This work is an attempt to explain an enigma of the Russian economy's debarterization which took place in the beginning of the XXI century in the context of institutional-and-macroeconomic analysis of the structure of payments' system. This system is treated as the important part of an institutional environment. Debarterization is explained by a combination of long economic expansion, increasing «money supply/GDP» ratio and growing credit activity of the banks, and also administrative and tax pressing of the government. Nevertheless, the Russian payments' system is basically different from the Western one. The main measured differences are low «money supply/GDP» ratio, high «cash money/total money supply» ratio, an absence of M3 and M4 aggregates. The main causes of this underdevelopment of the payments' system are ineffective enforcement of the contracts by the state, high administrative barriers to entry, a lack of mutual trust, big shadow sector. The main consequences are narrow possibilities for financing both expensive (and long-lived) investment projects and innovative activity.
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.