The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences № 2/2024.  Economics and Management.

Olga A. Kislitsyna

Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Chief Researcher at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0002-4144-237X

RUSSIANS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN HEALTHCARE

7-30

389.83 KB

Full text

Abstract

The aim of the study was: 1) to consider the views of Russians on the state’s role in providing and financing health care services and the success of the government in this area; 2) to identify changes in these views over time; 3) to explore the relationship between the Russians’ opinions and their individual characteristics. The analysis of International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) data collected in 2006 and in 2016 shows that support for the government’s role in providing and financing health care has slightly declined over a ten-year period and a significant part of the respondents are dissatisfied with the government’s success in ensuring treatment to those in need of medical attention. However, despite this, most Russians still support government involvement in health care. Individual characteristics associated with the attitude to the role of the state in healthcare have also been identified.

Keywords: healthcare, public opinion, government funding, public services, government responsibility, International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), Russia.

JEL: E62, H11, H51

EDN: AUFPFV

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2024_2_7_30

References

1. Quality of life of Russians: key factors. 03 December 2018. https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/kachestvo-zhizni-rossiyan-klyuchevye-faktory (accessed: 03.02.2024 г.). (In Russ.).
2. Kislitsyna O.A. Factors influencing Russians’ satisfaction with the healthcare system // Social aspects of population health. 2020. No. 2. Pp. 2–8. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21045/2071-5021-2020-66-2-8.
3. Salmina A.A. Have Russians’ views on social policy changed? Analysis of dynamics and comparison with other countries // Sociological Research. 2019. 12. Pp. 91–103. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/SO13216250007748-5.
4. Andreß H.J., Heien T. Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States // European Sociological Review. 2001. Vol. 17. No. 4. 337–356. DOI: 10.1093/esr/17.4.337.
5. Blekesaune M., Quadagno J. Public Attitudes toward Welfare State Policies: A Comparative Analysis of 24 Nations // European Sociological Review. 2003. Vol. 19. No. 5. 415–427. DOI: 10.1093/esr/19.5.415.
6. Brooks C., Manza J. Why Welfare States Persist: The importance of Public Opinion in Democracies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2007.
7. Calzada I., Gómez-Garrido M., Moreno L., Moreno-Fuentes F.J. It Is Not Only About Equality: A Study on the (Other) Values That Ground Attitudes to the Welfare State // International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2014. Vol. 26. No. 2. Pp. 178–201. DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edt044.
8. Dalen K. Changing attitudes towards government responsibility for social welfare in China between 2004 and 2014: Evidence from three national surveys // International Journal of Social Welfare. 2002. Vol. 31. No. 2. Pp. 248–262. DOI: 10.1111/ijsw.12511.
9. Deeming C. Classed Attitudes and Social Reform in Cross-National Perspective: a Quantitative Analysis Using Four Waves from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) // Journal of Sociology. 2016. Vol. 53. No. 1. Pp. 162–181. DOI: 10.1177/1440783316632605.
10. Edlund J. Trust in Government and Welfare Regimes: Attitudes to Redistribution and Financial Cheating in the USA and Norway // European Journal of Political Research. 1999. Vol. 35. No. 3. Pp. 341–370. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6765.00452.
11. Edlund J. Trust in the capability of the welfare state and general welfare state support: Sweden 1997–2002 // Acta Sociol. 2006. Vol. 49. No. 4. Pp. 395–417. DOI: 10.1177/0001699306071681.
12. Feldman S., Steenberger M.R. The Humanitarian Foundation of Public Support for Social Welfare // American Journal of Political Science. 2001. Vol. 45. No. 3. Pp. 658–677. DOI: 10.2307/2669244.
13. Top Issues for Voters: Healthcare, Economy, Immigration. November 2, 2018. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-healthcare-economyimmigration.aspx (accessed: 03.02.2024 г.).
14. Hayes B.C., VandenHeuvel A. Government spending on health care: A cross-national study of public attitudes // J Health Soc Policy. 1996. Vol. 7. No. 4. Pp. 61–79. DOI: 10.1300/J045v07n04_05.
15. Kikuzawa S., Olafsdottir S., Pescosolido B.A. Similar Pressures, Different Contexts: Public Attitudes toward Government Intervention for Health Care in 21 Nations // Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2008. Vol. 49. No. 4. Pp. 385–399. DOI: 10.1177/00221465080490040.
16. Kulin J., Svallfors S. Class, Values, and Attitudes Towards Redistribution: A European Comparison // European Sociological Review. 2013. Vol. 29. No. 2. Pp. 155–167. DOI: 10.1093/esr/jcr046.
17. Lipsmeyer C.S. Welfare and the Discriminating Public: Evaluating Entitlement Attitudes in Post-Communist Europe // Policy Studies Journal. 2003. Vo. 31. No. 4. Pp. 545–564. DOI: 10.1111/1541-0072.00042.
18. Lipsmeyer C., Nordstrom T. East versus West: Comparing Political Attitudes and Welfare Preferences across European Societies // Journal of European Public Policy. 2003. 10. No. 3. Pp. 339–364. DOI: 10.1080/1350176032000085342.
19. Morelock A. Public Support for Social Welfare Policies: A Cross-National Examination. PhD diss. University of Tennessee. 2016. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3951 (accessed: 03.02.2024).
20. Munro N. Predictors of support for state social welfare provision in Russia and China // Europe-Asia Studies. 2017. Vo. 69. No. 1. Pp. 53–75. DOI: 10.1080/09668136.2016.1265643.
21. Navarro V. Why some countries have national health insurance, others have national health services, and the US has neither // Social Science & Medicine. 1989. Vol. 28. No. 9. Pp. 887–898. DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(89)90313-4.
22. Niklass M. Social Welfare Policy Preferences in Latvia: Evidence from ISSP Surveys // CBU International Conference Proceedings. 2018. Vol. 6. Pp. 678–684. DOI: 10.12955/cbup.v6.1232.
23. Roosma F., van Oorschot W., Gelissen J. The preferred role and perceived performance of the welfare state: European welfare attitudes from a multidimensional perspective // Soc Sci Res. 2014. Vol. 44. Pp. 200–210. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.12.005.
24. Schlesinger M., Lee T.-k. Is Health Care Different? Popular Support of Federal Health and Social Policies // Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law. 1993. Vol. 18. No. 3. Pp. 551-628. DOI: 10.1215/03616878-18-3-551.
25. Svallfors S. Welfare regimes and welfare opinions: A comparison of eight Western countries // Social Indicators Research. 2003. Vol. 64. Pp. 495–520. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025931414917.
26. Svallfors S. Class, attitudes and the welfare state: Sweden in comparative perspective // Soc Policy Admin. 2004. Vol. 38. No. 2. Pp. 119–138. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2004.00381.x.
27. Tang J. Who Cares About Health Care? Sociodemographics and Att itudes Toward Government’s Role in Health Care Across Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. Honors thesis, Duke University. 2010. htt ps://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/d242a7df-a88e-4556-b046-87c5aff de8ba/content (accessed: 03.02.2024).
28. The International Social Survey Programme. http://www.issp.org/ (accessed: 03.02.2024).
29. van Oorschot W., Gugushvili D. Retrenched, but Still Desired? Perceptions Regarding the Social Legitimacy of the Welfare State in Russia Compared with EU Countries // Europe-Asia Studies. 2019. Vol. 71. No. 3. Pp. 345–364. DOI: 10.1080/09668136.2019.1583316.
30. van Oorschot W.J.H., Laenen T., Roosma F., Meuleman B. Recent advances in understanding welfare attitudes in Europe. In Nelson K., Nieuwenhuis R., Yerkes M.A. (Eds.). Social policy in changing European societies: Research agendas for the 21^st Edward Elgar Publishing. 2022. https://www.elgaronline.com/configurable/content/book$002f9781802201710$002fbook-part-9781802201710-21.xml?t:ac=book%24002f9781802201710%24002fbook-part-9781802201710-21.xml (accessed: 03.02.2024).
31. Vilhjalmsson R. Public views on the role of government in funding and delivering health services // Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2016. Vol. 44. No. 5. 446–454. DOI: 10.1177/1403494816631872.
32. Zhao D., Zhao H., Cleary P.D. International variations in trust in health care systems // Int J Health Plann Manage. 2019. Vol. 34. No. 1. Pp. 130–139. DOI: 10.1002/hpm.2597.

Manuscript submission date: 05.03.2024

For citation:

Kislitsyna O.A. Russians’ attitudes toward the role of the state in healthcare // Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. 2024. № 2. Pp. 7-30. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2024_2_7_30 EDN: AUFPFV

  Creative Commons 4.0

Liliya I. Dmytrychenko

Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor, Head of the Department of Economic Theory, Donetsk State University, Donetsk, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0001-6956-8524

Inessa B. Avanesova

Cand.  Sci. (Econ.), Associate Professor of the Department of General Economic Theory, The Moscow School of Economics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0009-0005-6743-2259

SCIENCE AND EDUCATION AS AN OBJECT OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE

65-86

358.4 KB

Full text

Abstract

The article examines the problem of the state’s social responsibility regarding the development of science and education in the country. University models are analyzed, as well as conceptual approaches to assessing the role and significance of modern education and science in various countries, including the Russian Federation. The current state of science is reflected, the dynamics of spending on scientific research in Russia is analyzed and an assessment of their levels in developed countries of the world is given. Problems and contradictions in the development of science and education in Russian society are formulated. The modern concept of state educational policy, which is being actively introduced into the scientific and educational practice of Russia provides a critical analysis. The authors come to the conclusion about the necessity to intensify the state’s stimulating policy in the field of science and education.

Keywords: state, science and education, national interests, social responsibility, fundamental nature of education, human capital.

JEL: О43, А14, В41

EDN: JRAIAE

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2024_1_65_86

References

1. Andreev A. National model of university education: emergence and development. // Higher education in Russia. 2005. No. 1. Рp. 156–169. (In Russ.).
2. Humboldtian model of higher education. https: //translated. turbopages. org/proxy_u/en-ru.ru.71da3503-655dfe18-4223624f74722d776562/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Humboldtian_model of_higher_education (accessed: 11.11.2023). (In Russ.).
3. Typology of universities, models and tools of organizational development: preprint / ed. V.S. Efimov. https://elib-sfu-kras.ru/handle/2311/144704 (accessed: 12.11.2023). Krasnoyarsk: Sib. federal univ., 2018. (In Russ.).
4. Nosonov A.M. Factors in the formation of entrepreneurial universities in Russia // Modern problems of science and education. 2020. No. 4. Р. 30. EDN: EMLLBU, DOI: 10.17513/spno.29978
5. Formation of a system of continuous business education in Russia: theory and practice: monograph. / Ross. econ. University named after G.V. Plekhanov; ed. V.I. Grishina. M.: Publishing house REU named after G.V. Plekhanov, 2018. (In Russ.).
6. Zakharov N.I. Behavioral economics, or why in Russia we want the best, but it turns out as always: monograph. / N.I. Zakharov. M.: INFRA-M, 2018. (In Russ.).
7. Stukalova I.B. Financial support for the competitiveness of Russian universities: monograph. / I.B. Stukalova [and others]. M.: Rusayns, 2018. (In Russ.).
8. Continuing professional education as a basic factor in the formation of human resources: status, problems, development paths: monograph. / Ross. econ. University named after G.V. Plekhanov; V.M. Zuev [and others]. M.: Publishing house REU named after G.V. Plekhanov, 2018. (In Russ.).
9. Innovative integrated structures of education, science and business: monograph. / ed. A.V. Rozhdestvensky. M.: Alfa-M: INFRA-M, 2017. (In Russ.).
10. In search of new models of the financial market and educational activities: monograph. / E. G. Dadyan. Fin. University under the Government of Russian Federation. M.: University textbook: INFRA-M, 2018. (In Russ.).
11. Russian graduate students: selection, preparation for independent scientific and pedagogical activities: monograph. / S.D. Reznik, S.N. Makarova, E.S. Dzhevitskaya; General ed. S.D. Reznik. 2nd ed. M.: INFRA-M, 2017. (Scientific thought. Education). (In Russ.).
12. Russian youth in the labor market: economic activity and employment problems in a metropolis: monograph. / Scientific ed. V.N. Bobkov, A.A. Litvinyuk. M.: Rusayns, 2018. (In Russ.).
13. Strumilin S.G. Economic importance of public education / S.G. Strumilin. M.–L.: Economic Life, 1924. (In Russ.).
14. Knowledge management in corporations / B.Z. Milner [et al.]; ed. B.Z. Milner. M.: Delo, 2006. (In Russ.).

Manuscript submission date: 10.01.2024

For citation:

Dmitrychenko L.I., Avanesova I.B. Science and education as an object of social responsibility of the state // Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. 2024. № 1. Pp. 65-86. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2024_1_65_86 EDN: JRAIAE

  Creative Commons 4.0

The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences № 1/2024.  Economics and Management.

Dmitriy V. Agafonov

Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Deputy Director of the Centre for Economic Research of Infrastructure Industries of the Natural Monopoly Economies Institute, RANEPA, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0001-7217-2256

Oksana O. Mozgovaya

Director of the Centre for Organization of Scientifi c Activity and Project Management of the Natural Monopoly Economies Institute, RANEPA, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0001-6556-2459

Boris I. Fayn

Director of the Centre for Economic Research of Infrastructure Industries of the Natural Monopoly Economies Institute, RANEPA, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0002-0891-4849

Vasiliy V. Kuznetsov

Lead expert of the Centre for Methodology and Forensic Economic Analysis of the Natural Monopoly Economies Institute, RANEPA, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0003-4853-1698

ASSESSING THE RESULTS AND PROSPECTS FOR INTRODUCING YARDSTICK REGULATION IN THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY

87-112

493.25 KB

Full text

Abstract

Since 2018, the electric power industry has been undergoing an evolutionary restructuring of approaches to the formation of regulated tariffs. In particular, the government of the Russian Federation passed a decree introducing new rules of sales markups of GESs using the analogue comparison method. It provides for normalization of operating expenses. All participants in the electricity market and state executive authorities needed to reconfigure with reference of a radical transformation of approaches to tariff regulation. The authors of the article focus on the assessments lack of the reconfiguration results and the small volume of recommendations for expanding the use of yardstick regulation.

The article summarizes the results of the five-year period of the new tariff regulation approach of GESs. The authors also presented an assessment of the prospects for further use of the analogue comparison method in relation to electric grid enterprises. This was the purpose of the article.

To achieve this goal, the authors analyzed the results of the switch to the analogue comparison method. In particular, the article examines changes in sales markups: an increase in the sales markup median value of GESs has been revealed by 2–3 times since 2018, depending on the group of consumers. In conclusion, the authors proposed possible tools for adjusting and fine-tuning the method of analogues comparison in relation to the GESs activities. The article also gives the author's assessment of the prospects for expanding this method to other natural monopoly segments, including electricity transmission and distribution.

Keywords: guaranteeing electricity supplier, sales markups, tariff regulation, analogue comparison method, yardstick regulation.

JEL: D4, G38, L94, O25

EDN: LUSDVA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_ 2024_1_87_112

References

1. Vasilyev D.A. New in state regulation of electricity companies tariffs //Economy and Entrepreneurship. 2019. No. 9(110). Рp. 161–166.(In Russ.).
2. Rykova I., Taburov D. Tariff policy based on the analysis of the dynamics of regulated and free prices in the electricity sector //Newsletter of North-Caucasus Federal University. 2018. No. 5(68). Рp. 115–126. (In Russ.).
3. Vasilyev D.A. State Tariff and Antimonopoly Regulation of the Electric Power Complex: Institutional Aspect // Public Administration. E-journal (Russia).2023. No. 97. Рp. 85–97. (In Russ.).
4. Korolev V. Why do we need a yardstick regulation // Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 2018. October 08. https://www.ng.ru/ng_energiya/2018-10-08/12_7327_ princip.html (In Russ.).
5. Mozgovaya O.O., Sheval Yu.V., Kuznetsov V.V. Development of default electricity suppliers’ efficiency by the yardstick regulation // The Eurasian Scientific Journal. 2019. No. 5(11). https://esj.today/PDF/77ECVN519.pdf (In Russ.).
6. Frey D.A., Pavlenok A.A., Nestulaeva D.R. Improvement of Methods of Regulation of Sales Markups of Guaranteed Suppliers // The Review of Economy, the Law and Sociology. 2020. No. 3. Рp. 40–46. (In Russ.).
7. Mozgovaya O.O. The yardstick competition and comparative method of electricity suppliers’ regulation: synonyms or not // The Eurasian Scientific Journal. 2019. No. 6(11). https://esj.today/PDF/17ECVN619.pdf. (In Russ.).
8. Agafonov D.V., Mozgovaya O.O. Assessment of modern approaches impact to the tariff policy formation on the default electricity suppliers financial and economic activities in RF // Bulletin of Moscow Witte University. Series 1: Economics and Management. 2022. No. 2(41). Рp. 15–25. (In Russ.).
9. Dolmatov I.A., Panova M.A. Tariff regulation using the reference cost method: expectations and reality // Energorynok. 2018. No. 3(158). Рp. 16–23. (In Russ.).
10. Mozgovaya O.O., Fain B.I. Interregional differentiation of sales markups of guaranteed (default) electricity suppliers before and after the switch to the method of analogues’ comparison // Public Administration Issues. 2023. No. 1. Рp. 120–149. (In Russ.).
11. Mozgovaya O.O., Sheval Yu.V. The establishment of sales markups of guaranteeing electricity suppliers by method of comparison of analogues: decrease or increase // Vestnik universiteta, 2019. No. 12. Рp. 119–125. (In Russ.).
12. Suyunchev M.M., Mozgovaya O.O., Kuznetsov V.V. The tariff effects research of comparative method for default electricity supplier’s regulation. (Preprint). M.: RANEPA, 2019. (In Russ.).

Manuscript submission date: 15.01.2024  

For citation:

Agafonov D.V., Mozgovaya O.O., Fayn B.I., Kuznetsov V.V. Assessing the results and prospects for introducing yardstick regulation in the electric power industry // Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. 2024. № 1. Pp. 87-112. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2024_1_87_112 EDN: LUSDVA

  Creative Commons 4.0

The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences № 1/2024.  Economics and Management.

Oleg S. Sukharev

Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor, Chief Researcher at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0002-3436-7703

TECHNOLOGICAL SOVEREIGNTY OF RUSSIA: FORMATION ON THE BASIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE "KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY" SECTOR

47-64

465.68 KB

Full text

Abstract

The article is devoted to the issues of technological sovereignty of the Russian economy. The main condition for its provision is the targeted formation and development of the “knowledge economy” sector. An approach to measuring technological sovereignty in specific areas of technological development and types of economic activity is proposed. Based on the results of a regression analysis of the relationship between the costs of internal research and development and the gross added value of the “knowledge economy” sector, it has been established that there is a problem associated with the effectiveness of these costs and their subordination exclusively to the task of developing the knowledge economy. It is concluded that new approaches are needed to the formation of a knowledge economy, which should be significantly expanded primarily by increasing costs allocated to the development of new technologies, maintaining existing standard technological chains, and increasing the efficiency of these costs. The research methodology included empirical, comparative, structural and regression analysis, as well as the author’s developments in the field of quantitative measurements. The application of the author's methodology for assessing the “knowledge economy” in Russia on economic development is shown – in terms of scale and contribution to the growth rate.

Keywords: “knowledge economy”, technology, research and development costs, technological sovereignty, economic growth, measurement methods.

JEL: O11, O33, O41

EDN: GBHZQW

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_ 2024_1_47_64

References

1. Glazyev S.Yu. Theory of long-term technical and economic development. M.: VlaDar, 1993. (In Russ.).
2. Mensch G. Technological stalemate: innovation overcomes depression. M.: Economics, 2001. (In Russ.).
3. Perez K. Technological revolutions and financial capital. Dynamics of bubbles and periods of prosperity. M.: Publishing house “DELO”, 2011. (In Russ.).
4. Sukharev O.S. Economics of technological development. M.: Finance and Statistics, 2008. (In Russ.).
5. Sukharev O.S. Economics of industry, technology and intellectual firms. M.: Lenand, 2022. (In Russ.).
6. Helpman E. The mystery of economic growth. M.: Gaidar Institute Publishing House, 2011. (In Russ.).
7. Bassens D., Hendrikse R. Asserting Europe’s technological sovereignty amid American platform finance: Countering financial sector dependence on Big Tech? // Political Geography. 2022. 97(1):102648.
8. Breschi S., Malerba F., Orsenigo L. Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation // The Economic Journal. 2000. Vol. 110 (463). Pр. 388–410.
9. Caputo F. Reflecting upon knowledge management studies: insights from systems thinking // International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies. 2017. Vol. 8 (3–4), Рp. 177–190.
10. Caputo, F., Garcia-Perez, A., Cillo, V., & Giacosa, E. A knowledge-based view of people and technology: directions for a value co-creation-based learning organization // Journal of Knowledge Management. 2019. Vol. 23(7). Pр. 1314–1334.
11. 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. 2021. Vol. 28. Pр. 775–785.
12. 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. 2005. Vol. 3. No. 2/3. Рp. 525–534.
13. Edler J., Blind K., Kroll H., Schubert T. Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means // Research Policy. 2023. 52(6):104765.
14. Lu Y. Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues // Journal of Industrial Information Integration. 2017. Vol. 6. Рp. 1–10.
15. Philbeck T., Davis T. The Fourth Industrial Revolution // Journal of International Affairs. 2019. Vol. 72. No. 1. Рp. 17–22.
16. Ponte A., Leon G., Alvarez I. Technological sovereignty of the EU in advanced 5G mobile communications: An empirical approach. Telecommunications Policy. 2023. 47(7):102459.
17. Rifkin J. The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World. St. Martin's Griffin Pbl, 2011.

Manuscript submission date: 13.12.2023

For citation:

Sukharev O.S. Technological sovereignty of Russia: formation on the basis of the development of the "knowledge economy" sector // Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. 2024. №. 1 Pp. 47-64. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_ 2024_1_47_64 EDN: GBHZQW

  Creative Commons 4.0