CC BY
114случае создания повсеместно благоприятных условий могут во многом способствовать повышению динамики и социальной направленности экономического развития России в целом.
Содержащиеся в статье теоретические выводы и рекомендации позволяют всесторонне обосновать важное народнохозяйственное значение необходимости формирования эффективной системы поддержки и развития предпринимательства для решения основных задач социально-экономического развития муниципальных образований.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ:
1. Федеральный закон № 209-ФЗ «О развитии малого и среднего предпринимательства в Российской Федерации» от 24.07.2007 г.// СПС Консуль-тантПлюс [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_L AW_52144/
2. Закон Свердловской области от 4.02.2008 г. №10-03 «О развитии малого и среднего предпринимательства в Свердловской области» (с изменениями от 17.02.2017 г.) // ГАРАНТ [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://base.garant.ru/35152276/
3. Гехаева И.С., Умаров А.Х. Достижение эффективного функционирования малых и средних предприятий // Экономика и менеджмент инновационных технологий. - 2017. - № 3. - С.14-16.
4. Гурьянов П.А. Малое предпринимательство в России в 2008-2012гг.: период разочарования // Современные научные исследования и инновации. - 2013. - № 6 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://web.snauka.ru/issues/2013/06/24896
5. Екатеринбургский центр развития предпринимательства. [Электронный ресурс] // режим доступа: http://ekbiznes.ru/about/
6. Свердловский областной фонд поддержки предпринимательства [Электронный ресурс] // режим доступа: https://sofp.ru/about/fond/
7. Сибгатулина А.И. Государственная поддержка малого и среднего бизнеса // Экономика и менеджмент инновационных технологий. - 2016. -№ 5. - С.45-46.
8. Шибилева О.В., Лопухова М.А. Современное состояние и тенденции развития предприятий малого бизнеса // Экономика и предпринимательство. 2015. № 11-1 (64-1). - С. 1113-1115.
DEGLOBALIZATION: THE IMPACT OF THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT ON RUSSIAN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Kozlov N.
Second -year student of the Financial University under the Government of the
Russian Federatiion, Moscow, Russia Sokolova N.
Assistant professor of the Financial University under the Government of the
Russian Federatiion, Moscow, Russia
Abstract
The article focuses on the problem of the external economic environment which Russian economy develops in and the geographical direction which it can predominantly interact with other countries' economies in. This problem is considered from a position of the world economic tendencies of deglobalization and national economies fragmentation. The reasons, markers and prospects of these processes in Russia are determined. A role of the global financial market can be traced in the problem raised in this article.
Keywords: deglobalization, national economy, external economic environment, Russian economic development.
Nowadays the issue of the ways to improve economic growth rates and reaching them above the world rates is acutely worth in Russia. The Government works on many of economic development directions such as digital economy, information society, sciences development, innovative economy and investment policy which can't be conducted excluding the external economic environment as other directions and more un-mentioned ones. But it's impossible to talk about any long-term strategies not considering the situation on the international arena including external economic links. That's why firstly studying Russian experience of market-oriented economy of the past as an example of de-globalization world tendencies we denote the current condition of interesting economic links among key states-actors in the world and then presume which external environment Russian economy will be developing in to fulfill the Government tasks.
The deglobalization trends on the Russian example.
After the Soviet Union falling apart the RSFSR Government announced the necessity of "the leap into the market". Following that globalization reached Russian boarders: conducted price liberalization, joining International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1992, issue of government bonds, formed huge public debt. From 1992 to 1999 there were borrowed 24,54 billion dollars from only IMC. In return Russia had to carry out different political and economic requirements. The main one was to transform economy and bring it solvent condition as soon as possible. There were many other details unpleasant from a position of sovereignty of making decisions. That friendly material support to the new Russian democratic state hided inside the USA notorious global economic goals to broaden the international
division of labor and find the ways to apply their capitals.
So, the Russian Federation became a part of the global world market and in 2000s overcame political and economic crises, was successfully making money on oil. But energy resources prices became getting lower and moreover the global financial economic crisis occurred in 2008 when the bubble had burst. While Russia was still waiting for or even looking forward to an entry to World Trade Organization (WTO) in hope that it would help to reduce the oil addiction of Russia. But in a fact, it seemed liked the Government hardly ever repeated the same mistake as with IMF: Russia was still needed for the west politico-economic elites as an oil and gas appendage and a sales market with profitable financial provision to trade. The fact is that mutually beneficial trading between Russia and WTO didn't come out and the necessity to extract hydrocarbons for export wasn't removed because despite the slight increase of export of Russian products which in the same time was a lot more limited with protectionist measures allowable by WTO only in special cases, the competition for consumers escalated inside the country: huge amounts of foreign goods which Russian producers could make by themselves but for a little higher prices rushed to Russia. As a result, agriculture, food, automotive and other industries suffered. That's why to cover expenses from decrease of taxes from Russian producers incurred losses the Government decided to increase the export of hydrocarbons again. The experiment with WTO showed that more benefits from our joining the organization were collected not by Russian economy.
Since 2012 the politics of American sanctions against Russia has been activated and since 2014 - European ones, all possible merits from WTO disappeared. In return Russia replied by economic steps such as embargo and protectionism. The USA tried to damage Russian economy by sanctions and hoped to replay the experience of 1990s but the answer from Russia was in a spirit of economic deglobalization and fragmentation trends already known by Americans. Russia had to develop its economy without support from the west because by that moment the comprehension that there is nothing good in the gas and oil addiction had already come. But there was a lack of skills and finance which were necessary to increase import substitution, to develop small, medium and large high-tech business. Russia needed the foreign direct investment but since 2014 the problem has escalated and is still acutely worth: in 2017 the external investments in fixed production assets were estimated in 95,8 billion rubles that was only 0,8% of the full investments volume. It's about 20 billion rubles more than in presanction 2013 but experts were predicting rather more extensive investment growth because of Russian economy becoming more stable what is quite attractive for investors. Unfortunately, exactly the European sanctions, in fact, dictated from across the ocean hard slowed down the investment growth.
Even though tendencies of European actors to resist against the USA (in economic interests firstly) has traced but their own the deglobalization EU project
with alternative to dollar Eurocurrency sprouted American roots quite fast after fathers of the European Union left their political positions. And now those decisions and those projects which could be mutually profitable for Europe and for developing Russian economy are carried out slowly or are not at all due to the same reasons.
The current situation of international economic relations.
According to all the reasons denoted above, Russia hardly has other variants except developing its economy in the new channel of deglobalization by its own what will never lead to the consistently high economic growth or together with partners from the East, for example, within BRICS. It's worth mentioning that trade wars between China and the USA is apparent marker of conformance against the old globalization under the auspices of the United States, by other words the seeking to some fragmentation of national economies and their rise-ups is what we call deglobalization as a process oppositely directed to the old globalization. It's caused by leaving of economic transactions and productions the Old World with the USA for rapidly developing countries which are more interesting due to not so expensive money as they are in the Old World and, thus, the markets earlier occupied by American companies' goods are beginning to be replaced by cheaper Chinese ones.
Why do we use the term the "old" globalization? It's because the world almost can't be imagined without global economic cooperation, without international deals in financial or real sectors, so globalization can't be removed but it is obvious that we are meeting the "new" globalization which may have another character and is definitely coming not from the United States but from the partnership among developing states of Asia and Africa where Russia may take a place within. The example of these trends can be partial waiver of the dollar in international economic links between Russia and China, calculation predominantly in national currencies. And according to the statistics, after the global financial economic crisis taken place in 2008 banks of developing countries and states with forming markets doubled their global presence while the USA and the EU countries reduced rates of cross-border lending. In Russian domestic economic business, the Government is looking for the ways how to minimize multilateral dependence on the USA which, in fact, was allowed to spread to the whole Russian institutional environment in 90s or at least the Government is claiming that such policy must be conducted. The example is creation of the domestic payment system or a recent attempt of dedollarization.
The director of the BRICS laboratory in the Colombian university Marcos Troyho noted that the world is fed up with such globalization where the United States' interests together with "Davos world" dictate the game to other countries to the detriment of their interests. That was especially noticeable after the global financial economic crisis when a lot of indicators of the world financial system (WFS) such as the dynamics of cross-border capital moving (10% drop comparing with 2007), the dynamics of the global credit market (after
2008 banking and non-banking financial intermediaries are less intensively receiving and providing loans), the dynamics of the global stocks and bonds markets and other ones much decreased comparing with pre-crisis indicators.[1] Troyho presented some markers of availability of deglobalization trends:
• The government is sometimes working more effectively than private capital owners.
• Democracy is becoming less attractive even for the "first world" states and sometimes really slow to solve facing countries problems operantly so autocratic government turns out more beneficial.
• Political competition leads to the situations when it's very difficult, for example, to decrease the government debt in frames of the largest economy.
• Within deglobalization a role of factors concerning the national interests is on the increase.[3]
In such countries as China or even Russia where autocratic government often prevails over democratic beginnings many problems faced in external economic relations are solved more easily and quickly by means of different instruments of monetary, financial policies. For instance, since last year Russia and on a larger scale China has been withdrawing their assets from the US public debt, reducing gold reserves in American banks. And what is important, they manage to control their own government obligations much more successfully than many of the west democracies.
In the second half of 20th century such well-known economists as J. Tobin, J. Summers, G. Sachs, P. Krugman, J. Stiglitz, E. Ekkehard expressed concern about overwhelming financialization of states' economies in which a main role was played by dollar banking sector of the USA. They believed that such domination may lead to the collapse of the whole WFS: economic US expansion was especially active initially on the monocultural model (weakly developed, agricultural countries trade raw resources and agricultural products with highly developed ones while they trade goods that can't be produced on a such low level of development with them), then on the investment model (developed countries invest money in developing ones where due to cheaper labor and other benefits it's more profitable to launch some productions)[2], and with foundation of the Jamaican monetary system the dependence on the dollar market became enormous. Exactly this fact caused popular nowadays tendencies to protectionism and deglobalization. By this way national economies hope to soften probable hard consequences from a new economic crisis which will definitely happen when the next financial bubble bursts.
The evaluation of a geographic direction which Russian economy can successfully develop in.
The present economic cycle is getting closer to its unsafe point, the US public debt has swelled to incredible limits, it exceeded the maximum rate of the last century, a proportion of the financial sector of global economy is still increasing disproportionally to the production of the real sector. The crash of the old economic system is possible in coming years, that means Russia should have already been thinking of the future strategy of interaction with the new world economic leaders of the East. Despite it, a half of Russian territory is in the European continent, so we can't give up economic relationships with its states. That's why we can only hope that a cold climate of the mutual economic cooperation with the West will be gradually replaced by at least a temperate one.
In conclusion, answering the main question of this article we can't deny that a vector in the world economy development which directly impact the search of the ways of the domestic economic growth in Russia is shifting towards rapidly developing Asian countries that's why the future of Russian economy including large cooperative investment projects, using a foreign scientific experience and broadening trade relations will be linked with countries of Asian region (China, India and others). But it's wrong to forget about Russian historically natural economic partners, about countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (predominantly Kazakhstan and Belarus) and about European countries which Russia is still maintaining its largest proportion of turnover with. But until the political rhetoric of the EU changes that means until the US financial elites lose their present positions in the world policy and economy, there is no need to speak about what, except high turnover, Europe can offer for stimulation of the sustained economic growth in Russia.
REFERENCES:
1. Arkhipova, V. V. "The Global Financial System: Globalization or De-globalization?"//article, magazine "WORLD ECONOMY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS", 2016, book 60, No. 5, pp. 40-49.
2. Kuzmina A. "The Role of the Financial sector in the Development of the Economy"//article, Oleg Grigoriev's research center "Neoeconomics: New Time - a New Theory"//URL: http://neoconom-ica.ru/article.php?id=305 (date of application: 02.03.2019).
3. Osik Y. I. "Deglobalization of the World Economy as a Consequence of Financialization"//arti-cle, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of APPLIED AND FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH, No. 1, 2014, pp. 202-205.
