The phenomenon of high growth medium-sized companies is a major focus within industrial policy in recent years and it has induced an active discussion in many countries about the practicability of the use of state-backed support instruments designed to promote these firms. The new state project to provide support to private high-tech companies-leaders has started in June 2016 upon an initiative of the RF Ministry of Economic Development. The rating "TechUspekh" ("TechSuccess") has been chosen as the main database for further selection of the companies—participants of this project. The article describes main results obtained from the sampling study of the companies included in this rating in 2015 and also brings out a set of possible recommendations for state-backed support measures for such leading companies-"tech-gazelles". The last subsection is devoted to the review of the latest public support programs for the fast-growing mid-sized companies in a number of foreign countries. 

The hypothesis of declining individual discount rates for socially significant investments as compared to the rates for socially neutral ones confirmed based on a mass survey with using hypothetical situations on investing by the individuals the lottery prize to long-term social bonds. It is shown the existence of the special type of asset in the form of additional part of capital advanced to investment projects which arises for socially significant projects from the fact that people are ready to vote for their financing at a lower rate. The conclusions have drawn about the value of considered type of asset for the case of Russia, the social base through which it can be accumulated and its differences for merit and public goods of various types. The study was conducted on the basis of a Russian national quota sample.

This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation under Grant number 16-18-10270.

The paper provides a critical assessment of an authoritative study “From Soviets to oligarchs” (2017) on evolution of economic inequality in Russia by F. Novokmet, T. Piketty and G. Zucman where Russia is portrayed as a country with abnormally polarized income distribution by international standards. The author examines main quantitative results obtained by Piketty’s team, describes peculiar methodological features of their measuring procedure and analyzes how they dissect available empirical data sets. A general conclusion is that the trio uses an unconventional methodology that does not allow to apply equivalence scales; their argument suffers from internal inconsistencies (different units of observation and different definitions of income are used); they misunderstand the nature of data that form a base for their calculations (simulated estimates are perceived as raw survey data, post-tax incomes as pretax ones, etc.); deduction and declaration coefficients that they impose on tax data are empirically improbable; their final estimates of income inequality for Russia are higher than empirically realistic ones approximately by one third (Gini coefficients 0.5—0.6 instead of 0.3—0.4 by other researchers).

A relative uniformity of population distribution on the territory of the country is of importance from socio-economic and strategic perspectives. It is especially important in the case of Russia with its densely populated west and underpopulated east. This paper considers changes in population density in Russian regions, which occurred from 1897 to 2017. It explores whether there was convergence in population density and what factors influenced it. For this purpose, it uses the data both at county and regional levels, which are brought to common borders for comparability purposes. Further, the models of unconditional and conditional β-convergence are estimated, taking into account the spatial dependence. The paper concludes that the population density equalization took place in 1897—2017 at the county level and in 1926—1970 at the regional level. In addition, the population density increase is shown to be influenced not only by spatial effects, but also by political and geographical factors such as climate, number of GULAG camps, and the distance from the capital city.

This paper provides empirical evidence on the relation of innovation and competition, as well as insights on the role of innovation within the competitive strategies of Russian enterprises. The survey of roughly 1000 enterprises (executed as a part of the European Manufacturing Survey) from the manufacturing sector and ICT reveals the marginal role of innovation in the competitive strategies. Companies largely do not consider innovation as a legitimate strategy for business success. The paper outlines specific sectoral patterns and presents the general discussion of the inefficiency of the Russian national innovation system.