The regular meeting of the Bogomolov Club, held on February 27, 2017 in the RAS Institute for Economic Strategies was dedicated to discussing the issues of structural and investment policy aimed at sustainable growth and modernization of the economy.
The following two lectures of the series on the role of State in the economy (see ES–2016, N 2, 3, 4) deal with Concepts of the founders of Marxism and their adepts respectively, in the pre-October 1917 and the post-October period on the directions, methods and goals of the State economic policy towards the building of so-called communist society. I identify the vector of economic thought in a separate section due to significant influence that Marxism and Leninism ideas had impinged on the Economics and Politics. A rising tide of interest in the Marxist ideas in some social strata and countries nowadays is due to a slowdown in the global economy and to the aggravation of socio-economic problems. The Marxist views analysis of the State’s attitude towards entrepreneurship is needed to identify the roots of the tragic events that occurred in the twentieth century, and which mark the centenary in 2017.
The second lecture is devoted to the initiation and development of liberal ideas on the role of the State in a market economy. Several kinds of liberalism — from classical to neoliberalism are marked. Views of Western and Russian Liberal schools on the cooperation between government and business are compared. The ordoliberalizm school in which the necessity to combine private initiative, freedom of entrepreneurship, and the public interest in a competitive environment is justified. The German model of Social market economy that combines liberal values with active role of the State in the social sphere is recognized as basic in the European Union.
Today the problems of efficient innovation development are in the spotlight of government bodies. Obviously, only in this way it is possible to succeed in improving the national economy competitiveness in the medium and especially in the long term. This understanding was formed as a result of evaluating the existing resource constraints, consequences and prospects of wide spread of information and computer technologies, biotechnology, alternative energy sources, automation of production processes and so on. It has become even more prominent on the background of the global financial crisis, hardly predictable high volatility in commodity markets and environmental problems aggravation caused by the use of technologies hostile to environment.
The article analyzes the main strategically important provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement in the light of the US interests and through the prism of the other countries-participants, the real results of which can be expected by participants to the agreement, as well as the opposition of China, BRICS, SCO and the EAEU countries to the US will to lead the APEC region. The article proves that the proposed version of the TPP is not an evolutionary step within transition to multipolarity, but reflects the US foreign policy strategy, aimed at rewriting the terms of international community functioning, based on their own interests and the existing system of administrative-legal regulation of the US economy.
The author analyzes the place of basic ethic question — the problem of individual choice — in the polemics of A. Smith with B. Mandeville, theorems of R. Coase, K. Arrow, in “prisoner’s dilemma” and other liberal theories. She arrives at the conclusion that modern scholars, like representatives of classical school, consider ethical behavior of human as a key driver of economic development and welfare. The author also concludes that spiritual and moral education is a particularly important social good.
If we put aside political crackling and sensation, offered solutions of contemporary economic problems consist in their transfer onto our children and grandchildren.
It would be desirable that technology should be recognized outdated due to evolution, decline in demand for the services rendered on its basis, not by the regulator’s decision.
Over the past 25 years air carriers preferred to follow the path of increasing the frequency of flights and creating new routes, rather than increasing the number of passengers carried per flight.