I.V. ROZMAINSKY
Candidate of economic sciences (PhD), Associate professor, National Research University – Higher School of Economics, Saint-Petersburg

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2013, Vol. 11 (no. 1.1),

p. 30-38

The paper is devoted to various and ambiguous treatments of precautionary motive of demand for money by Keynes in his main works published in 1936 and 1937. It is shown that one of these treatments allows making link between uncertainty and money. This link is crucial for the contemporary Post Keynesian economics. The author considers also how conception of precautionary motive was displaced by from mainstream economics, and also the possible role of this conception for the development of Post Keynesian theory of surrogate stores of value.

H.I. KHANIN
Doctor of economic sciences (DSc), Professor, Siberian Institute of Management – branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Novosibirsk State Technical University

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2013, Vol. 11 (no. 1.1),

p. 10-29

One of the few papers dealt with origin and status of, both present and future, contemporary Russian bourgeoisie is represented by famous Russian economist H.I. Khanin. The article reveals the difference between the Russian bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie of other countries — namely, the difference of qualitative character — related to principally illegitimate way of rising of the former. Quantitative assessment of contemporary Russian bourgeoisie is given; division between the big, the middle and the petty bourgeoisie is demonstrated; dynamics of certain stages of post-soviet economy development, along with bourgeois sector’s efficiency compared to the public sector and soviet period activities are estimated, — based on official data processing. Strengths (flexibility, initiative, passionarity) and weaknesses (avidity, low innovativeness) of contemporary Russian bourgeoisie are shown in the paper. The four scenarios describing the Russian bourgeoisie’s future — subject to the action of the government and the bourgeoisie itself — are presented by the author. The answer to the famous question put by Lech Walesa more than 20 years ago — Is it possible to form «the capitalist aquarium» out of «the socialist fish soup»? — is given in the article. Furniture industry which evolved, according to the alternative estimation, much faster than the official data indicate, is considered by the author in order to illustrate methodological and methodical issues related to the bourgeoisie’s efficiency measuring

O.Yu. MAMEDOV
Doctor of economic sciences (DSc), Professor, Head of the Department of Political Economy and Economic Policy, Honoured worker of science of the Russian Federation, Southern Federal University

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2013, Vol. 11 (no. 1.1),

p. 5-9

There is a three centuries-old tradition of the concentration of Russian economists on the problems of Russian economy, Russian economic science and Russian economic education. Nevertheless economists are responsible for only that economic organization of Russian social production would be effective. According to the author’s opinion, only free and non-restrained development is able to reveal all the varied forms of the effective economic organization of Russian production. Referring to the lessons of economic history of XX century, the author supposes that whereas «Great depression» was a result of spontaneous development of capitalistic economy, then the catastrophe of Russian economy was «hand-made» being a result of its forced imbedding into dogmatically-interpreted theory of «directly-socialized production». However, many Russian economists are not afraid of the «hand-made» catastrophe reiteration and they, encouraged with the fervor of previous centuries, construct new ideological «running knot» for Russian economy, insisting on super-etatism (which had destroyed Russian economy once) and forbidding «liberalism» which is unknown for them. Meanwhile it is time to understand — the economy has its own imperatives for effective development. That means that not listening to the economists but listening to the economy is of the highest priority nowadays.