DOI: https://doi.org/10.33917/es-5.179.2021.36-45

Acceleration of technological and institutional development results in reduced lags between innovations and their installation in the economy and society, which modifies long-wave patterns (but doesn’t cancel them). In this regard, the question arises on the possibility of a “Russian economic miracle” on a new financial and digital basis. This is a question about ecosystems (digital platforms — a relatively recent complex financial and production innovation), the prototypes of which, however, have already been in history. Historical studies of protoecosystems and modern ecosystems, addressed by the author, allow us to answer the question: “ecosystem” (convergent) technologies are a factor undermining macroeconomic stability in the interests of a narrow circle of global and local players and (or) a mechanism for changing technological and institutional patterns (?!).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33917/es-5.179.2021.28-35

Supercritical fluid is a state of matter when its temperature and pressure are above the critical point. Supercritical situation is a state of the economy in its cumulative manifestations and mutual influence, whereby the state of key life-support profiles is below the critical point of controllability. Various forecasts are increasingly actualizing the probability of a natural (and man-made) macro-catastrophe (a large meteorite fall, an earthquake of 10–12 points and others, as well as a pandemic similar to COVID–19, but with more severe consequences). As the coronavirus pandemic has shown, modern civilization is becoming ever more vulnerable to such disasters. To overcome the destabilizing trends of a natural (and man-made) macro-catastrophe, it is necessary to adopt proactively a set of measures in Russia that will drastically increase the efficiency of public administration in relation to the list of regulated resource,  economic, technical, social and other parameters incorporating mechanisms and procedures of public administration into market mechanisms and the budgeting structure with regard to external and internal factors of the supersystem’s vital activities

DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.33917/es-5.179.2021.16-27

Result of the government’s many years of efforts to liberalize the market of social services is a huge number of organizations that are privately owned — 45,9%, but which have minimal impact on the infrastructure development. The reason is that private business alienates long-term and capital-intensive projects, and the overwhelming part of the social infrastructure (for sports facilities it constitutes 95.2%) remains in the state and municipal ownership. The state mistakenly classifies concession projects as investment projects that are paid back only through fee-based exploitation. Thus, social policy is being deprived of a promising mechanism — transformation of concession agreements into the basis for socialization of private investments, infrastructure and services. The identified problems of social disorientation in specifying criteria for evaluating the proposals of participants in concession tenders form the basis for asocial conditions of concession agreements, which makes social services inaccessible to the general population. Commercialization of the activities of social facilities is admissible (although in a limited sense), but at the same time, services at state tariffs or free of charge should prevail. There is a need for systematic scientific and methodological work on cross-cutting incorporation of this approach into the current regulatory framework and guidelines in order to create a network of basic social infrastructure for all segments of the population.

DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.33917/es-5.179.2021.6-15 

How is it that in Russia, unlike in other countries, during the coronavirus pandemic the total mortality increased by a record amount and the income and consumption of the population decreased to the greatest extent? The point is that the crisis, caused by the coronavirus pandemic, is completely different from previous ones. It highlights the dilemma: should we use forces and means to prevent an economic recession with lower costs for anti-crisis measures, or focus on saving people’s lives while minimizing additional mortality and maintaining real incomes of the population? Each country, depending on objectives, prevailing conditions and opportunities, chooses its “golden mean”. In many cases such choice is not fully conscious, since it’s not possible to forecast with any certainty even over the near term. Decisions have to be taken up along the way, based on the situation and assessing the probability of certain events, including in view of the other countries’  experience in combating the pandemic.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33917/es-5.179.2021.5