2. Home
  3. Archive
  4. Articles
  5. ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT

The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences № 3/2024.  Economics and Management.

 

Nadezhda M. Rozanova

Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor, Department of Micro and Macroeconomic Analysis, Faculty of Economics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0003-3660-0625

 

CONTEMPORARY CONSUMER IN THE NETS OF DIGITAL ECONOMY

Размер файла26-46 Размер файла  334.27 KB Размер файла Full text

Abstract

Digital economy has created both new possibilities and new risks for consumers. Researchers have noted that there arise obfuscation effects, instruments that digital ecosystems use to manipulate the optimal choice of individuals under high search transactional costs. Intertemporal price dispersions and dynamic pricing are based on the situations where clients express inattentive aspects as a result of their informational overloading in the periods of numerous price changes. Periodic up and down price oscillations hamper price understandings for consumers and serve as a beneficial focus in supporting collusive discipline within digital platforms. Newly formed price strategies on the basis of obfuscation phenomenon are out of the current competition policy and are not duly regulated.

Keywords: consumer, digital economy, obfuscation effects.

JEL: D10, D11, D40, L10

EDN: CEHRSU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2024_3_26_46

References

  1. Akerlof G., Shiller R. Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception. 2015. Princeton. Princeton University Press.
  2. Miravete E.J. Competition and the Use of Foggy Pricing // American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. 2013. Vol. 5. No. 1. Pp. 194–216.
  3. Waddams C., Wilson C. Do Consumers Switch to the Best Supplier? // Oxford Economic Papers. 2010. Vol. 61. Pp. 647–668.
  4. Ellison G., Ellison S.F. Search, Obfuscation, and Price Elasticities on the Internet // Econometrica. 2009. Vol. 77. No. 2. Pp. 427–452.
  5. Spiegler R. Bounded Rationality and Industrial Organization. 2014. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
  6. Grubb M. Behavioral Consumers in Industrial Organization: An Overview // Review of Industrial Organization. 2015. Vol. 47. No. 3. Pp. 247–258.
  7. Hefti A. Limited Attention, Competition and Welfare // Journal of Economic Theory. 2018. Vol. 178. Pp. 318–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2018.09.012 (accessed 04.2024).
  8. Diamond P. A Model of Price Adjustment // Journal of Economic Theory. 1971. Vol. 3. 156–168.
  9. Ellison G. A Model of Add-On Pricing // Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2005. Vol. 120. 585–637.
  10. Acemoglu D. Harms of AI. NBER Working Paper 29247. September 2021.
  11. Chiles E.B.S. Shrouded Information and Strategic Transparency: Three Essays on Price Obfuscation. A Dissertation. Doctor of Philosophy in Management. University of Los Angeles. 2017.
  12. Spiegler R. Competitive Framing // American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. 2014. Vol. 6. No. 3. Pp. 35–58.
  13. O’Reilly T, Strauss I, Mazzucato M. Algorithmic Attention Rents: A Theory of Digital Platform Market Power // Data & Policy. 2024. No. 6. pp. e6-1-e6-25. DOI: 10.1017/dap.2024.1.
  14. Lee Y., Han C. Partitioned Pricing in Advertising: Effects on Brand and Retailer Attitudes // Marketing Letters. 2002. Vol. 13. No. 1. Pp. 27–40.
  15. Ahmetoglu G., Furnham A., Fagan P. Pricing Practices: a Critical Review of Their Effects on Consumer Perceptions and Behaviour // Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2014. Vol. 21. No. 5. Pp. 686–707.
  16. Ayres I., Nalebuff B. In Praise of Honest Pricing // MIT Sloan Management Review. 2003. Vol. 45. No. 1. Pp. 23–28.
  17. Baye M.R., Morgan J. Search Costs, Hassle Costs, and Drip Pricing: Equilibria with Rational Consumers and Firms. University of California, Berkeley. March 2019.
  18. Rhodes A. A Survey on Drip Pricing and Other False Advertising. Working paper N1434. May 2023. Toulouse School of Economics.
  19. Gabaix X., Laibson D. Shrouded Attributes, Consumer Myopia, and Information Suppression in Competitive Markets // Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2006. Vol. 121. 2. Pp. 505–540.
  20. Ellison G., Wolitzky A. A Search Cost Model of Obfuscation // The RAND Journal of Economics. 2012. Vol. 43. Pp. 417–441.
  21. Hagiu A., Jullien B. Why do Intermediaries Divert Search? // The RAND Journal of Economics. 2011. Vol. 42. No. 2. Pp. 337–362.
  22. White A. Search Engines: Left Side Quality Versus Right Side Profits // International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2013. Vol. 31. No. 6. Pp. 690–701.
  23. Spiegler R. Competition over Agents with Boundedly Rational Expectations // Theoretical Economics. 2006. Vol. 1. Pp. 207–231.
  24. Gabaix X., Laibson D. Shrouded Attributes, Consumer Myopia and Information Suppression in Competitive Markets // NBER Working Paper 11755. November 2005.
  25. Greenleaf E., Johson E., Morwitz V., Shalev E. The price does not Include Additional Taxes, Fees, and Surcharges: A Review of Research on Partitioned Pricing // Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2016. Vol. 26. No. 1. Pp. 105–124.
  26. Koulayev S. Search for Differentiated Products: Identification and Estimation // The RAND Journal of Economics. 2014. Vol. 45. No. 3. Pp. 553–575.
  27. McDonald S., Wren C. Multiple Price Posting and Consumer Search Obfuscation: Evidence from an Online Market // Working paper. Conference Name: 40th EARIE Annual Conference. 2013. Pp. 1–25.
  28. Armstrong M., Vickers J., Zhou J. Prominence and Consumer Search // The RAND Journal of Economics. 2009. Vol. 40. No. 2. Pp. 209–234.
  29. Song H. Orders Search with Asymmetric Product Design // Journal of Economics. 2017. Vol. 121. Pp. 105–132.
  30. Carlin B. Strategic Price Complexity in Retail Financial Markets // Journal of Financial Economics. 2009. Vol. 91. No. 3. Pp. 278–287.
  31. Chioveanu I., Zhou J. Price Competition with Consumer Confusion // Management Science. 2013. Vol. 59. No. 11. Pp. 2450–2469.
  32. Schofield A. Personalized Pricing in the Digital Era // Competition Law Journal. 2019. Vol. 18. No. 1. Pp. 35–44.
  33. Bourreau M., Streel A. The Regulation of Personalised Pricing in the Digital Era // SSRN Electronic Journal. 2018. No. 150. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3312158.
  34. Gu Y., Wenzel T. Strategic Obfuscation and Consumer Protection Policy // Journal of Industrial Economics. 2014. Vol. 62. No. 4. Pp. 632–660.
  35. Fainmesser I., Galeotti A. Pricing Network Effects // American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. 2020. Vol. 12. No. 3. Pp. 1–32.
  36. Mayzlin D., Dover Y., Chevalier J. Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review Manipulation // The American Economic Review. 2014. Vol. 104. No. 8. Pp. 2421–2455.
  37. Luca M., Zervas G. Fake it Till You Make it: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud // Management Science. 2016. Vol. 62. No. 12. Pp. 3412–3427.
  38. Gu Y., Wenzel T. Consumer Confusion, Obfuscation, and Price Regulation // Scottish Journal of Political Economy. 2017. Vol. 64. No. 2. Pp. 169–190.
  39. Chioveanu I., Zhou J. Price Competition with Consumer Confusion // Management Science. 2013. Vol. 59. No. 11. Pp. 2450–2469.
  40. Heidhues P., Johnen J., Koszegi B. Browsing Versus Studying: a Pro-Market Case for Regulation // The Review of Economic Studies. 2021. Vol. 88. No. 2. Pp. 708–729.
  41. De Los Santos B. Consumer Search on the Internet // International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2018. Vol. 58. Pp. 66–105.
  42. Seller S. The Impact of Search Costs on Consumer Behavior. A Dynamic Approach // Quantitative Marketing and Economics. 2013. Vol. 11. No. 2. Pp. 155–203.
  43. Hamalainen S. Multiproduct Search Obfuscation // International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2022. Vol. 85(C). No. 102863. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2022.102863.
  44. Fehr E., Wu K. Obfuscation in Competitive Markets // Working Paper No. 391. 2021. University of Zurich, Department of Economics.
  45. Kalayci K., Potters J. Buyer Confusion and Market Prices // International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2011. Vol. 29. Pp. 14–22.
  46. Heim S. Rockets and Feathers: Asymmetric Pricing and Consumer Search – Evidence from Electricity Retailing // ZEW – Centre for European Economic Research. Discussion Paper No. 16–070. 2019. Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW). Mannheim.
  47. Carlin B. Strategic Price complexity in Retail Financial Markets // Journal of Financial Economics. 2009. Vol. 91. Pp. 278–287.
  48. Armstrong M. Economic Models of Consumer Protection Policies. In The Pros and Cons of Consumer Protection. Swedish Competition Authority. 2012. Pp. 123–147.
  49. Armstrong M., Vichers J., Zhou J. Consumer Protection and the Incentive to Become Informed // Journal of the European Economic Association. 2009. Vol. 7. No. 2–3. 399–410.

Manuscript submission date: 14.05.2024

 

For citation:

Rozanova N.M. Contemporary consumer in the nets of digital economy // Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. 2024. № 3. Pp. 26-46. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2024_3_26_46 EDN: CEHRSU

  Creative Commons 4.0

The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences № 3/2024.  Economics and Management.

Irina V. Soboleva

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

ORCID: 0000-0002-3049-7789

 

EMPLOYMENT QUALITY AND WORK-RELATED WELL-BEING: APPROACHES TO MEASUREMENT

Размер файла7-25  Размер файла  324.89 KB Размер файла Full text

Abstract

The article discusses advantages and disadvantages of various methodological approaches to analyzing socio-economic situation of the working population. The expedience of relying on the concept of work-related well-being is substantiated. While encompassing the crucial indicator of earnings sufficiency it pays special attention to non-monetary aspects of individual situation in the world of work. It is shown that the concept lies at intersection of several approaches that characterize the world of work from different sides and comprehensively reflects the social aspect of employment quality, focusing upon the needs of the employee as the most vulnerable side of labor relations.

Keywords: world of work, employment quality, decent work, quality of working life, work-related well-being.

JEL: J81, 017, J28

EDN: ADMPER

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2024_3_7_25

References

  1. Avtonomov V.S., Avtonomov Yu.V. General theory of “disputes about methods” in economic science // Social sciences and modernity. 2016. No. 4. Pp. 5–20. (In Russ.).
  2. Akhapkin N.Yu. Formation of labor resources and prospects for economic growth // Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2022. No. 6. 79–95. (In Russ.).
  3. Bakeev M.B., Lola I.S. The use of self-report surveys in economic science: methodological barriers and their overcoming // Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2023. No. 9. 103–120. (In Russ.).
  4. Bobkov V.N., Odintsova E.V. Low level and quality of life of the economically active population: identification criteria and assessment of prevalence // Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2020. Vol. 13. No. 5. Pp. 168–181. (In Russ.).
  5. Bobkov V.N., Chernykh E.A. Relationship between employment quality and quality of working life: a review of research and contours of development // Living standards of the population in the regions of Russia. 2023. Vol. 19. No. 3. Рp. 361–384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52180/1999-9836_2023_19_3_5_361_384; EDN KWVKLG. (In Russ.).
  6. Veredyuk O. V., Chernykh E. A. Employment quality of workers in Russia: measurement based on the index approach // Monitoring of public opinion: economic and social changes. 2024. No. 2. Pp. 258–276. https:// doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2024.2.2421. (In Russ.).
  7. Zonova O.V. Quality of working life: definition and evaluation criteria // Problems of modern economics. 2010. No. 3 (35). Рp. 79–81. EDN NBLGLR. (In Russ).
  8. Ivanova K.A. Qualitative characteristics of employment: differentiation of related concepts // Bulletin of the Altai Academy of Economics and Law. 2019. No. 3–1. Рp. 56–62 (In Russ.).
  9. Kubishin E.S. Working conditions and new forms of non-standard employment in the context of Russian human potential development. Moscow: IE RAS, 2023. (In Russ.).
  10. Soboleva I.V. Reproductive function of wages and labor motivation in modern Russia // Issues of political economy. 2019. No. 3. Pp. 95–104. (In Russ.)
  11. Soboleva I.V. Challenges to socio-economic security in the sphere of labor and their features in modern Russia // Economic security. 2023. Vol. 6. No. 2. DOI: 10.18334/ecsec.6.2.117846. (In Russ.).
  12. Soboleva I.V. Employment in unfavorable conditions and social well-being of workers // Society and Economics. 2023. No. 10. P. 41–54 DOI: 10.31857/S020736760028112-2. (In Russ.).
  13. Strebkov D., Shevchuk A. What do we know about freelancers? Sociology of free employment. M.: HSE Publishing House. 2022. (In Russ.).
  14. Chernykh E.A. Quality of working life and employment satisfaction in the Russian labor market // Living standards of the population in the regions of Russia. 2022. Vol. 18. No. 2. Рp. 214–226. DOI https://doi.org/10.19181/lsprr.2022.18.2.6; EDN (In Russ.).
  15. Anker R., Chernyshev I, Egger P., Mehran F, Ritter J. Measuring decent work with statistical indicators. Policy Integration Working Paper No. 2 International Labour Office, 2002.
  16. Berten J. Producing decent work indicators: contested numbers at the ILO // Policy and Society. 2002. Vol. 41. No 4. Pp. 458–470. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac017
  17. Burchell B., Sehnbruch K., Piasna A., Agloni N. The quality of employment and decent work: definitions, methodologies, and ongoing debates // Cambridge Journal of Economics. 2014. Vol. 38. No. 2. Pp. 459–477.
  18. Cannas M., Sergi B. S., Sironi E., Mentel U. Job satisfaction and subjective well-being in Europe. Economics and Sociology. 2019. Vol. 12. No. 4. Pp. 183–196. DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X.2019/12-4/11.
  19. De Simone S. Conceptualizing wellbeing in the workplace // International Journal of Business and Social Science. 2014. Vol. 5. No. 12. Pp. 118–122.
  20. Trends in job quality in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012.
  21. Economic Security for a Better World. Geneva: ILO, 2004.
  22. Decent work and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. ILO, 2017.
  23. Kun Á., Balogh P., Krasz K.G. Development of the work-related well-being questionnaire based on Seligman’s PERMA model // Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences. 2017. Vol. 25. No. 1. Pp. 56–63. DOI: 10.3311/PPso.9326.
  24. Leschke J., Watt A., Finn M. Putting a number on job quality? Constructing a European job quality index. European Trade Union Institute for Research, Education and Health and Safety. Brussels, 2008.
  25. Loretto W, Popham F, Platt S, Pavis S, Hardy G, Macleod L, et al. Assessing psychological well-being: a holistic investigation of NHS employees // International Review of Psychiatry. 2005. No. 17 (5). Pp. 329–336.
  26. Employee well-being report (Pilot). OECD, 2023.
  27. Pagán-Castaño, E. & Maseda-Moreno, A. & Santos-Rojo, C. Wellbeing in work environments // Journal of Business Research. 2020. Vol. 115. Pp. 469–474.
  28. Soh M., Zarola A., Palaiou K., Furnham A. Work-related well-being // Health Psychology Open. 2016. No. 3 (1). Pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102916628380
  29. Siegerink V., Shinwell M., Žarnic Ž. // Measuring the non-financial performance of firms through the lens of the OECD well-being framework: a common measurement framework for “Scope 1” Social performance. OECD Paper on Well-being and Inequalities No 3. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1787/28850c7f-en
  30. Standing G. The ILO: an agency for globalization? // Development and Change. 2008. Vol. 3. No. 39. Pp. 355–384. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00484.x.
  31. Global Gender Gap Report 2023. World Economic Forum. Retrieved 2023-08-17.
  32. Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli W.B. Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources and work engagement // Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2009. No. 74. Pp. 235–244.

Manuscript submission date: 01.06.2024

 

For citation:

Soboleva I.V. Employment quality and work-related well-being: approaches to measurement // Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. 2024. № 3. Pp. 7-25. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2024_3_7_25 EDN: ADMPER

  Creative Commons 4.0

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

Размер файла 7-30 Размер файла  389.83 KB Размер файла 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 21st 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

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

Yuriy A. Krupnov

Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Associate Professor of the Institute of Economic Policy and Economic Security Problems, Faculty of Economics and Business, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0002-9524-3747

 

Sergey N. Silvestrov

Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor, Head of the Institute of Economic Policy and Economic Security Problems, Faculty of Economics and Business, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 000-0002-7678-1283

 

TECHNOLOGICAL SOVEREIGNTY AND DIFFUSION OF TECHNOLOGIES

Размер файла 31-48  Размер файла  354.32 KB Размер файла Full text

Abstract

The problem of reducing technological dependence is considered based on the use of the effect of technology diffusion. Under sanctions, this is one of the important areas of reducing the dependence of the economy. The analysis and prioritization of methods for borrowing technologies is carried out and the role of direct investment in combination with the localization of foreign production is shown. The directions for the most complete use of the effect of technology diffusion are substantiated. The stability and longevity of diffusion processes must be ensured by increasing the level of localization of high-tech foreign production. It is concluded that the further dynamics of technological development and the possibility of achieving a higher level of sovereignty depend on the ability of government and corporate governance bodies to adapt to the rapidly changing conditions of the global economy.

Keywords: economic development, technological sovereignty, diffusion of technologies, localization of foreign production.

JEL: F15, F52, G28

EDN: CBHKJQ

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2024_2_31_48

References

  1. Sorokin D.E. Political Economy of Russia’s Technological Modernization. Economic Renaissance of Russia. 2020. No. 1. Рp. 18–25. https://elibrary.ru/jyylza. (In Russ).
  2. Robertson P., Pol E., Carroll P. Receptive capacity of established industries as a limiting factor in the economy’s rate of innovation // Industry and Innovation. 2003. No. 10. Рp. 457–474. DOI: 10.1080/1366271032000163685.
  3. Simachev Yu., Kuzyk M., Zudin N. Import dependence and import substitution in the Russian manufacturing industry: a business perspective // Foresight. 2016. No. 10(4). 25–45. (In Russ). DOI: 10.17323/1995-459X.2016.4.25.45.
  4. Oruch T.A. Study of indicators and results of import substitution in Russian industry. Innovations and investments. 2023. No. 1 Рp. 289–293. EDN: TBIVIM. (In Russ).
  5. Amirkhanova F.S., Tenyakov I.M. Issues of import substitution in the context of Russian Chinese economic cooperation. Russian Economic Journal. 2023. (2). Рр. 24–39. (In Russ). DOI: 10.52210/0130-9757_2023_2_24.
  6. Tunzelmann N. Development and diffusion of technology. In: Lazonick W. (ed.). The IEBM Handbook of Economics. London: Thomson International. 2002. Рp. 90–97.
  7. Vinslav Yu.B. Year 2020: on persistent reproductive threats and their neutralization on ways to improve strategic planning and industrial policy, deploy the national innovation system and its sectoral and regional subsystems. Russian Economic Journal. 2020. No. 1. Рp. 3–53. (In Russ). DOI: 10.33983/0130-9757-2020-1-3-53.
  8. Zazdravnykh A.V. Factors of development of the dynamics of enterprises in the Russian manufacturing industry. Russian Economic Journal. 2022. No. 6. Рp. 111–128. https://doi.org/10.33983/0130-9757-2022-6-111-128. (In Russ).
  9. Portyakov V.Ya. The Communist Party of China and the policy of foreign economic openness. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. 2021. No. 65 (7). Рp. 34–44. (In Russ). DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2021-65-7-34-44.
  10. Marshall A. Principles of economics. 9th (Variorum) ed. with annotations by C.W. Guillebaud. Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society. 1961. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL13776798M/Principles_of_economics.
  11. Mogilevsky G.A. Parallel import as a form of implementation of the international principle of exhaustion of the exclusive right. International Journal of the Humanities and Natural Sciences. 2022. No. 4–2(67). Рp. 229–231. (In Russ). DOI: 10.24412/2500-1000-2022-4-2-229-231.
  12. Latyntsev A.V. The difference between the legal nature of compulsory licensing and paid unlicensed use of objects of patent protection. Journal of Russian Law. 2023. No. 27(3). Рp. 56–68. (I n Russ). DOI: 10.12737/jrp.2023.029.
  13. Krupnov Yu.A. Principles and mechanisms of technological development of the Russian economy. Innovative economy: prospects for development and improvement. 2023. 2 (68). Рp. 121–127. https://elibrary.ru/fvzems. (In Russ).
  14. Valova Yu.I. Modern world economic crisis: probability and possible consequences. Banking. 2023. No. 6. Рp. 24–31. https://elibrary.ru/aftqhz. (In Russ).
  15. Volkova T.I. Effective functioning of digital innovative technological platforms: institutional dimension. Russian Economic Journal. 2022. No. 5. Рp. 83–100. (In Russ). DOI: 10.33983/0130-9757-2022-5-83-100.
  16. Robertson P., Jacobson D. Knowledge Transfer and Technology Diffusion. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011.
  17. Zudin N.N. The relationship of the technological level of the sector with the characteristics of companies and state support. Innovations. 2015. No. 6. Рp. 61–70. https://elibrary.ru/uhppcf. (In Russ).

Manuscript submission date: 21.02.2024

 

For citation:

Krupnov Y.A., Silvestrov S.N. Technological sovereignty and diffusion of technologies // Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. 2024. № 2. Pp. 31-48. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2024_2_31_48 EDN: CBHKJQ

  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

Размер файла  87-112 Размер файла  493.25 KB Размер файла 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

  1. Dmytrychenko L.D., Avanesova I.B. SCIENCE AND EDUCATION AS AN OBJECT OF SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE
  2. Sukharev O.S. TECHNOLOGICAL SOVEREIGNTY OF RUSSIA: FORMATION ON THE BASIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE "KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY" SECTOR
  3. Bratchenko S.A. INCONSISTENCY OF GOALS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS: SURVEY OF PRACTICES AND CASE STUDIES
  4. Buchwald E.M., Bessonov I.S. SUBREGIONS IN THE SPATIAL ORGANIZATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION REGIONS

© Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk, 2021 - 2024

32, Nakhimovskiy Prospekt, Moscow, Russia 117218, Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Phone.: +7 (499) 724-13-91, E-mail: vestnik-ieran@inbox.ru

  

Russian version

HOME

JOURNAL DESCRIPTION

General information

Editorial policies

Author guidelines

LATEST ISSUE

ARCHIVE

Editorial advisory board

Editorial team

Author guidelines

Submit article