WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 || 3 | 4 |   ...   | 115 |
5.3.1. On-going migration..................................................................................................... 5.3.2. Temporary migration................................................................................................... 5.3.3. Internal migration........................................................................................................ 5.4. Russian Education Basic Development Trends in 20002010........................................ 5.4.1. Russian Education within a Global Context................................................................ 5.4.2. Russian Education Financing Policy........................................................................... 5.4.3. Institutional Reforms in Education.............................................................................. 5.5. The State of the Research and Innovation Sphere............................................................... 5.5.1. The State of the Research............................................................................................ 5.5.2. Measures on Promotion of Interaction with Representatives of the Expat Community........................................................................................................ 5.5.3. Plans on Reforming the Public Scientific Sector......................................................... 5.5.4. Businesses Innovation Activity.................................................................................. 5.5.5. Government Taking on Encouragement of Corporate Innovation Activity........................................................................................... 5.5.6. Support of Small-Sized Start-ups................................................................................ 5.5.7. The Skolkovo Project as a Mini Model of the Innovation System.............................. 5.5.8. The Governments Plans on Shaping Efficient Science.............................................. Section 6. Institutional Problems................................................................................................ 6.1. Public Sector and New Privatization Policy....................................................................... 6.1.1. Public Sector Scope..................................................................................................... 6.1.2. Current National Privatization Policy.......................................................................... 6.1.3. Public Sector Structure and Key Economic Agents.................................................... 6.1.4. The Impact of the National Policy in the Field of Property Management on the Budget................................................................................................... 6.1.5. A New Stage in Implementation of the National Policy in the Field of Privatization of State-Owned Property: Basic Priorities and Objects, Actions and Risks.............................................................................. 6.2. The 2006-2010 Corporate Law: Some Results and Novelties............................................ 6.3. Land Use and Land Market in Russia: Situation, Legal Framework, Problems and Outlook................................................................................. 6.3.1. Land Titles and Land Plots Turnover Structure........................................................... 6.3.2. The Problems of Land Relations in Russia.................................................................. 6.3.3. Federal and Regional Policy in the Sphere of Land Relations: some specifics..........................................................................................6.3.4. Lease of State and Municipal Land..............................................................................6.3.5. Legal Framework on Land Issues: 20072010.............................................................6.3.6. Outcomes and Key Areas of Land Relations Development.........................................6.4. Regulation of competition limiting concerted practices in 20082010...............................6.5. The Russian Housing Market in 2010: Stagnation and Beginning of the Recovery...................................................................................................6.5.1. Price Situation on the Secondary Housing Market.......................................................6.5.2. Activities in the residential housing market.................................................................6.5.3. Dynamics of Commissioned Housing Volumes...........................................................6.5.4. The Current Situation and the Prospect of Development of Institutional Structure of Housing Development...............................................................6.5.5. The Prospects of Development of the Housing Market................................................6.5.6.

Support of Small-Sized Start-ups.................................................................................6.6. The Military Economy and Military Reform in Russia.......................................................6.6.1. The Army Recruitment Problem..................................................................................6.6.2. Problems of Design, Production and Supplies of Arms...............................................6.6.3. The Military-Fiscal Policy and the Problem of Openness............................................6.6.4. Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................................6.7. The Year of 2010 Completion of the Municipal Counter-Reform...................................6.7.1. Consolidated Administrations of the Municipal District and the District Center............................................................................................................6.7.2. Renunciation of Direct Mayoral Elections...................................................................6.7.3. Modification of the Election System............................................................................Annex 1. Specifics of Skolkovo Project Administration............................................................Annex 2. International assistance in tax issues between the CIS countries, Common Economic Space and Framework Agreements: analysis of existing agreements..............................................................................Annex 3. Mutual Assistance between the EU Countries for Recovery of Claims Relating to Taxes: Recent Modifications............................................Section 1. The Socio-Political Context 1.1. Economic policies in 2010: a quest for innovations1.1.1. The global economic crisis in While the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 was the time of optimistic expectations and hopes that the global crisis would be soon overcome, early 2011 is characterized by restraint and a reluctant acceptance of the fact that economic difficulties may indeed last for a relatively long period of time. In late 2009 the world gave a sigh of relief after having realized that the worst had not happened and a global economic catastrophe had been avoided, that the financial system had survived and economic growth rebounded, and unemployment had not become disastrously rampant. There was then a widespread and increasingly growing hope that the crisis would soon be over, and the stable positive dynamics of socio-economy development typical of the previous decade would rapidly resume.

By contrast, our estimates were rather more moderate2. We affirmed that the crisis which began in 2008 was a systemic one, and that it would be over after a structural transformation of the world economy, including the formation of a new model of economy regulation and a new model of world economic links and international currency relations. We predicted that such a transformation would take a relatively long period of time, and involve the workingout and materialization of economic development institutions and mechanisms. We expected that this would be a time of instability and fluctuations that could be described as a turbulent decade.

The year 2010 confirmed the correctness of our conclusion with regard to both the world economy and Russia. Economic growth has indeed rebounded, although its rate is now significantly lower than it used to be before the crisis (with the exception of Germany). However, an end of a period of recession does not necessarily mean that a crisis is really a thing of the past, because in the current case the onset of the crisis took place long before the beginning of the recession. The economic growth achieved over the past year resulted, in the main, from the governments efforts that is, from a rise in budget expenditures. In the USA, the policy of large-scale money injections is being pursued on an unprecedented scale, and the vagueness of its medium- and long-term prospects has given rise to doubts as to the stability of the global monetary system. Despite its recent revival, private demand has so far failed to become the main locomotive of the economy, which also raises difficult questions about the prospects of the macroeconomic stability of the worlds leading countries. However, the situation on many developing markets is rather more optimistic; economic growth, rise in employment, and capital inflow are factors that have a cumulative positive effect there.

The financial crisis in a number of Eurozone countries entered an acute phase when Greece and Iceland applied for international assistance (from the IMF and the EU). A number of The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to O. V. Kochetkova, A. V. Moiseev and S. G. SinelnikovMurylev for their considerable assistance in the preparing of this section of the review.

See Russian Economy in 2009: Trends and Outlooks. Moscow: IET, 2010; Mau V., Globalnyi krizis: opyt proshlogo i vyzovy budushchego [Global Crisis: The Experience of the Past and the Challenges of the Future] // Ekonomicheskaia Politika (Economic Policies). 2009. No 4; Mau V., Ekonomicheskaia politika 2009 goda:

mezhdu krizisom i modernizatsiei [The Economic Policy of 2009: Between Crisis and Modernization] // Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2010. No 2.

RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks other EU economies (Spain, Portugal, Italy) continue to be under threat, though, which casts doubt on the prospects of the euro as a single European currency. From a macroeconomic point of view, the current crisis in Europe has been increasingly resembling the 1980s crisis in Latin America, when many countries of that region fell into the insolvency trap because of their uncontrolled borrowing. Moreover, at that time the brink of bankruptcy was approached not only by the borrower countries but also by their creditors the largest American banks.

That crisis was eventually overcome through the systemic and interdetermined efforts of both the borrowers and creditors, when the former took obligations to radically change their economic policies, and the latter agreed to write off part of the debt (and sometimes a significant part of it)1.

The struggle against the crisis in developed countries has been carried on in two major directions. The USA, as the owner of the main reserve currency and the debt creator for the rest of the world, chose the way of an unprecedently soft monetary policy by issuing dollars to finance its state budget. In other words, the USA embarked on a policy which directly contradicted its own traditional recommendations offered to countries hit by a financial crisis.

(However, it should be acknowledged that a country that issues a world reserve currency could indeed afford, with considerable justification, to pursue some unorthodox budgetary and monetary policies.) In fact, the USA continues to adhere to the high-demand policy by stimulating expenditure on the part of both the state budget and households.

By contrast, European countries on the whole embarked on a policy of budget tightening.

This is typical of both the relatively stable Germany and the crisis-ridden Portugal or Greece.

Such policies include state budget expenditure cuts (and, correspondingly, budget deficit cuts) and the simultaneous introduction of tax incentives for businesses. Thus, under this scenario, the emphasis is shifted to supply-side economics.

It is now safe to say that 2010 marked the end of the first phase of the crisis (the phase of preventing the economic collapse) and the beginning of the second phase the phase of working out a new model of socio-economic development. On the completion of the first phase, the world economy found itself to have been weakened and not yet renovated (Table 1). The leading countries and their institutions responsible for economic and monetary policies have learned how to take coordinated anti-crisis actions. Now they are facing the task of jointly working out a growth model focused on stable and sufficiently dynamic growth that would be primarily based on private demand and not on state expenditures.

One of the major results of the year was the seemingly final repudiation of the illusion as to the possibilities and prospects of state regulation of economy. The shock of the first phase of the crisis made it popular to accuse the liberal economic model of being a vehicle of state economic regulation and to call for a return to the ideology and practices of the Big State, meaning active government interference in the management of national economies. It became fashionable to juxtapose the vulgar interpretation of economic liberalism (neo-liberalism or supply-side economics) and the newly revived vulgar interpretation of Keynesianism (demand-side economics). However, it soon became clear that the crisis could be equally attributed to a lack of state regulation and the inability of the State to provide adequate economic regulation. And it became clear that the crisis should be responded to not by increasing state For an interesting comparative analysis of the current crisis in a number of European countries and the Latin American crisis of the 1980s, see: Rathbone J.P., Eurozone can learn grim Latin lessons // Financial Times.

2010. Dec. 22.

Section 1.

The Socio-Political Context interference in the economy (let alone in production), but by working out new instruments of state regulation. Such instruments should be globally coordinated and primarily focused on financial market regulation.

Table Growth rate of GDP volume (percentage change on previous year) For reference:

Pages:     | 1 || 3 | 4 |   ...   | 115 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .