Системный кризис Еврозоны: экономика vs политика
Since 2008, the world economy has been facing consequences of the global financial crisis. One of them is rapid growth in public debt in most advanced economies, which resulted from an overoptimistic estimate of fiscal situation before the crisis, declining government revenue and increasing social expenditure during the crisis, costs of the banking system restructuring, countercyclical fiscal policies, etc.
For this reason, many governments are trying to determine a ‘safe’ level of fiscal deficit and public debt. However, this is not an easy task. There is no single standard of fiscal safety for all economies. Besides, a globalized economy and irregular business cycle make it difficult to find out in which phase of the cycle a given economy is at the moment, while this is essential to assess fiscal indicators.
Historical experience shows that default risk may materialize at different levels of public debt, sometimes seemingly very low. In fact, a ‘safe’ borrowing level is country-specific and depends on many factors and often unpredictable circumstances. However, given the tense situation in global markets, the ‘safe’ level of public debt is lower than it used to be a decade ago. Another argument for a cautious approach concerns a highly pro-cyclical nature of such measures as the fiscal deficit to GDP or public debt to GDP ratios.
Lessons of the latest crises also indicate importance of more accurate estimation of countries’ contingent fiscal liabilities, particularly of those relating to the stability in the financial sector. If looking into the future, a correct estimation of other contingent liabilities, particularly those related to social welfare systems (implicit debt of the public pension and health systems) are of primary importance in the context of the ageing society and population decline. These liabilities far exceed official statistics on the public debt in some counties. As a result, such statistics does not present an adequate picture of the nation's public debt and actual fiscal burden that will be imposed on the shoulders of the following generations of taxpayers.
This paper studies fiscal policy in Russia 2004–2010 with the aid of structural budget balance and fiscal impulse measures. To check for robustness several methods estimating the potential GDP are employed. The research suggests a hypothesis that the output in Russia is subject to two types of shocks: persistent outward shocks and short-term internal shocks. In 2004–2010, fiscal policy coped with the internal shocks but could not smooth outward instability. Fiscal policy in Russia is procyclical; it does not stabilize the output.
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.
Effective property rights protection plays a fundamental role in promoting economic performance. Yet measurement problems make the relationship between property rights and entrepreneurship an ambiguous issue. As an advancement on previous research in this paper we propose a new approach to the evaluation of the security of property rights based on direct measures that overcomes some limitations of previous studies. We apply this new metrics to a survey of manufacturing firms in Russia to identify the economic effects associated with the lack of property protection in a transition economy. Our analysis supports the view that there is a close relationship between institutions, property rights and economic growth. Our findings confirm that redistributive risks provide a depressing effect on investment and innovative activity of manufacturing enterprises and potentially result in a huge loss in efficiency and economic growth, which in other institutional settings could have been avoided.
India's recent growth rate has been impressive, with real GDP rising by over 8 percent a year since 2004. The country is also becoming a top global innovator for high-tech products and services. Still, India is underperforming relative to its innovation potential. Even a dynamic young population--more than half of whom are under 25 years of age--is constrained when skills training and higher education are insufficient. To sustain competitiveness, economic growth, and rising living standards over the long term, India needs to aggressively harness its innovation potential. The term innovation is broadly defined in this book to include both the creation and commercialization of new knowledge and the diffusion and absorption of existing knowledge in new contexts. A unique feature is the book's focus on inclusive innovation, that is, knowledge creation and absorption activities most relevant to the needs of the poor. Concrete recommendations are made for increasing productivity and welfare through the disciplining role of competition, including training and education, information infrastructure, and public and private finance as support mechanisms for broad-based innovation. Unleashing India's Innovation: Toward Sustainable and Inclusive Growth provides national and local policy makers, private sector enterprises, academic and research institutions, international organizations, and civil society with a better understanding of the power of innovation to fuel economic growth and poverty reduction.
The article considers the processes of progress in production and service sectors and answers the question how and thanks to what service sector of Russian economy left the productive one behind (concerning contribution in GDP of our country). The rates of development of service sector turned out to be so high firstly - as a reason of peculiarities of new Russian economy, which historically was built on the market principles and was developing in conditions of investment resources deficit, secondly - as a reason of system differences between «physical» goods and services as an object of sale. Nowadays Russia faces an unusual symbiosis: effective service companies, operating in hard competitive sphere with average profitability and non-affective from the point of management industrial companies, which thanks to monopolistic pricing have great profitability, providing profits of Russian budget and determining a macroeconomic situation.
The economic crisis has uncovered three negative Russian tendencies that created institutional obstacles for market economy growth during the last decade: deepening of raw materials specialization, wear and tear of the equipment, gap in scientific and technical progress, and strengthening of the government. To stop these negative tendencies and overcome economic crisis it is necessary to reform developed institutes.
The major problem of the Russian economy is its low performance level. Overcoming development gap in comparison with developed countries will become possible only with the help of innovations. This means that process of generating and using Schumpeterian-type innovations should become the key factor of economic development. It is necessary to note that innovative activity of businessmen can be present in various forms. Depending on existing game rules business activity can get not only productive (J. A. Schumpeter’s creative destruction), but also unproductive (rent seeking) orientation.
The “Concept 2020” analyses the global challenges which Russia faces in its development that amplify high level of social inequality and regional differentiation, preservation of barriers to conducting enterprise activity, weak interrelation of education, science and business, absence of necessary competition in various markets and low level of social capital development. Under these conditions, as A. Gerschenkron wrote, the government becomes the leading factor of economic modernization, and it is its representatives that try to shape the concept of long-term socio-economic development of the country.
It is supposed that gross national product growth will be provided, mainly, by means of priority development of labour productivity and large capital assets investments. Our calculations show they considerably advance growth of productivity and gross national product, and that will lead to increase in a capital intensity of production and falling yield on capital investment. The arising gap between export and import, according to authors of the Concept, will be covered by the accruing inflow of foreign capital.
However the main drawback is the mechanism of maintaining economic growth. Defining concrete aims of development is an important, but an insufficient condition. The institutional mechanism of private sector development stimulation is not developed at all. Meanwhile, sharp increase of expenses on social sphere will raise the question about budget spending. It can be reached either by increase in taxes or by public sector expansion.
In the report it is critically considered not only the official point of view, but also Porter M., Ketels K. “Competitiveness at the Crossroads: Choosing the Future Direction of the Russian Economy”, «The forecast of innovative, technological and structural dynamics of Russian economy till 2030», and RAND Corporation report “The Global Technology Revolution 2020: Trends, Drivers, Barriers, and Social Implications” devoted to tendencies of development of 16 technologies in 29 countries and other forecasts.
In this paper we analyze institutional preconditions and possibilities of application of the concept of social market economy in the 21st century Russia. Basic elements of social market economy are personal liberty, social justice, and economic efficiency.
Personal liberty assumes trust strengthening between agents, development of guarantees of private property, and regular economic policy promoting freedom.
With social justice present market economy promotes social development and strengthens middle class. Democracy will allow to break administrative barriers and to create public control. Social justice also includes address support of vulnerable regions of Russia.
Economic efficiency should be directed towards creation and maintenance of competitive order, strengthening of antimonopoly activity and improving fair entrepreneur’s image. This will make Russia more attractive for workers from abroad and help it develop integrative relations with neighboring countries.
All these measures will raise economic efficiency while creating preconditions for a fast overcoming of the crisis and increasing the well-being and the acceleration of economic development of Russia.
Institutions affect investment decisions, including investments in human capital. Hence institutions are relevant for the allocation of talent. Good market-supporting institutions attract talent to productive value-creating activities, whereas poor ones raise the appeal of rent-seeking. We propose a theoretical model that predicts that more talented individuals are particularly sensitive in their career choices to the quality of institutions, and test these predictions on a sample of around 95 countries of the world. We find a strong positive association between the quality of institutions and graduation of college and university students in science, and an even stronger negative correlation with graduation in law. Our findings are robust to various specifications of empirical models, including smaller samples of former colonies and transition countries. The quality of human capital makes the distinction between educational choices under strong and weak institutions particularly sharp. We show that the allocation of talent is an important link between institutions and growth.
One of the basic factors of economic growth in the information knowledge - based economy is the innovation component determined by the level of intellectual capital usage. Of the specifics in the usage of intellectual capital is that the cost evaluation of intellectual resources on the macro-level as a factor of economic growth is extremely difficult and there are more evaluation possibilities on the micro-level. The risk's estimation based on making use of discount theory.