|
Research and educational journal
Published quarterly since 2007
ISSN 1999-5431
E-ISSN 2409-5095
Issue 2017 no5 contents:
Topic of the issue: SPECIAL ISSUE
|
7–26
|
This paper explores the state and pace of the development of science and innovation policy in Russia with the goal of finding an explanation for its relatively slow progress. We argue that this slow pace can be explained by three major factors. First, instruments of science and innovation policy are government-centered as manifested in excessive, hands-on government involvement. This is a reflection of the vertically organized Russian innovation system having weak horizontal linkages. Second, the government policy is poorly balanced. While in some areas there is a policy mix, in others, necessary instruments are lacking. This is a result of a growing asymmetry of information under the conditions of weak horizontal linkages. Third, in recent years, changes in economic conditions and international relations started to affect Russia’s innovation system. Measures undertaken in response to economic sanctions produced signals that conflict with the science and innovation policy. We illustrate our position by analyzing (1) policy instruments aimed at linking research and commercialization and supporting the improvement of the scientific and technological workforce, and (2) new regulations, which appeared during economic sanctions and are related to the work of foreign science foundations in Russia. We link our interpretations to theoretical studies of science and innovation policy and a policy mix. The Russian case confirms the theoretical models that describe hierarchical systems in which government dominates and asymmetry of information becomes a persistent problem. Government, as a principal, tries to find new forms of a pursuing agent to implement tasks. In Russia, the lack of monitoring leads to new instruments being added while the existing ones remain uncorrected. As a result, a policy mix becomes more complex and its outcomes are difficult to predict. |
|
27–37
|
The main route of economic development on an innovative basis implies the efficient implementation of scientific research and development activities (R&D) in a country. However, if economists generally agree that R&D expenses contribute to the technological development of the economy and improve the sectorial structure of industry in favor of highly technological, value adding industries, then the contradictions between scientific viewpoints in debates on the impact of military R&D expenses are of a more acute character. Even in cases where empirical researches reveal the positive interdependence between military R&D expenses and the most important indicators of economic development, the issues regarding their benefit to broad layers of society always remain disputable. The article summarizes analyses of the impact of military R&D on the economy conducted at different times, and coordinates the conclusions drawn. The main directions of impact of military R&D on the economy are presented: security effect, aggregate demand growth effect, aggregate supply growth effect, positive spillover effect, negative spillover effect, and crowding-out effect. In addition, the dynamics of military R&D in Armenia have been studied and certain judgments evaluating their peculiarities are presented. |
|
38–59
|
This paper studies political, economic and administrative aspects of intergovernmental relations in Russia since the beginning of the 1990s. We distinguish three stages in the development of Russian federalism, which differ from previous classifications available in the literature – the pendulum of (de)centralization (1991–2003), critical crossroad with the radical shift back to the centralization path (2003–2005), and the era of further pervasive centralization and transformation to the de facto unitary state (2005-present). At the latest (third) stage, we identify two mechanisms of centralization – linear and non-linear, which differ in their design but similarly contribute to the general trend, and provide several supporting examples of both of them. |
|
60–71
|
The work examines the main trend in changes to Local Self-Government in recent years. During this time, changes in municipal government were aimed at reducing the total number of municipal formations and outstripping the growth in the number of city districts. This growth is realized in three ways. From 2010 to 2016 only 509 out of 2328 municipal formations (21.9%) increased in population, by 5.7%. The remaining 78.1% of municipal formations experienced a loss in population. There are 220 city districts and 289 municipal districts among those municipal formations which with a population growth in 2010–2016. These municipalities are presented below. The main hypothesis of population growth in some municipalities and its decline in others is based on the uneven distribution of central places in the settlement system that ensure the availability of goods and services for the entire population that gravitates towards them. This circumstance is due to the fact that the municipal system in Russia inherits all the features of the pre-existing administrative-territorial division. Therefore, it weakly meets the requirements of the location of production, meeting the needs of the population in goods and services, as well as the whole complex of market relations. The basis for calculations is the “Municipal Russia” database. |
|
72–82
|
The article focuses on a comparative analysis of the cooperation mechanisms of a federal center and constituent units based on the constitutional principle of flexibility. Cooperation mechanisms in Switzerland, Canada, the USA and the Russian Federation are studied in detail with the purpose of identifying enhanced cooperation forms and revealing the principle of flexibility influence on these forms. It is determined that enhanced cooperation, based on the treaties between a federal center and constituent units, inevitably leads to asymmetry within the federal system. The hypothesis of the article is that implementation of the principle of flexibility in the form of enhanced cooperation between a federal center and constituent units ensure democratic change and effectiveness of federations. Asymmetric federation as a pluralistic form ensures democratic rights, minorities’ rights, representation and participation. It represents a tool for achieving “unity in diversity”. |
|
83–100
|
The issue of security has become one of the most important problems in modern cities. The beginning of the 21st century has shown rapidly increasing urban criminality. Large agglomerations without inherent integrated communities and with decentralized governance cannot implement the regime of law and order efficiently. Without security, a city’s development and growth is not possible. Many factors influence the condition of security in cities but a leading role is played by two of these: the rate of citizen participation in the criminality prevention process through community integration, and the position of the police force in the structure of the country’s organizational law enforcement systems. Two examples show the importance of the powers of delineation in security matters. In New York City, the Police Department is a part of the city administration and implements policy formulated by the Mayor and the City Council. But in St. Petersburg and all other Russian cities, the Governor/Mayor, City Government/Administration and Legislative Assembly/City Council are not paramount actors in the security policing process. The federal state, as presented by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, formulates security policy and its departments on all levels (regional and municipal) implement it according to principals and through methods fully determined by the federal authorities. These two models and their effectiveness are compared in the article. |
|
101–116
|
In the face of the increasing complexity (multidimensionality) of the transforming Russian society and the emerging pluralism of socio-political interests, a growing need in civil society for strengthening the functional capacity of the institute for advocacy and promoting public interest in the public sphere was shown. The modality of this request is enhanced by the crisis conditions of economic development. With the dominance of administrative-bureaucratic approaches to public policy there is a falsification of feedback and a dysfunction of the public sphere in the direction of strengthening the influence of corporate and bureaucratic interests against the public interest, which inevitably leads to increased social tension and protest moods, as well as to a declining level of confi dence in state activities and the legitimacy of political power. The subject of this research are successful practices in identifying and advocating the public interest. Among them: the administrative guillotine, associated with the reduction of terms for rendering state and municipal services to entrepreneurs in the Perm region; the preservation of the status and location of the Children’s cancer hospital in St. Petersburg; protection of relict lake Harovoye in Kazan; defending the rights of citizens to common house property in Kostroma. The main questions arising while studying the above practices are: who and how articulates the public interest?; what is the role and influence of civil society institutions on regional policy formation?; And, how and in what way are concerned citizens becoming “actors” of public policy, etc? The case study approach was selected as a basic method for this project. The method of content analysis of available publications was applied in all of the selected cases. Descriptions of cases were made on a unifi ed format. In-depth interviews and focus groups were used for clarifying details. It is shown that the development of institutions for public participation, and mechanisms for cross-sectoral social partnership contribute to streamlining interaction between authorities and society. In the conditions of incompleteness of processes for socio-political transformation these approaches also enhance the effectiveness of the social representation of public interests and stimulate the reform of public administration in the direction towards openness and transparency, that help to more adequately take into account the increasing mobility and pluralism of social groups and their socio-cultural preferences. This article summarizes the results of case studies in three Russian regions (Kostroma and Yaroslavl oblasts plus the Republic of Tatarstan). The main conclusion is that in improving the functional capacity of the institute for identification, formation and advocacy of public interests can be reached through enhancing the procedures for citizen engagement in decision making processes, and considering it as an important resource and the basis for improving the quality of modern governance and democracy. |
|
117–133
|
In developed competition jurisdictions, excessive pricing is more a subject of academic and expert discussions than an actively used instrument of competition enforcement. Russian competition enforcement is an exception in this regard. During the last ten years the Russian competition authority, the Federal Antirust Service (FAS), made several hundred decisions on the violation of rules prohibiting excessive pricing. The question remains whether Russian enforcement is consistent with international experiences, and which part of enforcement limits a positive welfare effect. To achieve this objective the article explains the targets of excessive price enforcement, the legal standard for excessive pricing, and remedies applied in Russian competition law. The main conclusion is that the selection of targets does not generally contradict the objectives of competition enforcement. There are clear theories of harm specifi c to two of the main target groups: dominant exporting companies that apply third-price discrimination in the domestic market vis-à-vis export markets, and dominant companies that increase prices after deregulation, in case there is no new entry. Standards for proving price excessiveness represent a questionable part of enforcement, and they oft en turn out to be weak under judicial review. The application of either lower or higher standards for establishing price excessiveness results in decreasing the deterrence effect. A fear of decreasing deterrence explains the recent shift from ex-post intervention to ex-ante price remedies. |
|