DOI: 10.33917/es-4.196.2024.62-73

The paper reveals the content of the method of structural analysis as a basic approach in economic research, used in the study of economic changes. The purpose of the study is to demonstrate the areas of application of structural analysis and its part — macrostructural analysis, with outputs for the study of technological development and the formation of a strategy for economic policy and development. The methodology consists of empirical structural analysis, comparative method and taxonomic approach. The overall result can be considered the identified areas of application of structural analysis in the macroeconomic part of its application, the possibilities and mistakes of applying macrostructural analysis to the study of economic growth and structural transformation of the economy. Let us note that many issues of the application of macrostructural analysis in economic science have been poorly studied. Often in studies it is replaced by the general method of structural analysis, which is reduced exclusively to the assessment of “input-output”, the structure of aggregate demand and production distributed across economic sectors. In fact, structural analysis is much broader, extends to micro and mesoeconomic objects of the economy, and is suitable not only for correcting current macroeconomic policies, but also for developing strategic plans for economic development and carrying out economic changes (reforms). An interpretation of changes within the framework of the “old — new” technologies structure is given, as well as proposals for taking into account technological development as an important condition for carrying out the structural and technological modernization of Russia.

References:

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

2. Nort D. Ponimanie protsessa ekonomicheskikh izmeneniy [Understanding the Process of Economic Change]. Moscow, Vysshaya shkola ekonomiki, 2010, 256 p.

3. Barr R. Politicheskaya ekonomiya [Political Economy]. V 2 t. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 1996.

4. Sukharev O.S. Strukturnyy analiz ekonomiki [Structural Analysis of the Economy]. Moscow, Finansy i statistika, 2012, 216 p.

5. Dedov L.A., Botkin O.I. Indeksnyy makrostrukturnyy analiz ekonomicheskoy dinamiki. Osnovnye ponyatiya i priemy makrostrukturnogo analiza [Index Macrostructural Analysis of Economic Dynamics. Basic Concepts and Techniques of Macrostructural Analysis]. Ekaterinburg, Izd-vo UrO RAN, 2013, 111 p.

6. Sukharev O.S. Strukturnye issledovaniya sovremennoy rossiyskoy ekonomicheskoy shkoly: osnovnye podkhody i perspektivy [Structural Research of the Modern Russian Economic School: Main Approaches and Prospects]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta, 2022, vol. 17, no 1, pp. 5–26.

7. Leont’ev V.V. Izbrannye stat’i [Featured Articles]. Saint Petersburg, Nevskoe vremya, 1994, 366 p.

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