Oktay MAMEDOV
Doctor of Economics (DSc), Professor, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2016, Vol. 14 (no. 3),

p. 6-15
DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2016-14-3-6-15

In each historical period, almost every field of social knowledge had been implicitly tested. The question has arisen again and again, whether philosophy, sociology, social psychology and institutionalism are indeed sciences. History and economics appear to be the most “suspicious” disciplines. In case of history, such a suspiciousness is easily explained due to peoples’ changing vision of its own present, past and future, which is new for each new generation. Economic science receives its own portion of humiliation: the new age requires economics to give (and immediately!) “somewhat useful” – which would result in a tangible benefits for society instead of endless “dangerous” discussions on the role of the state in the economy, the role of entrepreneurship, on disparities in the distribution of natural resource rents, and so on. In turn, economists continue to assure that their profession is not the same as the profession of technologist or production engineer, but rather closer to sociologist. However these assurances have not yet been successful, since, the government clearly declares its position, emphasizing the importance of practical recommendations instead of economists’ philosophizing. Making its best endeavour to provide these “practical recommendations”, economists face the problem of decreasing graduation completion rates in economics departments. But this time, the Russian economic science is heavily challenged by the “double test”: not only to provide “practical recommendations”, but to transform into a new state of “experimental economics”. This article deals with the issues discussion around “experimental” character of economic knowledge. The author deals with the issues of an essential element of the scientific characteristics of the economic categories, the starting point of economic science, reproducibility of experimental economic knowledge, the conceptual context of experimental economics.

Мaksim YUREVICH
Junior Researcher of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Post-graduate Student of the Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Irina TSAPENKO
Doctor of Economics, Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2016, Vol. 14 (no. 3),

p. 16-28
DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2016-14-3-16-28

The article is devoted to the evolution and modern tendencies of mathematization of economics in Western and Russian economic research. The specific features of this process as well as accompanying it problems in the national segment of that branch of science are analyzed. The study is based on the usage of methods of content-analysis and bibliometric analysis of the articles published in the prominent Russian economic journals which are presented on the site elibrary.ru. The results obtained demonstrate that the share of Russian publications on economics with mathematics instruments used in research among the articles published in the selected national periodic editions varies form 10–20% till 70%. Herewith the tendency towards to the growth of the share of such articles is observed. At the same time the comparison between the leading Russian and foreign journals on economics indicates to the lower level of the mathematization of the Russian economics than of the western one. Besides such articles are less cited by Russian researchers in contrast to theoretical and descriptive works. That in return decelerates the adequate growth of science ratings of the authors, working in the mathematic paradigm of economic science. As a result under the existing Russian culture of economic research the modern system of the assessment of scientific staff makes the writing of mathematizised works unprofitable from the point of view of the strategy of professional success and that’s why slows at least in the short term the mathematization of research. The revealed differentiation of Russian works on economics by citation indicators depending on the methodological arsenal used serves as an additional argument against the practice of bibliometric indicators as main criteria of the assessment of productivity and efficiency of scientific activity.

Marina MALKINA
Doctor of Economics, Professor, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhniy Novgorod – National Research University, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2016, Vol. 14 (no. 3),

p. 29-49
DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2016-14-3-29-49

Subject of the study. This article analyzes the alternative approaches to construction of social welfare functions, and use them for evaluationof the inter-regional disparities in the Russian Federation, as well as the convergence/divergence of the Russian regions in social well-being in 2004–2014. Methodology. We analyze the generalizing welfare functions and problems of their construction.As a basis of researchwe selected «the abbreviated social welfare functions»by A. Sen and B. Atkinson, representing an adjustment of real income per capita to indicator of intraregional inequalities. We proposed the extension of these functions by including four additional elements of well-being: the indices of leisure, life expectancy, housing and real net savings. For evaluation of the regional inequality in the level of welfare we employed the coefficients of Giniand variation, the Hachman and Theil indices, all of themweighted by population. Results of the research. We have obtained estimations of the social well-being of Russian regions for 11 years based on simple and advanced functions by Sen and Atkinson.We established the dynamics of the regions’ relative welfare and their ranks shift as well as the contributions of thefactors in the regions’ well-being.We have identified a logit-shaped type of inter-regional differences in the level of welfare per capita: the coexistence of excessive poverty and excessive richnesswith the stable middle. On the basis of estimations of inter-regional inequality in the level of social welfare we concluded that the convergence trend was interrupted in 2012 and has turned to divergence. Our study also revealed that the degree of inter-regional inequality and its rate for the welfare functions is lower than for the real income per capita. Application of results. The results and conclusions may serve to further specification of welfare functions and theiruse for evaluation of regions’ well-being, inter-regional differences in welfare and trends of development

Alexander KOBYLKO
PhD in Economics, Senior Researcher, Central Economics and Mathematics Institute RAS (CEMI RAS), Moscow, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2016, Vol. 14 (no. 3),

p. 50-62
DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2016-14-3-50-62

This paper considers the operator as a socio-economic system, through the analysis of activity and prospects of further development of telecommunication market of Russia. It is proved that a modern carrier refers to polysystemic companies, activities of which require a special approach to formation of strategy of the company. The study has revealed that the specific path of development of a modern operator, the limit of extensive development, the search for new forms of income and ways of saving resources force them to enter into a partnership with its direct competitors. This “philosophy of cooperation” is evident at the present stage of development of the Russian telecommunications market, and influences the way of its development. The operator is a company with a specific form of functioning, bearing in itself the signs of polysystem. From the point of view of system economic theory, such organizations include features of all four types of subsystems, i.e. Objective, Environmental, Projective and Processive, each of which has a prominent weight in the total scope, indicating the peculiarities of formation of complex strategy of a company. For such organizations, it seems rational to apply mixed approach to formation of strategy of development, which differs from other perpetual forms of representation consisting of a set of long-term solutions generated by the operator in conjunction with a consulting agency, specializing in strategic planning. The use of such a mixed approach will allow polysystemic companies to establish a harmonized and consistent development strategy, considering the complex landscape of the market.

Alexander MAL’TSEV
PhD in Economics, Associate Professor of the Global economy department, Ural State University of Economics, Yekaterinburg, Russia

Sergey NEVSKIY
PhD in Economics, Associate Professor of the Faculty of Economics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2016, Vol. 14 (no. 3),

p. 63-86
DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2016-14-3-63-86

The article deals with the analysis of the specificity of Britain’s economy transformation in the 1980s. It has been shown that thanks to the economic reforms of Margaret Thatcher the United Kingdom was able not only to recover from the “British disease”, but also to become one of the world’s first “post-industrial nation”. Authors believe that the main cause of British “institutional sclerosis” in 1960–1970s were difficulties with the adaptation of the institutional structure of the Fordist welfare state with its inherent tendency towards full employment, social collectivism, focus on industrial production and state interventionism to the new challenges of post-Fordist era of socio-economic development with its priority of service sector development, individualism and public sector decentralization. Thatcherism is interpreted by the authors as a way of clearing the institutional remnants of the industrial age, preventing the transition of the British economy to the new post-industrial stage of economic growth. Special attention is paid to the study of reasons by which Keynesianism was replaced by Monetarism as a mainstream in British political and economic discourse of the 1980s. The distinctive features of the economic philosophy of Thatcherism are systematized. The main of them was the replacement of the “dependency culture”, based on state paternalism by the “entrepreneurial culture”, promoting personal initiative and responsibility. Ultimately, thanks to the painful but necessary reforms of 1980s Britain became Great once again.

Grigoryi POPOV
PhD in Economics, Assistant Professor, Moscow Technological Institute, Moscow, Russia

Elena CHIBISOVA
PhD in Economics, Assistant Professor, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2016, Vol. 14 (no. 3),

p. 87-100
DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2016-14-3-87-100

This paper deals with the problem of the influence of grain export from the Russian Empire on the domestic price on bread. The counterfactual model of Russian grain marketdevelopmentis proposed, in case if grain export is ceased. The authors refer to a wider range of issues, including not only grain export of Russia in the beginning of the last century, but also to the neo-classical theories of foreign trade. The authors provide analyzes of export’s effects on the balance of payments of the Russian Empire and investmentsstructure and level. In this regard, it is proved that the growth of bread exports negatively affected investments in the manufacturing sector, and in another way in case of falling export of grain. The authors conclude that the export of labour-intensive goods from the country can provoke the outflow of capital in the country specializing in the production of capital-intensive goods, since the export of labour-intensive products reduces the demand for capital. The export of capital from the Russian Empire before the First World War was so significant that the government was forcedto turn to foreign loans. In this regard, the authors have questioned that the positive balance of payments has always positive effect on the national economy. In Russia, grain export had negative consequences in the long term, slowing modernization, however making a positive trend for the country’s agriculture, especially its Southwestern regions. However, the authors believe that increase in grain export had been predetermined by the nature of food consumption in the Russian Empire. In this context, the authors try to draw parallels with the modern situation in the Russian economy in the context of «resource curse».

Kristina RAZMINIENĖ
Doctoral Student, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Expert, VšĮ Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, Vilnius, Lithuania

Manuela TVARONAVIČIENĖ
PhD, Professor, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania

Vaida ZEMLICKIENĖ
PhD, Researcher, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2016, Vol. 14 (no. 3),

p. 101-111
DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2016-14-3-101-111

This study aims at verifying the validity of cluster efficiency measurement tool. In previous study benchmarking was employed (Tvaronavičienė et al., 2015) to compare the performance of participating clusters which would enable to improve their results by getting the information about their strengths and weaknesses over other clusters. A further comparison of data of four participating clusters was pursued while paying attention on the importance of three groups of criteria, which are activity, resources and processes, giving them different prominence. Two more values were added to previous study, one indicating the results when all three groups of indicators get the same weights and the other shows their efficiency when processes get the major part and the other two groups are equally relevant. There was a significant change in results when these conditions were applied showing the importance of literature and case analysis. Further analysis is needed to verify the validity of a cluster efficiency measurement tool as there were no previous attempts to assess cluster efficiency through benchmarking clusters performing in Lithuania. This study may give controversial results as the prominence to each group of criteria is given regarding to literature analysis as well as author‘s personal opinion. Limited number of clusters may influence the choice of the alternatively best ratio of three criteria characterizing the performance of clusters.

Anna LOZHNIKOVA
Doctor of Economics, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia

Yulia RAZVADOVSKAYA
PhD in Economics, Senior Researcher, Center for Scientific Research «Tools, Mathematical and Intellectual Resources in the Economy» (SIC IMISE), Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

Inna SHEVCHENKO
Doctor of Economics (DSc), Professor, Chief Researcher, Center for Scientific Research «Tools, Mathematical and Intellectual Resources in the Economy» (SIC IMISE), Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

Dmitryi KHLOPTSOV
Doctor of Economics (DSc), Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia

Sergey CHERNYAVSKIY
Doctor of Economics (DSc), Laboratory for Sustainable Development of theInstitute of Market Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2016, Vol. 14 (no. 3),

p. 112-130
DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2016-14-3-112-130

The article discusses the correlation between dynamic series (2010–2013) indicators of the degree of wearand tear of fixed assets, the ratio of the index average annual number of employees of organizations and production index (resource use), capacity utilization (resource efficiency) species and subspecies of economic activities related to fuel energy complex (FEC). Describes the phenomenon of chronic (2005–2013 of the year), The lack of jobs, compared with the number of people employed in sectors of the domestic economy in the branches, by definition, considered the most capital-intensive and relatively high wear and tear of fixed capital. We formulate a thesis on the relationship between qualitative aspects associated with the radical process of change of ownership from the state to the sphere of production fuel and energy (2005–2013 of the year) And negative changes in the quantitative aspects of resource forecasting, resource consumption and resource efficiency by labor and capital in Russia. On the basis of the foreign statistics are compared domestic indicators with those of Brazil and Norway, where the predominant form of state ownership of the resources in the area of production of fuel and energy minerals.

Еlena МIKHALKINA
Doctor of Economics, Professor, Faculty of Economics, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

Anastasia NIKITAEVA
Doctor of Economics, Professor, Faculty of Economics, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2016, Vol. 14 (no. 3),

p. 131-144
DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2016-14-3-131-144

The article justifies importance of organizational technologies for economic activity, based on the partnership as an integrative platform. It is shown that essential positive effects in the innovative sphere arise during creation of cluster structures which play a role of certain zones of favorable economic development and mechanisms of region’s “innovatisation”. As the authors put it, generation of an innovative impulse by clusters requires the experts for the lab our market to have certain competences and to express readiness for innovations. Accordingly, a special role youth labor market plays in innovatisation of economy is emphasized. Research findings are presented, showing the results of the analysis of characteristics of youth labor market and involvement of modern youth into innovative development. Empirically illustrated and discussed, the structure of youth employment is given (by level of education and age group, number of employed by age and employment group, employment structure in the informal sector and structure of the unemployed by age groups).It is shown that, despite the rather broad possibilities of youth to participate in innovation activities, in most Russia regions innovation potential is not realized to the full extent, and characteristics of innovative activities are still limited. Directions for development of the young specialists’ competences are indicated, to allow youth to implement their innovative activity more productively and independently, and to hold an appointment in innovative clusters and other Integration projects of companies.

Grigoriy KHANIN
Doctor of Economics (DSc), Professor, The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), Siberian Institute of Management, Novosibirsk, Russia

TERRA ECONOMICUS, 2016, Vol. 14 (no. 3),

p. 145-157
DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2016-14-3-145-157

The focus of my analysis is on the book by V. Yefimov “Economic Science in Question: Another Methodology, History and Research Practices”. Starting from the inability of the overwhelming majority of economist to predict the 2008–2009 world economic crisis, the author justifies a statement on the crisis of the modern economic science. In his opinion, the reason is that economic theory is increasingly breaking away from the reality and instead of its objective analysis and explanation tends to serve the ruling class. Even classical political economy was already biased. Yefimov believes that only institutionalism among the three directions of economic theory (classicism and neoclassicism, Marxism and institutionalism) is not politically motivated. Yet, even this direction is currently experiencing degradation, due to the harmful influence of modern neoinstitutionalism. The crisis of economic theory also affects higher economic education, which is also degrading. The author shows that the crisis of economic science and higher economic education has severe consequences for the entire society. The author proposes the avenues to invigorate economic science and higher education. Yefimov builds up his study mainly on the Western countries. In Russia the crisis of economic science is rooted in the Soviet period when economic science was put to serve the Communist party. The issues aggravated in the post-Soviet period, adopting the worst features of western economic science and higher education. This paper demonstrates that the modern economic science in Russia has lost a lot of achievement of Soviet economic science which has a very adverse impact upon its ability to analyze and forecast development of Russian economy, and elaborate sound economic policy.