Предпринимательская активность в России и ее межрегиональные различия
The paper analyses the dynamics of business activity of the Russian population from
2005 to the present time, as well as persistent differences in its level between different groups of Subjects
of the Russian Federation basing on the statistics of small and medium-sized enterprises and business
statistics. It is shown that in Russia, there were three types of regions with specific sets of factors that contribute
to and hinder the development of entrepreneurial activity of the population before to the shock
macroeconomic changes associated with the coronavirus pandemic, namely, (а) six subjects of the RF
favorable conditions, as well as two roughly equal large groups of (b) regions with a low level of investment
activity and (c) regions with high levels of socio-economic disadvantages. A set of factors that act as
predictors or limitations for entrepreneurial activity in these different groups are analyzed. The authors
suggest that due to the shock economic changes under the coronavirus pandemic, the last two groups
will almost merge according to the conditions and factors of entrepreneurial activity, while the factors
that are important for starting business activities in the first group of regions will significantly weaken.
Taking into account the above differences, two approaches to promoting entrepreneurial activity for
different groups of regions are proposed — «involving» for six subjects of the Russian Federation with a
relatively developed ecosystem of entrepreneurship and «pushing» for the majority of the rest of them.
This article is devoted to the content and interconnection analysis of the categories «interest» and «entrepreneurial risk». The logical connection analysis of the categories is carried out by using not only the theoretical point of view, but also the practice of application.
This two-part overview of contemporary Russian anthropology focuses in detail on the work of several scholars and situates it in the changing landscape of Russian academia. The main issue I address is debates about an academic identity of Russian anthropology as ‘historical science’. Given that in Western anthropology, history has become one of the leading modes of anthropological analysis and that the turn to history marked a radical repositioning of anthropology’s very subject, it is important to explore how such configurations of history and anthropology work in other anthropological traditions and what the reasons are for turning to history or, conversely, avoiding it, for specific national, continental and transnational anthropological schools. In this article, I explore these questions by focusing on anthropology in Russia with an aim of reassembling the relationship between anthropology and history from the point of view of the anthropology of time. I ask what temporal frameworks underscore the relationship between anthropology and history. I explore these understandings ethnographically, that is, through ethnographic interviews with Russian scholars in addition to close readings of their works.
The book is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of Russian parliamentarism. The analysis of historical experience and actual problems of development of parliamentarism in Russia, Germany and a number of other European countries is presented. The authors are leading Russian and foreign experts from a number of research centers in Russia and Europe. Materials on the analysis of the development of parliamentarism in Germany and other European countries are based on the results of the European project "Parliamentary representation in Europe: recruiting and the career of legislators in 1848-2005", implemented during the last decade.
The book is addressed to a wide range of readers - scientists, politicians, public servants, teachers and students, everyone who is interested in the history and modern experience of Russian and European parliamentarism.
Russia’s policy towards Northeast Asia cannot be understood independently of its general Asian strategy, primarily its pivot to Asia, which has practically become an official policy after 2014. We are witnessing two contradictory tendencies in Washington and Seoul. The Trump administration seeks to assume a tougher stance on North Korea. At the same time, South Korea’s new government is likely to be more moderate towards Pyongyang. At the same time Russian experts expressed considerable hope.
The participation of a Russian team in the GEM Consortium made it possible to collect data for Russia on the level of development and the structure of entrepreneurial potential that are comparable to analogous indicators in other countries participating in the GEM. (It should be noted that in 2006 and in 2007 the GEM was based on analysis of survey results from 42 countries, with a total sample of more than 170600 people.). Entrepreneurship is taken to mean any attempt to create a new enterprise or business, including self-employment, the creation of a new entrepreneurial structure or the expansion of a pre-existing business, undertaken by an individual, a group of individuals or an existing business structure.