Возможности оказания государственной поддержки российским предприятиям-экспортерам в целях преодоления торгово-экономических барьеров
This article is devoted to the issue of government export promotion activities (export support) available to the Russian companies and focused on removing (or mitigating) various economic barriers, which can prevent the enterprises from participation in the international trade. The article puts forward several objectives, which should be set by the government in order to achieve the most effective results in helping the firm develop its abilities and increase exports at any stage of internationalization. Besides the article contains a list of economic restrictive measures imposed by foreign governments against Russian products and provides certain recommendations concerning possible ways to improve the existing system of government export support.
The events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine prompted the European Union (EU) to adopt several ‘packages’ of restrictive measures against Russia. A number of attempts have been made by natural and legal persons to challenge the validity of those measures before the General Court and the Court of Justice of the EU. Despite the fact that the applicants in all of these cases were unsuccessful and the judgments largely confirmed the existing case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), these cases deserve special attention for a number of reasons.
Firstly, they provide an important clarification of the application of the listing criteria developed in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. In the Rotenberg and Kiselev cases, the General Court gave a restrictive reading of the notion of ‘active support’ used in the sanction criteria as covering only those forms of support which, by their quantitative or qualitative significance, contribute to Russia’s actions and policies destabilising Ukraine. This rather restrictive reading fits well with the fifth principle guiding the EU’s policy towards Russia, implying that only a small group of persons will be liable to fall under this criterion and that it will not threaten people-to-people contacts at large.
Secondly, the Court had the opportunity to rule on the validity of different types of measures. While the Almaz-Antey Air and Space Defence, Kiselev, and Rotenberg cases dealt with the freezing of assets, in other cases the Court examined general economic measures, such as the restriction of access to capital markets and export restrictions. Rosneft and NK Rosneft and Others present a particular interest in this regard as the Court addressed the issue of the legality of those measures with regard to the provisions of the EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of 1994 (PCA) and WTO law. Those expecting an elaborate analysis were however quickly disappointed as the Court basically confirmed the Council’s broad discretion for the adoption of political decisions. In its appraisal of the necessity of restrictive measures for the protection of EU essential security interests, it relied entirely on the Council’s assessment contained in the preambles of the contested acts transforming an already limited judicial control in a pure formality. In a situation where restrictive measures are imposed by the EU on the ground of international law violations, this reluctance by the CJEU to exercise an effective control as to the respect of international law – or at least conduct its own assessment of the situation – can be seen as questioning the Court’s stance as an independent non-political institution.
Thirdly, what is even more important, some of the cases brought a significant contribution to the development of the Court’s jurisprudence in the area of CFSP as the Court was prompted to deal with several new legal issues. The Rotenberg case, for instance, answers the question of whether persons in charge of certain businesses may be included in the sanctions list because they benefited from the decision-makers at any point in time or whether the EU institutions need to demonstrate the existence of such a connection at the time when the third state’s illegal actions took place. In the Kiselev case, the General Court had to ascertain the legality of restrictive measures taken against a journalist in the light of the freedom of expression. In its turn in Rosneft, the Court of Justice ruled on the possibility to challenge the legality of autonomous restrictive measures via the preliminary reference procedure. Finally, the number and nature of the cases may also contribute to the debate on the effectiveness of the sanctions. The present chapter does not seek to describe the cases one by one, but rather analyses their contribution to the development of the CJEU case-law on restrictive measures by focusing on the key issues discussed in these cases.
The training manual reveals the urgent issues of development of the Russian economy in the conditions of formation and development of its innovative component. Through the presented materials studied mechanisms of improving the economic and institutional relations in the transition to an innovative economy are studied. Also we can find detailed description of directions of state support and structures implementing by it. It seems interesting the regional dimension, including a detailed description of the innovation potential of the Samara region. The manual contains a list of the latest regulatory and legal acts regulating the innovation sphere. Study materials will help to deepen the knowledge of the modern infrastructure of innovative enterprises support.
It is intended for the development of "Microeconomics" disciplines, "Macroeconomics", "Economic theory" undergraduate students directions 080100 "Economics" discipline "Institutional Economics", "Innovation Management" direction 080200 "Management" discipline "Economic theory" direction 100700 "Commerce" "Commercial business", direction 040100 "Sociology".
The manual will help in the study course "Problems of modern economics" graduate students directions 080100 "Economics" as well as everyone who involved in the economic by self-education and in-depth interest in economic theory.
The Russian government has programs to assist Russian companies with financial and organizational support. Award of procurement contracts may also serve as assistance to companies. This paper uses data from a survey of Russian companies to draw inferences about the motivation behind the choice of recipients. Possible motivations are an intent to foster economic development, successful rent-seeking by recipients or simply corruption. The evidence is mixed. There is support for both the economic development motive and rent-seeking in the analysis of financial and organizational support. A role for corruption is most evident in the procurement contract results.
The review of the current situation in the sphere of preschool education in Russia is taken in the article. The weak aspects of municipal preschools are analyzed, and prospects of further development of the nongovernmental sector are defined. Based on 30 in-depth interviews with leaders of different nongovernmental child centers in three Russian cities, the practices of center functioning described, main berries of further development systematized and demanded mechanisms of governmental support constructed. As a result the recommendations on lawmaking are suggested.
The regular workshop “Economic Policy during the Transitional Period”, organized by professor Gregory Yasin (academic supervisor of the Higher School of Economics), was held on January 30, 2014. At this workshop professor Vadim Radaev (first vice-rector of HSE) delivered a report on “Is It Possible to Save Russian Apparel and Textile Industry?”, initiating a discussion of the current problems faced by the industry and development perspectives. Prominent experts in this sphere took part in debates on the future of Russian apparel and textile industry: Vugar Isaev (president and founder of the chain stores “Snezhnaya Koroleva”), Andrei Razbrodin (president of The Russian Union of Entrepreneurs of Textile and Light Industry, board member of The Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs), Andrei Yakovlev (director of the Institute for Industrial and Market Studies). The central issue discussed at the workshop dealt with the reasons of the Russian textile and apparel industry survival after Soviet Union collapse despite sharp productivity decline. Nevertheless textile and apparel industry still vulnerable, facing the risks posed by global competition. Vadim Radaev suggests modernization strategies for textile and apparel, facilitating its growth. Do we have chances to enter in global supply chains? What role should government and companies play in this process? This article provides an overview of answers to those questions.
The monograph is devoted to the development problems of the dairy industry in Russia.
It reveals the features of innovative and investment development of dairy cattle farming in the Non-black soil regions of Russia. It is analyzed the influence of the state agricultural regulation and support system on the concentration and intensification processes, realization of comparative advantages of milk production in the Non-black soil region in the conditions of global competition in the food and resource market. The factors of increasing the efficiency of technological modernization of dairy cattle farming are investigated.
The study is intended to managers and specialists of agricultural government bodies, researchers, professors, Ph.D. students and everyone who is interested in problems of innovative development of agricultural sectors.
This paper based on extensive survey analyzes relationships between Russian companies and the state in 2006–2010. As well as company characteristics, regional differences are also taken into account. Special focus is made on changes in relations due to world crisis and differences in relations with the state between industrial companies and enterprises from service sector. Regression analysis shows that in 2009–2010 relationship was built on “model of exchange” principle and the system was quite inert: even changes in GRP and investments’ level induced by crisis do not influence the probability of receiving government support. However, it was established that when allocating support the authorities take unemployment changes into consideration, which means that social factors matter.