Кто управляет? Сравнительные аспекты взаимодействия государства, бизнеса и общества в дискуссиях российских политологов и специалистов
The paper uses the evidence from Russia to analyze the arrangements for interaction between foreign firms and key national partners in the countries of their operations. We identify the main stages and factors that were driving the evolution of the two main channels of collective action for foreign firms in Russia over the last 25 years – the Foreign Investment Advisory Council under the Office of the Russian Prime Minister and foreign business associations. We also provide the comparative analysis of the effectiveness of these two main channels, as well as highlight the factors contributing to higher effectiveness of individual foreign business associations under the current Russia’s circumstances.
We show that political rather than economic or institutional factors play a more significant role in explaining the changes in the effectiveness of collective efforts of foreign firms. Russia’s experience suggests that the mechanisms of interaction between foreign business and the authorities can work effectively only if there is mutual interest in such interaction. In Russia since the mid-2000s there have been relatively favorable political conditions for the dialogue between the Government and foreign firms, and the respective interaction mechanisms produced some positive effects regarding e.g. attraction of additional foreign investment inflows and modernization of the regulatory framework. However, with worsening the political situation in 2013, political priorities of the Russian Government became markedly more important than the economic ones, and thus, the effectiveness of the existing instruments for collective action of foreign firms significantly decreased. One consequence of this has been the greater willingness of foreign business associations to cooperate with Russian business in order to promote jointly a pragmatic reform agenda.
During the early 2000s the market liberalization reforms to the Russian economy, begun in the 1990s, were consolidated. But since the mid 2000s economic policy has moved into a new phase, characterized by more state intervention with less efficiency and more structural problems. Corruption, weak competitiveness, heavy dependency on energy exports, an unbalanced labour market, and unequal regional development are trends that have arisen and which, this book argues, will worsen unless the government changes direction. The book provides an in-depth analysis of the current Russian economic system, highlighting especially structural and institutional defects, and areas where political considerations are causing distortions, and puts forward proposals on how the present situation could be remedied.
To help right the imbalance in attention in between oligarch firms and the rest of the economy, we report results from two original surveys of 500 firms conducted in 2000 and 2007 in eight regions in Russia that explore the business environment for manufacturing and service sectors. We find that the formal and informal rules of the game for everyday firms in Russia have changed dramatically in the Putin years. Most importantly, while the informal and formal rules of the game were essentially the same for successful and unsuccessful firms in 2000, by 2007 regional governments in Russia had come to favor successful firms through a variety of informal and formal means in ways that were absent just seven years earlier. This shift in the rules of the game in favor of successful firms suggests that a core group of firms in the regions under study have managed to cooperate with the regional government to temper the weak institutional environment in Russia. On one hand, this arrangement is clearly a “second-best” option for economic development over more neutral rules that provide a level playing field for all firms. On the other hand, it is likely an improvement over “third-best” options that involve the state using its power to punish successful firms to reward less successful firms. More generally, this change in informal institutions in a relatively short time suggests that informal institutions are mutable than many accounts suggest.
The future of Russia depends on whether the elites can agree on new rules of the game. Russia’s highest offi¬cials recognize that in order to preserve the political regime, it is necessary to change the model of relations with business. However, the lack of correct stimuli for bureaucrats at the middle level continues to be a seri¬ous obstacle for development.
Chapter examines models of interaction between business and government of different levels comparing western and eastern parts of Russia on the basis of Russian enterprises survey data. In addition, we analyze the changes in the models of interaction between business and government in Russia comparing the results of two surveys of enterprises that characterize the behavior of enterprises before and after the crisis of 2008–2009.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.