation of economists,” mostly members of the econometric movement and its adherents among Russian economists. A distinguishing feature of this generation was that its representatives were striving to make economics an objective science penetrated by rigorous ways of thinking and based on a unification between the theoretical quantitative and the empirical quantitative approaches to the study of economic phenomena. This paper discusses Kondratiev’s project on the general theory of economic dynamics as an embodiment of that methodological agenda. It also highlights a free exchange of ideas between Kondratiev and economists from different countries as a breeding ground for the emergence of the project and a necessary condition for its implementation.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.32609/j.ruje.6.47009

Authors: Aizhan Bolatbayeva, Alisher Tolepbergen, Nurdaulet Abilov

Abstract: The paper outlines a structural macroeconometric model for the economy of Russia. The aim of the research is to analyze how the domestic economy functions, generate forecasts for important macroeconomic indicators and evaluate the responses of main endogenous variables to various shocks. The model is estimated based on quarterly data starting from 2001 to 2019. The majority of the equations are specified in error correction form due to the non-stationarity of variables. Stochastic simulation is used to solve the model for expost and ex-ante analysis. We compare forecasts of the model with forecasts generated by the VAR model. The results indicate that the present model outperforms the VAR model in terms of forecasting GDP growth, inflation rate and unemployment rate. We also evaluate the responses of main macroeconomic variables to VAT rate and world trade shocks via stochastic simulation. Finally, we generate ex-ante forecasts for the Russian economy under the baseline assumptions.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/j.ruje.4.30171

Authors: Rostislav Kapeliushnikov

Abstract: The paper summarizes main recent sociological, epistemological, methodological and ideological trends in modern economics and tries to evaluate its current state and further perspectives. Special attention has been paid to a change in economists’ methodological ideal: economic science began with trying to become like physics but actually has become like medical statistics. The paper’s general conclusion is that what we are witnessing today in modern economics is simply an ordinary working state rather than a triumph or a crisis. However, that state is not very promising since the period of new large theoretical ideas seems to be over for economics, the new atheoretical tendency in it is becoming stronger and in the very near future, economics is most likely to become more and more interventionist.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/j.ruje.4.26002

Authors: Vladimir Avtonomov, Natalia Makasheva

Abstract: Dissemination and adoption of Western economic ideas in Russia have never been a simple process, always bearing marks of the socio-political and ideological circumstances of the country and inner processes in economics, as well as marks of the national intellectual tradition in general. It is not surprising that the history of Austrian economics in Russia was akin to a long road with many windings and turns. We can distinguish three different periods, or waves, each of them rather complex: from the 1890s until the late 1920s (introduction and, to a certain degree, adoption and criticism), from the beginning of the 1930s until the mid-1980s (hostile attitude and ignorance), and from the mid-1980s onwards (rediscovery, dissemination, and adoption).

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/j.ruje.4.26006

Authors: Antonio Magliulo

Abstract: Nowadays the Austrian School enjoys high reputation in Italy: books by Mises, Hayek and other Austrian economists are constantly republished and reviewed with great interest, both inside and outside academic circles. The situation was very different decades ago, when just a few Italian economists devoted attention to the Austrian School. This work studies the reception of Austrian Economics in Italy, from the beginning to our days, so as to bring out, by way of comparison, relevant features of Italian economic culture. We will try to offer just an overview of the entire story, in an attempt to provide useful elements for a deeper analysis of further topics and periods.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.1016/j.ruje.2017.09.001

Authors: Alexey Kudrin, Ilya Sokolov

Abstract: The paper discusses fiscal policy parameters through 2024. The suggested way to ensure long-term fiscal stability is stabilizing both the general government revenues and expenditures as percentages of GDP at levels differing by the public debt service payments and then applying a new version of the fiscal rule. The redistribution of fiscal spending from unproductive to productive areas (primarily investment in human and physical capital) is considered to boost economic growth. The possible use of additional spending on education, public health, and transport systems is presented, as is the optimization of expenditures in nonproductive areas.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.1016/j.ruje.2017.06.002

Authors: Alexander Abramov, Alexander Radygin, Revold Entov, Maria Chernova

Abstract: This study examines the influence of state participation in the ownership structure of companies on their financial efficiency using a sample of 114 largest companies in Russia. As an indirect indicator of efficiency, we used a variety of financial indicators: revenue per employee (gross margin), return on equity, profit margin and debt burden. The effects of direct and indirect state ownership are considered separately. Using econometric analysis, we conclude that the dominance of the block of shares owned by the state has a negative effect on the performance characteristics, and its increase is associated with an increase in the debt burden of the companies. According to our criteria, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) perform worse on average than private companies. The mechanism of how changes in the “real sector” affect profitability is examined particularly closely. The study shows that a change in the profitability of private companies is characterized by a significant dependence on the movement of labor productivity characteristics. At the same time, for SOEs, a similar correlation was not revealed. These companies demonstrated no visible relationship between their profitability and performance characteristics. The study shows that increases in the size of direct government ownership lead to lower labor productivity and profitability; the impact of indirect ownership is, seemingly, more complicated.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.1016/j.ruje.2017.02.001

Authors: Alexander Abramov, Alexander Radygin, Maria Chernova

Abstract: This article analyzes the ownership structure of state-owned companies and their role in the Russian economy. Using a sample of 114 of the largest Russian companies, we estimated direct and indirect state participation as a percentage of shareholdings for direct and indirect federal property during the time period of 2006–2014. We used two methods to estimate the role of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), which allowed us to compare our results with OECD and Rosstat statistics for a broader sample of Russian companies owned by the public sector. This study revealed a decline in SOEs’ share in the capitalization of the Russian stock market and a slight increase in their share of total revenues and employment. The results indicated that public SOEs demonstrated significantly higher productivity compared to non-public SOEs and private companies had a distinct advantage in productivity compared with public SOEs. Despite the significant advantages in productivity of private companies over the SOEs, over a 9-year period, we observed that this gap narrowed. This may be due to conditions of high financial volatility and stagnation of the economy that result in certain advantages for SOEs in terms of access to sources of long-term funding and other forms of state support. However, SOEs with indirect state control experienced a rapid growth in revenue and productivity compared to other firms. This may indicate the presence of a specific stock selection mechanism for transferring more effective SOEs from direct state ownership to indirect control as an alternative to privatization.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.1016/j.ruje.2015.05.001

Authors: Alexander Radygin, Yury Simachev, Revold Entov

Abstract: This article will analyze the activity of state-owned companies and their place in the structure of market relations from the standpoint of contemporary approaches to the study of “state failure” and “market failure”. It will also consider the implications of the systematic embedding of private property rights. In addition to considering the costs of the functions of state-owned companies, the authors address the actual experience of the Russian economy in the present day, the experience of forming state corporations and the risks associated with their operation. Particular attention will be paid to the inhibition of incentives to improve the general institutional environment and, conversely, to the increasing incidence of direct state intervention in matters that affect economic development. We will examine the various ways in which the growth of the public sector, de jure and de facto, reduces opportunities for implementing private property rights.

HTML

XML

PDF