The article discusses some aspects of the federal budget of the Russian Federation, which was adopted by the State Duma in November 2018. It is noted that parameters incorporated into the budget in conditions of economy stagnation are unlikely to stimulate growth.

Changing of a conjuncture index of “Economic strategy” (CIES) for the first nine months of 2018 is considered. The contribution of indicators of supply and demand in CIES is estimated. The analysis of industrial production is carried out.

The world economy is a dynamically developing system, where various processes continuously take place, being connected both with interaction and with opposition of the various participants’ interests in the context of globalization, regionalization, economic integration and competition. Today, under the effect of both objective and subjective factors, the environment itself has changed, the course of processes taking place there has changed. As a result, the world economy is undergoing complex transformations and humanity is going through a civilizational crisis. The world is entering a phase of turbulence, chaos, instability and uncertainty. No single country, including developed ones, can yet offer a way out of this phase. Due to disharmony in relationship between scientific-technological progress and spiritual development of mankind, the world is on the threshold of a global catastrophe. This situation has caused a complex problem that we plan to solve on the basis of a scientific approach. We believe that the main reason for violating the right course of events, processes and phenomena lies in the imperfect system of governing society, the state and the world development as a whole. The management system has left the natural path of development, has abandoned the canons of the Universe and the all-round laws of the Universe. Building on new knowledge, theories, concepts and technologies, it is necessary to create such a system of planning and management that will ensure safety and harmonious development of the system “nature – society – man”.

The study is devoted to comparing the characteristics of the macroeconomic dynamics of the US, Germany, China and Russia, with the goal of establishing not only differences and similar elements of this dynamics, but also identifying the most expedient ways to further implement the instruments of the macroeconomic policy pursued. Counteraction to the economic crisis presupposes institutional corrections, since the standard recipes of macroeconomic policy are weak in changing the situation, since the importance of, for example, financial institutions, the banking system, etc. However, the coherence of macroaggregates needs to be taken into account, moreover, it has its own peculiarities in each country, thus, the general methods of macroeconomic policy require detailed elaboration based on the development task and the current dynamics. The expediency of a moderately expansionary monetary policy for the Russian economy is shown, and the comparative and comparative method of analysis confirms that the USA and Russia demonstrate a similar dynamics of macroaggregates in general properties, Germany and China are also close to each other, although some parameters and connections are different. However, in the US and Russia (Fisher’s growth model), the decline in inflation has little effect on growth, in Germany and China, growth is accompanied by inflation (Schumpeter’s growth). The result of the comparative analysis using the matrix of pair correlations and obtained regressions should be used to correct macroeconomic policy measures in the countries examined. In addition, this comparison will prevent governments from mechanically copying macroeconomic instruments.

The article defines the essence of industrial police in the context of the main challenge — objective necessity of modernization of the Russian economy; special attention is given to three debatable aspects of elaboration of the new strategy of industrial police: defining its strategic goal, choice of strategic model of industrial development, defining the main directions of industrial policy. The key importance of the main statements of the Presidential Message to the Federal Assembly for handling these problems is underlined.

The article dwells on actual problems — increase in the volatility of the ruble exchange rate and its depreciation in 2018. At the same time, it is assumed that dynamics of the ruble exchange rate in general reflects the underlying economic processes (including abroad). Before the economic crisis that began in 2008, the ruble exchange rate for many years was mainly strengthening, and its volatility was relatively low. The situation has changed because the economies of a number of countries (in particular, Russia) have entered into a long, difficult period. So, for about a decade, the Russian economy has been showing slow growth. At the same time, the ruble exchange rate tends to depreciate. This allows the authors to assume that dynamics of the ruble exchange rate, which passed from a long upward to a downward stage about ten years ago, may be associated with a similar transition of the economy of Russia and some other countries to a downward stage (in N.D. Kondratieff terminology). The article analyzes a number of approaches to the problems of “long waves” in the economy and a conclusion is drawn up on the necessity to develop the RF monetary strategy (taking into account long-term macroeconomic processes).

By the beginning of autumn 2018, the Russian government and business have fixed the status quo — any change in the model (including the contract between the government and big business, concluded 15-20 years ago as a result of “equidistant oligarchs”) is out of question. In business logic, the authority (arbitrator) does not have the right to require too much (compliance with the code of a builder, if not of communism, then of socially acceptable capitalism) or to play along with its own adherents (give contracts to state companies, redistribute assets, etc.). Although in fact this happens “sometimes and somewhere in our country” (in state-owned companies and the public sector), but is considered an exception to the rule of “sterile capitalism”: business on its own (“pay taxes and sleep well”). Analyzing historical options of combining contracts with the people and the elite: in Catherine’s and Peter’s periods, the authors present possible options for the modern combination of contracts between the government and business, as well as with the population: the current neoliberal course, the course towards a social market economy and a forced tough (mobilization) course.

The article analyzes the model of forming an innovative economy in a collaborative system based on the stable links of network partners that carry out collective actions on the basis of a common strategy, common identity and joint commitments in the aspect of forming innovative entrepreneurship in order to select the priority directions for developing science, technology and critical technologies that should be aimed at modernizing the economy in order to increase its competitiveness. It is proved that collaboration multiplies many times the productivity of existing production factors and serves as the main mechanism for balancing economies in the global competition conditions. The article justifies formation of an innovative territorial cluster as an aggregate of agents that establish homogeneous, multilateral and regularly recurring links for the joint use of information and knowledge, exchange of services and acquisition of economic benefits from the position of interaction between representatives of science/education, business and the state in order to promote the growth of innovative entrepreneurship. With successful deployment of joint initiatives, innovative territorial clusters develop the collaboration to such level where a unique network effect of innovative synergies (flow innovations) arises, which ensures the continuous growth of innovative entrepreneurship.

On November 22, the Russian Association of Innovative Development will hold the International Innovation and Industrial Forum “Technological Breakthrough” for the seventh time. The central theme of the forum in 2018 will be “Spatial Development of Russia”. Experts in the sphere of public administration, industry, science, representatives of the business community and public organizations will discuss how to improve the life quality and awaken the regions’ potential in order to achieve sustainable development. Marina Shichkina, General Director of the Russian Association of Innovative Development, and Irina Grishina, Vice-Chairman of the Council for Productive Forces Study of the All-Russian Academy of Foreign Trade under the Ministry for Economic Development, RANEPA Principal Research Associate, told about the concept of the upcoming event and about the Strategy of Spatial Development to the “ES” magazine – the information partner of the Forum.

Changing of a conjuncture index of “Economic strategy” (CIES) for the 1st half of 2018 is considered. The contribution of indicators of supply and demand in CIES is estimated. The analysis of industrial production is carried out.