TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 14 (no. 2),

In the current context, which is defined by most researchers, both Russian and foreign, as the “new normality”, new approaches emerge to ensure modernization-related growth of the national economy andto improve its competitive position in the world markets. Russia’s economic orientation for recent years made it dependent on oil and resulted in deindustrialization of the economy, degradation of high-tech industries and high dependence on foreign sources of modernization development. Today the issue of a new system of priorities related to transition to a model of non-oil development is of increasing importance for Russia. Russian policy of import substitution has shifted in its approach from protectionism to an offensive policy and expansion of domestic industrial products to world markets. Therefore, there is an urgent need not only for change in economic incentives, but for institutional transformation which can promote industrial modernization.The article examines the key elements for effective policy of import substitution in Russia entering «new normality». As the authors put it, heterogeneity of the institutional environment of Russian regions impedes implementation of industrial modernization reforms. As a result, a number of economic barriersaccompanied with pseudo market institutionsemerge.Coherence between political, ideological and economic institutions is identified as the precondition for effectiveness of the policy of competitive import substitution. The degree of state intervention in import substitution and competitiveness of a branch of industry are taken as the main factors which determine the type of a scenario for import substitution policy.The conclusion was drawn that it is reasonable to implement a competitive scenario of import substitution, to provide a maximum of multiplicative effects in the current context of the “new normality”.

Keywords: competitive import substitution; institutional environment; «new normality»; economic growth

  • Animitsa E.G., Animitsa E.P. and Glumov A.A. (2015). The Substitution in the industrial production of the region: conceptual-theoretical and applied aspects. Economy of region, no. 3, pp. 160–172. (In Russian.)
  • Babkin K. (2016). Russia should choose economic patriotism and pragmatism. The Regions of the Russian ONLINE News Agency (http://www.gosrf.ru/news/21714/). (In Russian.)
  • Belokrylova O.S. (2014). Institutional modernization economic development strategy in conditions of forced import substitution. Journal of Economic Regulation, no. 3, vol. 5, pp. 6–13. (In Russian.)
  • Bodrunov S.D. (2015). Theory and practice of import substitution: lessons and challenges. Saint Petersburg. (In Russian.)
  • Chernogor I.A. (2015). Sanctions as a factor in the reproduction of the economic system: five contradictions of the institutions of import substitution. Character of science, no. 6, pp. 172–174. (In Russian.)
  • Gref G. (2016). Oil age is over. Information portal BANKI.RU (http://www.banki.ru/news/lenta/?id=8581413). (In Russian.)
  • Itwell J. (2004). Import-substituting and export-oriented economic growth. Moscow: Infra-M Publ. (In Russian.)
  • Karlusov V.V. (2009). China: catch-up development as an anti-crisis factor. The International and national economy, no. 1 (8), pp. 52–57. (In Russian.)
  • Kudrova N.A. (2015). Stimulating regional development policy in modern Russia on the basis of the concept of import substitution. Social and Economic Phenomena and Processes, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 46–51. (In Russian.)
  • Mironova O.A. (2015). Substitution: international experience and lessons for Russia. International research journal, no. 7–3 (38), pp. 84–87. (In Russian.)
  • Rumjanceva E.G. (2010). The new economic encyclopedia. Moscow: Infra-M Publ. (In Russian.)
  • UNCTAD (2013). Report on trade and development (http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/tdr2013overview_ru.pdf). (In Russian.)
  • Volchik V.V. and Kot V.V. (2013). Institutional changes in the peripheral regions of civil institutions. Terra Economicus, no. 4, vol. 11, pp. 12–35. (In Russian.)
  • Ang James S.K., Tomoaki S., Ser-Aik Q. and Eugene L. (2015). Manufacturing strategy and competitive performance. International Journal of Production Economics, no. 169, pp. 240–252.
  • Brousseau E., Garrouste R. and Raynaud E. (2011). Institutional changes: Alternative theories and consequences for institutional design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 79, no. 1–2, pp. 192–222.
  • Fay-LeBlanc G. (2015). Digital is the new normal: a drive to stay current and competitive keeps coursework at graduate publishing programs evolving. Publishers Weekly, vol. 262, no. 50, pp. 53–57.
  • Goldberg I., Goddard J., Kuriakose S. and Racine J.-L. (2011). Igniting Innovation: Rethinking the Role of Government in Emerging Europe and Central Asia. World Bank Publications.
  • Merchan L. (2007). Estudio de factorescríticos de éxito local e internacional para empresas de la industriadel software. Avances en Sistemas e Informática, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 107–116.
  • Mohamed A. El-Erian (2016). Central banks, instability, and avoiding the next collapse. Random House.
  • Nurul N. and Sarminah S. (2016). Innovation and Competitive Advantage: Moderating Effects of Firm Age in Foods Manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia By Aziz. In: 7th International Economics & Business Management Conference,Procedia Economics and Finance, no. 35, pp. 256–266.
  • Pack H. and Saggi K. (2006). Is There a Case for Industrial Policy? A Critical Survey. World Bank Research Observer, no. 21 (2), pp. 267–297.
  • Reinert E.S. and Reinert S.A. (2011). Mercantilism and economic development: Schumpeterian dynamics, institution building and international benchmarking. OIKOS, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 8–37.
  • Rodrik D. (2007). Industrial Development: Some Stylized Facts and Policy Directions. Industrial Development for the 21st Century: Sustainable Development Perspectives. N.Y., pp. 9–15.
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606