Экономика ОГПУ-НКВД-МВД. 1930 – 1952. Масштабы, структура, тенденции развития
The paper considers the problems of the development of monotowns related to the development of mineral resources. The author shows that the solution of the problems of these cities is possible only if the system of state regulation of the development of mineral resources is changed at the stage of high maturity of the resource base. At the same time, the paper focuses on the development of the so-called "resource monotowns". The author analyzes the relationship between the stages of development and extraction of natural resources within the framework of the research. The important factor is the role of so-called "system specificity" of assets that form the basis for the formation and functioning of the mono-industry and the infrastructure of the settlement. Another important factor is the need for decentralization of powers in granting, taxing, and regulating the development of natural resources, their redistribution from the Federation to regional authorities and municipalities (including monotowns). The latter implies the formation of a system of subsoil use, based on complicity, co-management of the natural resource potential. In this case, in the opinion of the author and the proposed recommendations have constitutional grounds, as Art. 72 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation refers to "joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the subjects of the Federation of issues of ownership, use and disposal of land, mineral wealth, water and other natural resources". The proposed recommendations and practical interpretations for Art. 72 include the need to expand the range of subjects of joint jurisdiction with mandatory inclusion in their number of municipalities (including monotowns), as well as citizens. This involves creating a mechanism for interaction between all these actors in the processes of preparing, discussing and implementing decisions in the sphere of the use of natural resources.
In this paper we study convergence among Russian regions. We find that while there was no convergence in 1990s, the situation changed dramatically in 2000s. While interregional GDP per capita gaps still persist, the differentials in incomes and wages decreased substantially. We show that fiscal redistribution did not play a major role in convergence. We therefore try to understand the phenomenon of recent convergence using panel data on the interregional reallocation of capital and labor. We find that capital market in Russian regions is integrated in a sense that local investment does not depend on local savings. We also show that economic growth and financial development has substantially decreased the barriers to labor mobility. We find that in 1990s many poor Russian regions were in a poverty trap: potential workers wanted to leave those regions but could not afford to finance the move. In 2000s (especially in late 2000s), these barriers were no longer binding. Overall economic development allowed even poorest Russian regions to grow out of the poverty traps. This resulted in convergence in Russian labor market; the interregional gaps in incomes, wages and unemployment rates are now below those in Europe. The results imply that economic growth and development of financial and real estate markets eventually result in interregional convergence.
The introductory article by the guest editor reveals the essence of the concept of “entrepreneurial ecosystem” (EE), its main components, and outlines the main directions of EE research with an emphasis on countries with economies in transition presented in the papers of the special issue.
This volume contains the proceedings of the International Workshop on Idempotent and Tropical Mathematics (Moscow, Russia, August 26-31, 2012).
A brief analysis of the draft document “Russia 2030: Science and Technology Foresight” (of December 19, 2017) is presented. The authors, who are leading researchers at the Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, reveal discrepancies between a series of provisions in the document and the current level of Russia’s economic development, primarily in science and technology. The document provides virtually no economic rationale or analysis of what causes the loss of science and technology potential in Russia. The attempt to foresee the technological development of individual Russian regions is unsuccessful. The general conclusion is that the foresight document does not provide a single platform for the development and implementation of strategic planning documents in the field of science and technology.