Author page: Oleg Sukharev

Specifics of Technological Development of Russia

DOI: 10.33917/es-4.190.2023.64-71

The paper deals with the problems of ensuring the technological sovereignt y of the Russian economy, as a task set in 2022, with an emphasis on the evolutionary aspects of technological changes when considering options for government decisions. The purpose of the study is to identif y the specific characteristics of technological (innovation) dynamics with the formation of structural and sectoral policy measures corresponding to these characteristics. The result is a rationale for the coherence of the policy of new industrialization and ensuring technological sovereignt y, which requires a systemplanned approach that involves controlled structural changes in the field of basic industries and the technological base of the Russian economy. The properties of the aggregated sectors are presented, which must be taken into account when implementing the relevant structural policy. Proposals are given on the formation of structural and sectoral policy in Russia at the present stage.


1. Glaz’ev S.Yu. Nanotekhnologii kak klyuchevoi faktor novogo tekhnologicheskogo uklada v ekonomike [Nanotechnologies as a Key Factor of the New Technological Order in the Economy]. Pod red. akademika RAN S.Yu. Glaz’eva i professor V.V. Kharitonova. Moscow, Trovant, 2009, 304 p.

2. Spens M. Sleduyushchaya konvergentsiya. Budushchee ekonomicheskogo rosta v mire, zhivushchem na raznykh skorostyakh [Next convergence. The Future of Economic Growth in a World Living at Different Speeds]. Moscow, Izd-vo Instituta Gaidara, 2130, 336 p.

3. Sukharev O.S. Ekonomika promyshlennosti, tekhnologii i intellektual’nykh firm [Economics of Industry, Technology, and Smart Firms]. Moscow, Lenand, 2022, 304 p.

4. Khelpman E. Zagadka ekonomicheskogo rosta [Economic Growth Mystery]. Moscow, Izd-vo Instituta Gaidara, 2011, 240 p.

5. Cheng M., Yang S., Wen Z. The effect of technological factors on industrial energy intensity in China: New evidence from the technological diversification. Sustainable

Production and Consumption, vol. 28, 2021, pp. 775–785.

6. Crafts N. The First Industrial Revolution: Resolving the Slow Growth. Rapid Industrialization Paradox. Papers and Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Congress of the European Economic Association. Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 3, N 2/3, 2005, pp. 525–534.

7. Dosi G. Technical Change and Industrial Transformation: The Patterns of Industrial Dynamics. In: Technical Change and Industrial Transformation. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1984, 338 p.

8. Franka A.G., Dalenogareb L.S., Ayala N.F. Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production

Economics, vol. 210, 2019, pp. 15–26.

9. Sukharev O.S. Izmerenie tekhnologicheskogo razvitiya: podkhody, metody, problemy i perspektivy [Measuring Technological Development: Approaches, Methods, Problems and Prospects]. Ekonomicheskie strategii, 2023, no 1, pp. 26–35, DOI: 10.33917/es-1.187.2023.26-35.

Changing Technological Development: Approaches, Methods, Problems and Prospects

DOI: 10.33917/es-1.187.2023.26-35

Technological changes form the basis of modern economic development, however, in order to study their influence and features, as well as to develop control actions, it is necessary to adequately measure the level of technological effectiveness of the economy. The purpose of the study is to identify the limitations of existing approaches and methods for measuring technological development, indicating what prospects there are in terms of their improvement or the development of new ways to assess the level of manufacturability and emerging technologies. The methodology is based on the economic theory of technological development, statistical approaches to measuring the level of technological effectiveness of the economy, performance assessment, and comparative analysis is applied. The result is reduced to a reasonable position that the existing methods for measuring the level of manufacturability essentially do not reveal the true content of this concept, do not reflect the manufacturability of the economy. Thus, it is required to revise and introduce new accounting, measurement and statistical procedures covering the issues of technological development. The measuring apparatus for technological modes, the “knowledge economy” also requires perfection, which is proposed in this study.

By modes, it is important to measure the distribution of policy instruments and the structure of technologies in each mode, for which accounting for specific types of technologies and the construction of technological maps can be used. The “knowledge economy”, which symbolizes a high level of technological development, needs to be measured in its purest form by the volume of sectors responsible for the creation, transfer, replication and application of advanced knowledge. Evaluation of productive jobs needs to be revised — from measuring wages in the workplace, as it is today, to measuring the level of its automation and intellectualization.


1. Glaz’ev S.Yu. Teoriya dolgosrochnogo tekhniko-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya [Theory of Long-term Technical and Economic Development]. Moscow, Vladar, 1993, 310 p.

2. Peres K. Tekhnologicheskie revolyutsii i finansovyi kapital. Dinamika puzyrei i periodov protsvetaniya [Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital. Dynamics of Bubbles and Periods of Prosperity]. Moscow, Delo, 2011, 232 p.

3. Sukharev O.S. Ekonomika tekhnologicheskogo razvitiya [Economics of Technological Developmen]. Moscow, Finansy i statistika, 2008, 480 p.

4. Khelpman E. Zagadka ekonomicheskogo rosta [The Mystery of Economic Growth]. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo instituta Gaidara, 2011, 240 p.

5. Shumpeter I.A. Teoriya ekonomicheskogo razvitiya. Kapitalizm, sotsializm i demokratiya [Theory of Economic Development. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy]. Moscow, Eksmo, 2007, 864 p.

6. Antonelli C., Gehringer А. Technological change, rent and income inequalities: A Schumpeterian approach. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2017, vol. 115, pp. 85–98.

Poverty, Inequality, National Wealth: Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications


The article is devoted to the study of poverty and inequality in the economic growth of the most developed countries, with a general focus on the formation of social policy consistent with the growth policy. The purpose of the study is to conduct a macroeconomic analysis of poverty, inequality and wealth in the G7 countries, China and Russia, with the ensuing substantiation of a social development strategy for the Russian economy. The methodology is made up of empirical analysis, as well as regression modeling, which make it possible to identify in a comparative way the connectivity of the dynamics of relevant indicators of social development  — the level of national poverty and wealth, the Gini coefficient and general inequality, growth rate, human development index. The result of the study is a precisely confirmed empirical relationship between the level of poverty and inequality for the countries considered, that is, a high value of one parameter corresponds to a high value of another. Consequently, poverty reduction may imply a reduction in inequality, and not only relative, but also absolute. In addition, it was found that for developed countries, high levels of poverty and inequality mean low values of the human development index. Social policy aimed at human development requires that its instruments be harmonized, including the necessary alignment with the current macroeconomic policies to stimulate growth. The magnitude of national wealth does not guarantee high growth rates, as well as low levels of inequality and poverty. A high level of inequality can accompany economic growth, having a positive effect on the growth rate, as for the Russian economy. In this regard, the current policy needs a reasonable selection of measures to stimulate growth and, at the same time, measures to reduce inequality, which can and should not be limited only to tax changes that require special confirmation of influence, but to institutional changes that regulate the creation and appropriation of income.


1. Aganbegyan A.G. Kak preodolet’ stagnatsiyu i novyi krizis, obespechiv sotsial’no-ekonomicheskii rost [How to Overcome Stagnation and New Crisis, Providing Socio-Economic Growth]. Ekonomicheskie strategii, 2020, vol. 22, no 5, pp. 34–45, DOI: 10.33917/es-5.171.2020.34-45; no 6, pp. 6–19, DOI: 10.33917/es-6.172.2020.6-19.

2. Adzhimoglu D., Robinson Dzh.A. Pochemu odni strany bogatye, a drugie bednye. Proiskhozhdenie vlasti, protsvetaniya i nishchety [Why Some Countries are Rich and Others are Poor. The Origin of Power, Prosperity and Poverty]. Moscow, AST, 2016, 693 p.

3. Livshits V.N. Bednost’ i neravenstvo dokhodov naseleniya v Rossii i za rubezhom [Poverty and Inequality of the Population Incomes in Russia and Abroad]. Moscow, IE RAN, 2017, 52 p.

4. Stiglits Dzh. Tsena neravenstva. Chem rassloenie obshchestva grozit nashemu budushchemu? [The Cost of Inequality. How does Social Stratification Threaten Our Future?]. Moscow, Eksmo, 2015, 512 p.

The Economic Attack on Russia and the Policy of Counteraction


The purpose of the study is to show the patterns of the deployment of an economic attack on Russia. The research methodology is a comparative and retrospective analysis, elements of a structural approach. In the course of the analysis, a result was obtained that boils down to the fact that the current model of the world economy with a high level of integration and dependence of the economy poses a threat to the national security of the country. Economic warfare is carried out through damaging sanctions. Good conditions for it were created by the liberal economic policy pursued in Russia, which held back growth. Moreover, such outcomes are typical not only for economic activity, but also for the functioning of science and education — “invisible” sanctions, which creates a long-term perspective of dependent and driven development. It is necessary to ensure control over the distribution of property owners in the domestic market, planning procedures that are reduced to the establishment of thresholds in the field of imports, exports in various areas of activity, as well as the admission of foreign resources and institutional rules to the domestic market. With the implementation of such an institutional policy, sanctions would cause much less damage or their negative effect would be absent. Today, it is necessary to resist the economic attack by maximizing the withdrawal of assets from the dollar denomination, pursuing an anti-devaluation policy, cutting off the banking system from the speculative depreciation game, and intensifying efforts to replace imports in each industry. It is required to close the contours of production to the domestic market with the re-profiling of production, practicing the seizure of foreign property as a response to similar external actions. Such actions require a systematic state policy in all areas of coordination of industries and activities.



1. Glaz’ev S.Yu. Bitva za lide rstvo v XXI veke. Rossiya, SShA, Kitai. Sem’ variantov blizhaishego budushchego [The Battle for Leadership in the XXI Century. Russia, USA, China. Seven Options for the Near Future]. Moscow, Knizhnyi mir, 2017, 352 p.

2. L’vov D.S. Ekonomika razvitiya [Development Economics]. Moscow, Ekzamen, 2002, 512 p.

3. Sukharev O.S. “Izvrashchennyi monetarism” budet diktovat’ ekonomicheskuyu strategiyu razvitiya Rossii? [“Perverted Monetarism” will Dictate the Economic Development Strategy of Russia?]. Investitsii v Rossii, 2017, no 6, pp. 27–35.

4. Krugman P. Depressii — eto nechto inoe [Depression is Something Else]. Ekonomika dlya lyuboznatel’nykh: o chem razmyshlyayut nobelevskie laureaty. Moscow, Izd-vo instituta Gaidara, 2017, pp. 26–27.

5. Sukharev O.S. Ekonomicheskie sanktsii: problema otsenki ushcherba [Economic Sanctions: the Problem of Damage Assessment]. Ekonomika i predprinimatel’stvo, 2017, no 8-4, vol. 11, pp. 80–87.

6. Anchishkin A.I. Prognozirovanie tempov i faktorov ekonomicheskogo rosta [Forecasting Rates and Factors of Economic Growth]. Moscow, Maks-Press, 2003, 300 p.

Expertise of Solutions in the Public Administration System


The purpose of the study is to analyze the expert activity in the Russian Federation, with the receipt of basic recommendations for the deployment of a system of state expertise. The research methodology is a comparative, retrospective analysis, a method of taxonomy of management problems and the solution of poorly structured problems. The application of the indicated methodology allowed us to come to the main result, which boils down to the fact that in Russia expert activity at the state level has significant limitations for many reasons, which reduces the effectiveness of analytical management. This constitutes a condition for the failure of many programs and doctrines, namely strategic documents for development until 2020, and also blocks the formation of a new model of economic growth at the level of the state policy pursued for a decade. In addition, ill-considered reforms in education, science, and the administrative sphere also confirm the existence of significant gaps in the field of analytical public administration. Overcoming the listed problems is seen in the deployment of a system of state expertise on the basis of the relevant Federal Law with the leading role of the Academy of Sciences, since expertise involves exploratory, scientific activities, multivariate analysis and predictive assessments. In the course of the analysis, including the drafts of the Regulation on the support of expert activities in the executive authorities of Russia, developed at the Academy of Sciences, it is nevertheless proposed to abandon the public status of expert councils, as well as to change approaches in the field of recommendations and consideration of the examinations   themselves. Also proposed are corrections of some rules for voting on expertise and the level of responsibility of the experts themselves for their conclusions, including the responsibility of the authorities regarding the consideration of expert opinions. Thus, in the course of the study, he proposes to launch a large-scale work on the formation of a system of state expertise that functions at all levels of management with budgetary resources allocated for this.


1. Chichkanov V.P., Sukharev O.S. Razvit ie Rossiiskoi akademii nauk: reshenie organizatsionnykh zadach [Development of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Solution of Organizational Tasks]. Ekonomicheskie strategii, 2021, no 3, pp. 120–129. DOI:

2. Ukaz Prezidenta RF ot 4 fevralya 2021 g. N 68 “Ob otsenke effektivnosti deyatel’nosti vysshikh dolzhnostnykh lits (rukovoditelei vysshikh ispolnitel’nykh organov gosudarstvennoi vlasti) sub”ektov Rossiiskoi Federatsii i deyatel’nosti organov ispolnitel’noi vlasti sub”ektov Rossiiskoi Federatsii” [On the Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Activities of Senior Officials (Heads of the Highest Executive Bodies of State Power) of the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation and the Activities of the Executive Bodies of the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation: Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 4, 2021 No. 68]. Ofitsial’nyi sait Prezidenta RF. URL: news/64970.

Development of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Solution of Organizational Tasks


The purpose of the article is to determine the main directions of development of the Russian Academy of Sciences in cooperation with the executive and legislative authorities of Russia. As a rule, behind general phrases about the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian society is poorly informed about the current activities of the Academy of Sciences. The authors set themselves the task of filling this gap, of course, by bringing in their own proposals and some vision of the tasks of the development of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The methodology of this work is a comparative analysis, approaches to setting strategic objectives for the development of science and planning this process. The results of the study made it possible to concretize the tasks of the RAS development, highlighting the segment where the Academy itself is obliged to make changes to solve the necessary tasks, as well as the area of responsibility for changes at the level of the executive and, separately, the legislative branch. In addition, the directions have been established in which the RAS has an undoubted success in implementation, requiring its increase, as well as the necessary organizational changes, the need for which is very high in the context of intensifying scientific competition and the advanced development of science. The set of proposals will make it possible to recreate the chain of “fundamental science — R&D — production”, attracting backbone corporations of a science-intensive and other profile to such interaction. The article proposes a system of promising changes in the activities of the Russian Academy of Sciences, substantiates the position that they are able to increase the efficiency of science, without reducing it to what science should give to the economy instantly.

Economic Growth and Inequality: Revision of the Economic Policy


Alexander Nikolaevich Nesmeyanov, one of the most underestimated presidents of the Academy of Sciences, was a great originalminded scientist who opened up organoelement chemistry to the world as an independent science and later on — an artificial food, to which the world turns again after several decades. These milestones of his biography are well known to scientific community, as well as his leadership of Moscow State University during the new complex construction on the Lenin Hills, creation of INEOS and VINITI. 10-years period of his biography, when he was a President of the USSR Academy of Sciences, is much less known. It was in this position that he manifested enormous talent as an organizer of the country’s modern science management system, where the Academy of Sciences played an important role. Many thoughts and deeds of A.N. Nesmeyanov are especially relevant today.

Modern World Crisis and Russia: Diagnostics and Status of Overcoming

DOI: 10.33917/es-6.172.2020.20-31

The purpose of the study is to generalize the conditions that provoke the economic recession of 2020, taking into account the analysis of the pre-crisis dynamics of the Russian economy according to the parameters characterizing its innovative and technological development. The method of studying the relationships between the relevant development parameters is econometric modeling and regression analysis, which allow to identify the specific characteristics of the crisis in the innovative and technological development of the Russian economy. The analysis of the pre-crisis pattern of the movement of labor resources distracted from old industries in favor of new activities, and created specifically for new types of production. The sensitivity of the level of manufacturability to investments in old and new technologies, the influence of innovative agents on the economic dynamics in Russia are determined. The result of the study is the quantitative estimates obtained, which for the Russian economy, in comparison, for example, with other countries confirm the folding of the innovation process in its systemic dimension. Therefore, the diagnosis of the state of this sphere gives a conclusion about its crisis state. The decrease in the rate of economic growth in Russia was accompanied by a decrease in the number of innovative agents, the diversion of resources from old industries decreased, as did the creation of a new labor resource for new industries.

Structure of Economic Growth of the Countries of the Eurasian Union

DOI: 10.33917/es-2.168.2020.112-123

The purpose of the study is to determine the existing growth models of the countries of the Eurasian Union by GDP expenditures and sectors (manufacturing, transactional raw materials). The research methodology is a macroeconomic analysis of the dynamics of the main indicator of economic development — gross domestic product. The research method is a structural analysis that allows you to get a structural formula for calculating the contribution of each component of GDP to the growth rate, as well as a comparative analysis of the dynamics models of the countries in question — Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia. The result of the study is the obtained structural relationships that make it possible to measure the influence of the investment structure on the growth rate, the criteria describing economic growth with a corresponding change in the country’s national wealth, as well as the identification of models of economic dynamics by the countries of the Eurasian Union. It is indicative that the transaction sector dominates in Kazakhstan and Russia, while in other countries a mixed model is found, or industrial growth as in Belarus. According to the components of GDP and expenditures of the country, either a mixed or a consumer model is found (Kyrgyzstan, Russia), however, the contribution of government spending to the growth rate is provided only in Kazakhstan. It was also revealed that the reaction to the crisis of 2009 and 2015 was fundamentally different for the countries of the Eurasian Union. The search for the factor conditions of such a prevailing dynamics, as well as the influence of union economic relations on the formation of a growth model in each country, requires an expansion of research and an analytical perspective

Machining Production of Russia: Structure of Innovations and Export Strategy and Replacement of Import of Machines

DOI: 10.33917/es-6.164.2019.78-89

The purpose of the study is to assess the dynamics of the manufacturing industries in Russia. According to the “structural formula”, the contribution of innovations in various types of activities to the overall dynamics of innovations in manufacturing industries is assessed, which makes it possible to identify the dominant innovations in economic sectors. This approach is useful in order to differentiate the methods of industrial (sectoral) policy, including national projects as an institutional tool for managing the development of the Russian economy, since it identifies those areas that require special incentives for the innovation process. The structure of innovation is heterogeneous, the contribution by different types of activity varies significantly, which indicates the instability of the process of innovative development. Two strategies are considered for the functioning of processing industries: the export of machinery and the substitution of machinery imports. It is shown that these strategies can not be reduced to one another, except for special cases and suggest different possibilities. The parameter of structural independence for the Russian engineering industry has steadily decreased and its dynamics has been stabilized at low values, as shown by the method of phase portraits of the change in this indicator. This suggests that the domestic economy and engineering remain highly dependent on imports of machinery, equipment and technology, and leads to the conclusion that the import substitution policy is not, firstly, sufficient, and secondly, structural internal changes are required in the economy, so that import substitution and the development of export manufacturing industries give a positive systemic result. On the basis of quantitative assessments, a fundamental conclusion was obtained that the import substitution policy itself will certainly not have a high performance (locally limited effect), which it could potentially have when the internal flow of resources changes towards the processing sectors