Испанский традиционализм на переломе эпох: девять идейно-ценностных «мутаций» Х.Л. де Вильянуэвы
The purpose of this paper is to assess the size of public sector within the Russian banking industry. We identify and classify at least 78 state-influenced banks. We distinguish between banks that are majority-owned by federal executive authorities or Central Bank of Russia, by sub-federal (regional and municipal) authorities, by state-owned enterprises and banks, and by "state corporations". We estimate their combined market share to have reached 56% of total assets by July 1, 2009. Banks indirectly owned by public capital are the fastest-growing group. Concentration is increasing within the public sector of the industry, with the top five state-controlled banking groups in possession of over 49% of assets. We observe a crowding out and erosion of domestic private capital, whose market share is shrinking from year to year. Several of the largest state-owned banks now constitute a de facto intermediate tier at the core of the banking system. We argue that the direction of ownership change in Russian banking is different from that in CEE countries.
Few economic events have caused such controversy as the privatization process in Russia. Some see it as the foundation of political and economic freedom. For others it was economics gone wrong, and ended in "Russians stealing money from their own country". As Russia reasserts itself, and its new brand of capitalism, it is ever more important that policy makers and scholars understand the roots of the economic structure and governance of that country; what was decided, who made the decisions and why, what actually transpired, and what implications this has for the future of Russia.
This work, written by two senior advisors to the Russian government, has unique access to documentation, tracking the decision making process in the Russian Mass Privatization process. By close reference to events, and supplemented by interviews with many of the key participants, it shows that the policies adopted were often influenced and shaped by different forces than those cited by current popular accounts. The book challenges the interpretation of Russian privatization by some of the West’s most eminent economists. It underlines that economists of all schools, who bring assumptions from the West to the analysis of Russia, may reach false or misleading conclusions. It is an essential guide for anyone interested in Russian economic reform, and anyone who seeks to understand this enigmatic country, and its actions today.
This study used basic personal values to elucidate the motivational meanings of “left” and “right” political orientations in 20 representative national samples from the European Social Survey (2002–2003). It also compared the importance of personal values and sociodemographic variables as determinants of political orientation. Hypotheses drew on the different histories, prevailing culture, and socioeconomic level of three sets of countries—liberal, traditional, and postcommunist. As hypothesized, universalism and benevolence values explained a left orientation in both liberal and traditional countries and conformity and tradition values explained a right orientation; values had little explanatory power in postcommunist countries. Values predicted political orientation more strongly than sociodemographic variables in liberal countries, more weakly in postcommunist countries, and about equally in traditional countries.
The purpose of this paper is to carefully assess the size of public sector within the Russian banking industry. We identify and classify at least 78 state-influenced banks. For the state-owned banks, we distinguish between those that are majority-owned by federal executive authorities or Central Bank of Russia, by sub-federal (regional and municipal) authorities, by state-owned enterprises and banks, and by "state corporations". We estimate their combined market share to have reached 56% of total assets by July 1, 2009. Banks indirectly owned by public capital are the fastest-growing group. Concentration is increasing within the public sector of the industry, with the top five state-controlled banking groups in possession of over 49% of assets. We observe a crowding out and erosion of domestic private capital, whose market share is shrinking from year to year. Several of the largest state-owned banks now constitute a de facto intermediate tier at the core of the banking system. We argue that the direction of ownership change in Russian banking is different from that in CEE countries.
In this study, for the first time in Russian practice from a large amount of empirical data on state contracts for procurement of goods, works and services, made a major budgetary organization during 2008-2010., Examines factors affecting the decline in trading, delays in supplies, as well as problems in the performance of obligations under the contracts. The analysis showed that a reduction prices at the auctions directly dependent on the number of applications accepted for review by the competitive commissions. Falling prices are more frequent in the procurement of goods and experimental trust (compared to the benefits of the inspection), as well as a state contract for works. However, the prices are much less likely to have been lowered in auctions (compared to purchasing through quotations and tenders). Delays in supplies occurred in 27% of patients and were more frequent in the procurement of experimental benefits, and were characterized for major purchases and state contracts executed during the I-III quarters of the year. More serious problems in the performance of obligations, full fraught with supply disruptions, have characterized the state contracts, culminating in the IV quarter. The overall risk supply disruptions were reported only 5% of purchases at competitive procedures, but on the contracts accounted for nearly half of all purchases of the budget organization in 2008-2010. Based on the analysis in the formulation of recommendations to improve the system of public procurement.
The chapter aims to explore the special model of flagship universities that emerged in the former socialist Soviet system and analyse their contemporary transition. A planned state economy requires the development of a sophisticated hierarchical typology of higher education institutions with flagship universities positioned at the top of the hierarchy. The Soviet higher education model was different from those found in other parts of the world because of its officially assigned special leadership roles. Soviet flagship universities provided support for other universities in national or regional contexts. This support included the training of teaching staff, curriculum development, and quality control. Flagship universities had exclusive opportunities to conduct research. The first part of the chapter highlights the differences between these flagship universities and the rest of the higher education system.
After the collapse of Soviet Union the hierarchical model of Russian higher education has changed under the influence of market forces, private education, and increasing competition between universities. These changes have affected flagship universities. The second part of the paper examines the reasons why some former flagship universities lost their special role, why some flagship universities managed to keep or strengthen their role, and, why several new leadership universities have emerged. The chapter describes the transformation, changes of internal features and attributes of former leading universities on the path to the contemporary models of flagship universities. The end of the paper discusses the basic factors that allow leading universities in Russia to become contemporary flagship universities.
We address the external effects on public sector efficiency measures acquired using Data Envelopment Analysis. We use the health care system in Russian regions in 2011 to evaluate modern approaches to accounting for external effects. We propose a promising method of correcting DEA efficiency measures. Despite the multiple advantages DEA offers, the usage of this approach carries with it a number of methodological difficulties. Accounting for multiple factors of efficiency calls for more complex methods, among which the most promising are DMU clustering and calculating local production possibility frontiers. Using regression models for estimate correction requires further study due to possible systematic errors during estimation. A mixture of data correction and DMU clustering together with multi-stage DEA seems most promising at the moment. Analyzing several stages of transforming society’s resources into social welfare will allow for picking out the weak points in a state agency’s work.