No 2 (2024)

The author outlines the main provisions that can contribute to the socio-economic development of Russia. The Chinese experience of ensuring a rapid economic growth, which can be adopted by Russia, is described in detail. Towards the same end, Russia needs to significantly increase investment in fixed capital and human development. This can be done at the expense of the state budget, directing funds primarily to fundamental science, education and healthcare. It is very important to pay special attention to reducing social inequality and improving the living standards of the population, thereby promoting the welfare state.

It is also necessary to raise the extremely low incomes in rural areas and small towns, amounting to 25–30 thousand roubles per capita per month.

The article examines the peculiarities of the attitude of the state system towards small business in Russia. The specifics of these relations are analyzed; a conclusion is made about their historical and cultural conditionality. When interacting with small businesses, these features should be taken into account, since, being stable, they influence the work of government agencies, contributing to it or hindering it.

The article analyzes the problem of creating a national scientific research innovative system at the present stage of economic development, taking into account the Russian specifics of managing the resource potential of scientific and knowledge-intensive organizations.

The features of scientific research organizations in the USA, Western Europe and China are examined in detail, global trends in reforming the organization of scientific research institutions are highlighted. The authors conclude about the creation of a national innovative system for organizing scientific research in Russia, promoting the development of an innovative economy.

The author examines the impact of the policy of the Bank of Russia, information asymmetry and business profitability on the investment agenda of Russian public companies. The tight monetary policy of the state is a restraining factor in the economy and is caused by a reduction in corporate investment. Faced with increased funding and external sanctions, Russian companies are forced to focus on internal sources of investment financing.

Using the analysis of panel data, the author substantiates that companies act in line with a precautionary motive, saving some money for subsequent financing of capital investments. Low information asymmetry makes debt financing a less expensive procedure.

The tangibility of assets is an indicator or hallmark when a company evaluates the cost of raising capital. The author chose a regression model with fixed effects to prove the impact of the increase in the cost of funding on the investment opportunities of the company. The unobservable individual effect may include various indicators, in particular, the quality of corporate governance, fluctuations in financial markets. Share price growth is directly related to the return on assets. An increase in the key interest rate worsens the company’s investment prospects. To save money the company can turn to debt financing in conditions of low information asymmetry. Tangible assets can serve as collateral, and debt is a fairly inexpensive financing option, even under financial constraints. To expand investment demand in the context of the main objectives of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation it is necessary to link the key interest rate of the Bank of Russia to profitability in key sectors of the economy.

Deriving the necessity of regional economic policy from the market failure concept, the author, using D. Friedman’s center-periphery theory, justifies the fact of excessive socio-economic differentiation among the regions of the Russian Federation, which has a hindering rather than accelerating effect on long-term economic growth. The clear division of Russian regions as parts of the “center-periphery-semi-periphery” classification based on the classification of spatial policy theorists by G. Cameron as non-interventionists, adapters, and radical transformers raises the question of the optimal degree of intervention by the Russian government in regulating territorial structure. The centerpiece of the article is the comparative analysis of two alternative approaches within the models of “territorial justice” and “economic efficiency” outlining the tools used in each of them. By uncovering the objective regularities of cyclical development that bring to the forefront one or another model of regional regulation and linking their use to the achieved level of economic development of the country, the author proves the inevitability of relying on a leveling model in Russia’s regional policy. However, to avoid the reproduction of social dependency of subsidized territories, there is an urgent need for close coordination of regional policy with structural policy, aiming both at achieving economic development rooted in innovations as opposed to, for instance, exploitation of natural resources.