DOI: 10.33917/es-6.172.2020.78-85

For several years, there has been a considerable interest in the development of regions and their contribution to the national economy, both in Russia and in foreign countries. The regions are characterized by uneven economic development and the amount of taxes and fees going to the Federal budget. Moreover, in Russia, this unevenness in regional development is particularly strong, which is facilitated by tax policy that affects the reduction of regional tax independence and does not encourage the regions to develop their income base. The task of achieving a balance between donor and recipient regions, reducing the number of subsidized regions, and creating incentives to increase their incomes and economic growth is one of the most actual problems of Russian economic policy.

DOI: 10.33917/es-5.171.2020.128-135

The article describes position of the EAEU countries in the international division of labour, compares them with other geographic regions. The author reveals the pros and cons of deeper integration into global value chains, and also suggests various policy options with regard to participation therein. The paper also describes the EAEU regional features, on the basis of which advantages and disadvantages of the region in relation to external economic agents are specified. Special focus is made on the protectionist trend, which has both internal and external (global) dimensions and hinders implementation of effective coordinated macroeconomic policy of the EAEU countries for achieving higher redistributions in global production chains.

DOI: 10.33917/es-3.169.2020.74-79

The article dwells on the changing role of Russia in Kyrgyzstan, identifies trends of the main country’s indicators in trade and direct investment, describes humanitarian cooperation between two countries. The authors make an assessment of Kyrgyzstan’s economic potential, examine the main industries and agriculture of the country, identify its investment attractiveness for foreign partners.

DOI: 10.33917/es-3.169.2020.66-73

The article dwells on the infrastructure cooperation between Russia and China as one of the main areas of interaction between two countries at the present stage. The paper analyzes problems of creating the Trans-Eurasian Development Belt (TEDB), formation of the Far Eastern transport and logistics cluster (Primorye-1 and Primorye-2), construction of the Eurasian Sea Canal between Caspian and Azov Seas. Particular attention is paid to forming the Arctic vector of the Silk Road. The author concludes that it is necessary to create a number of transport and logistics corridors with developing the corresponding industrial clusters inside them, as well as to organize international consortia for the projects implementation.

DOI: 10.33917/es-3.169.2020.56-65

Regular meeting of the Bogomolov Club, held at the Institute for Economic Strategies on January 28, 2020, was dedicated to the issues of trade and economic war between the USA and China. The keynote address was delivered by the famous Russian sinologist, Doctor of Economics, Professor, Director of the Center for Social and Economic Research of China at the RAS Institute of the Far East, member of the Russian Association of Sinologists, the European Association of Chinese Studies Andrey V. Ostrovsky.

DOI: 10.33917/es-3.169.2020.50-54

The global economy, including the eurozone, experienced a shock in 2008. As one of the consequences, central banks of the largest economies in the world, in order to support economic activity, reduced interest rates on loans. Although 11 years have passed, in the eurozone lending rates still remain extremely low. This indicates that the monetary union has not yet recovered from the post-crisis state. In fact, more and more probable is becoming a recently inconceivable scenario that the eurozone for a long time will get into the era of negative interest rates.

DOI: 10.33917/es-3.169.2020.42-49

The article analyzes the Brexit problem, the solution of which has been delayed: four years passed from the referendum on Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union (February 16, 2016) till signing of the Brexit Act by Prime Minister Boris Johnson (January 31, 2020). The article’s novelty consists in assessing Brexit as a manifestation of the system crisis of the European Union (EU), officially recognized by the European authorities in 2015 due to violation of the development regularities of the European integration and the global crisis consequences. Based on systemic methodology in the aspect of reproduction theory, the internal and external causes of Brexit are analyzed. The author identifies a change in the US attitude to Brexit — from Barack Obama’s negative position to active support by Donald Trump in order to break down the European Union as a collective competitor composed of twenty-eight integrated countries. This is facilitated by the loss of economic sovereignty of the EU countries under US pressure. Possible British benefits and risks of losses as a result of exit from the EU are analyzed.

DOI: 10.33917/es-3.169.2020.30-41

Beginning the article with reminding some basic definitions of geopolitics, correlation of spatial and temporal components herein as well as the systemic nature of geopolitics as a science and the basis for a long-term political strategy, the author proceeds to the topic of relationship between geopolitics and geoeconomics, particularly significant in recent decades. He puts forward the idea that geoeconomics today is an increasingly dynamic and actively driving element in this dyad due to growing technological innovations, increasing competition and subsequent rising complexity of economic strategies of states. Based on well-known examples of economic and political outcomes of applying the state capitalism models or liberal economy, in particular, in the countries that have undergone a radical breakdown of their former economic systems (Russia is also briefly mentioned in this context), the author concludes that it is necessary to form a strategic state, able to develop a sustainable mechanism (including economic intelligence) for development and implementation of national geoeconomics. To support the provisions put forward in the article, the author, as an independent expert, gives a broad outline of geopolitical and geoeconomic shifts in the world in the coming decades.

DOI: 10.33917/es-2.168.2020.102-111

This article considers how to enhance the institutional structure of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in order to enable timely decision-making and implementation of governance decisions in the interests of Eurasian integration deepening. We compare the governance structures of the EAEU and the European Union (EU) using the author’s technique and through the lens of theories of neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism elaborated with respect to the EU. We propose to determine a major driver of the integration process at this stage (the College of the Eurasian Economic Commission or the EAEU member states), to reduce the number of decision-making bodies within the current institutional structure of the EAEU, and to divide clearly authority and competence of remaining bodies to exclude legal controversies in the EAEU

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