The monograph under review identifies and analizes the causes of the most complicated transformational changes taking place in world politics since the end of the 20th century, as well it is dedicated to theoretical comprehension of globalization challenges, which have seriously modified the principles of the world order laid down in the second half of the last century.

The following lecture of the series on the role of State in the economy deals with Concepts of the founders of Marxism and their adepts in the post-October 1917-period on the State’s role in the economy. I identify this vector of economic thought in a separate section due to significant influence that Marxism and Leninism ideas had impinged on the Economics and Politics in our country. The Marxist views analysis of the State’s attitude towards entrepreneurship is needed to identify the roots of the events that occurred in the twentieth century, in order to avoid their repetition in the XXI century.

How to supplement the general and therefore averaged and academic business education, how to bring it closer to the needs of a particular businessman or manager? Individualization of business education as an institution can and should be built into the services of business schools and corporate universities, as well it should be used in consulting companies. The article discusses the main principles and methods of individual business education: androgogy, individual trajectory, training consulting, inclusion of trainees in projects, combination of general and individual education in business schools.

The article carries out the OTSW-analysis of the rabbit farming, identifies its main competitive advantages and formulates a mission reflecting the strategic idea. At the final stage, the main strategic idea of the industry development is decomposed to the level of strategic priorities, provided by competitive advantages.

Opening address of editor-in-chief.

After four years of depression (2013–2016), our country this year came out of recession and again went into a stage of stagnation. If we take serious measures that need to be worked out and basically adopted this year, then as early as 2018–2019, our country can resume socio-economic growth.

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.

In 2009, the “Economic Strategies” published an article on the crises in Russia [1]. Then there were five crises, including the 2008 crisis. The crisis that began in 2014, in our opinion, is the sixth. Exactly this crisis will be discussed in the present article. We shall consider the socio-economic situation in Russia in 2015. And the main emphasis will be made on the state and prospects of the real sector of the domestic economy. The real sector, according to Adam Smith [2], means extraction of raw materials, production of all types of goods, energy resources, housing and communal services and agriculture. Rendering various services, including financial services, is not considered to be the real sector. The article consists of three parts. The first part is dedicated to external economic and political situation around the Russian Federation. The second part will consider the main processes that took place in the real sector. In the third part, we’ll answer the question of the possible situation evolution in 2016–2017.

In this article some international features of China’s policies are analysed — other domestic ones, such as the struggle against corruption are equally important but beyond this article’s scope, while some are domestic Chinese matters it is inappropriate for a non-Chinese citizen to comment on. But, despite this limitation, it is hoped an international analysis focusing on the new period in the world economy, as it interrelates with China, throws some light on developments both in China and internationally.

Changing of a conjuncture index of “Economic Strategies” (CIES) for January–March 2017 is considered. The contribution of indicators of supply and demand in CIES is estimated. The analysis of industrial production is carried out.