CC BY
52
owners. In the “young markets” this problem remains to be solved.
These factors force investors to “switch” to less “capital intensive” and short-term projects. Thus, they lose the opportunity to benefit from large long-term investments in productive capital which are at the core of impressive achievements of modern market economy. Thus, high transaction costs and lack of long-term investments lead to a range of negative consequences.
The most serious consequences are preservation of inefficient technologies, job cuts and delayed development of new markets and economy as a whole.
These conclusions are indirectly confirmed by official statistics. The World Bank and International Finance Corporation have released the seventh annual report on conducting business in the world - «Doing Business-2010: Reforming through Difficult Times» [9]. Particularly interesting in this study is a rating that reflects the easiness of doing business in 183 countries around the world. The study examines formal rules governing business activities in a country throughout the entire cycle of business activity, including establishment of business and business operation, conducting foreign trade, taxation, and, finally, liquidation of enterprises.
In the overall ranking Russia occupies the 120-th place which understandably is not very good for the Russian investment image even compared to other post-Soviet countries as Russia overtook only Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the ranking.
Particularly dismal is Russian performance in the construction industry. According to the ease of obtaining construction documents Russia is in the last but one last from the bottom place (182). To obtain a building permit one needs to spend 206 thousand dollars (2141% of average per capita gross national income), to prepare 54 documents, which will take 704 days, unless, of course, there are mistakes on the part of the company. The easiest countries to get construction permit are Hong Kong, Singapore and New Zealand. Singapore has a system that allows to obtain building permits through the Internet without personal visits to the regulator. Russia has good results only in two parameters: “Enforcement of Contracts” (19th place) and “Property registration” (45th place).
“Ernst & Young” conducted its annual study on the investment attractiveness of different countries and foreign capital inflow into the European economies [8]. The study analyzes foreign investment volume over the past 12 months and readiness of global investors for potential investment in the short and medium term. The four leaders are Britain, France, Germany and Spain which hold leading positions among European countries.
Furthermore, in our view, the presence of transaction costs in economy refutes the theory of perfect capital mar-
ket supported by some economists. According to them main characteristics of perfect capital market are:
- absence of transaction costs;
- absence of taxes;
- a large number of buyers and sellers, none of whom can affect market price of financial assets;
- equal access to markets for all investors;
- equal volume of information for all market participants;
- the same expectations of all market participants;
- absence of costs related to financial difficulties (threat of bankruptcy).
In our opinion, if taxes or interest may not be taken into account when choosing a strategy, transaction costs must be taken into account at all times. Thus, if we consider stock market, these costs include brokerage commission, clearing and commission fee for membership on the exchange. Often, transaction costs are so high that it makes stock market participants to abandon the strategy which has seemed quite reasonable. In addition, stock market participants incur costs not only when opening or closing a positions but also during correction.
Thus, markets in effective form (with zero transaction costs) are practically unattainable. In the real world they are formed when competition is so strong that due to market arbitration and effective feedback mechanism “the Coase conditions” are approximated, i.e. zero transaction costs, so that market participants can make a profit at the rate determined in accordance with the neoclassical theory. All these strict conditions are met very rarely but they are the key to a successful economic life.
1. Бабайцева И.К. Влияние новых технологий на роль государства в экономике // Вестник СГСЭУ. 2010. № 5 (34).
2. Барашов Н.Г. Циклическая динамика экономики в условиях глобализации // Вестник Поволжской академии государственной службы. 2010. № 2 (23).
3. Дробышевский C, Козловская А. и др. Влияние глубины финансового сектора на развитие национальных экономик: сравнительный анализ денежно-кредитной политики в переходных экономиках // Научные труды ИЭПП. 2003. № 58.
4. Каткова М.А. Устойчивость институциональной системы // Вестник Саратовского государственного социальноэкономического университета. 2010. № 1 (30).
5. Миркин Я.М. Рынок ценных бумаг России: воздействие фундаментальных факторов, прогноз и политика развития. М.: Альпина Паблишер, 2002.
6. Blackburn K, N. Bose, S. Capasso. Financial development, financing choice and economic growth. Centre for growth and business cycle research school of economic studies, university of Manchester, 2001.
7. Greenwood J, JovanovicB. Financial development, growth, and the distribution of income // The Journal of political economy 1990.
8. URL: www.ey.com.
9. URL: www.russian.doingbisiness.org.
УДК 330.341.1 A.A. Sytnik
MODERN APPROACHES TO THE DEFINITION OF TECHNOLOGICAL WAYS
The paper deals with modern approaches to the definition of technological way. The author gives an original interpretation of that concept and reveals a classification of economic ways as well as the process of their change and the phenomenon of heterogeneous economy.
Key words: technological way, change of technological way, heterogeneous economy.
А.А. Сытник
СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ПОДХОДЫ К ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЮ ТЕХНОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ УКЛАДОВ
В статье рассматриваются современные подходы к определению технологического уклада, дается авторская трактовка понятия, раскрывается классификация укладов, рассматривается процесс их смены, а также явление многоукладности.
Ключевые слова: технологический уклад, смена технологического уклада, многоукладность.
Modern Russian economists offer different interpretations of the category of “technological structure”. V. Yu. Yak-ovets in his study of social development cycles describes changes of technological structures as a cause of cycles without defining them but linking them with radical changes in technological and economic development [6, p. 240].
S. Yu. Glazyev defines technological structure as a complex of technologically related industries [3, p. 65]. He puts forward a concept of “lifecycle of technological structure” which covers a period of about a hundred years. Glazyev argues that the theory of technological structures and their changes is the development of the Kondratyev “long waves” theory, as long-wave fluctuations in economic activity generated by a combination of technological, institutional and socio-economic factors remain in post-industrial society.
V.I. Belousov and A.V Belousov define technological structure as a complex of applied breakthrough revolutionary innovations (inventions) ensuring a quantitative and qualitative leap in the development of the productive forces of society [2]. They link changes in technological structures with cycles of economic development and emergence of crises with the necessity to abandon the existing technological structure and switch the society to the development of a new one.
Technological structures are discussed in the works by Yu. I. Khaustov, B. A. Solovyev, V. P. Bocharov who understand technological structure as a “system of industrial relations which are a form of social functioning of certain technological mode of production and which are in the process of formation, development and expansion, and coexisting with other systems” [5, p. 18]. From this it follows that at the heart of every technological structure is a certain type of property. Therefore, the essence of each technological structure is revealed through its characteristic inherent property relations.
The existing approaches to the definition of technological structures, in our opinion, are not sufficiently complete and do not reflect the essence of this phenomenon, since they represent technological structure:
- Either as a mode of production, technology, and this approach does not take into account economic, social, political and other relations in society;
- Or as a historically specific type of economic relations, based on some form of property, and this approach does not reflect the dominant mode of production and production technology in the economy
Having analyzed the existing approaches the following definition of a technological structure can be given.
Technological structure is a certain level of development of productive forces on the basis of the dominant production technology with economic relations inherent to this level.
The crisis of modern analysis of the information-based economy and postindustrial society was caused by prioritizing the study of technology, technocratic society rather than human relations with nature. Therefore, analysis of technological structures linking technological and economic relations is so topical and prospective.
Technological structure comprises a closed loop reproduction cycle from natural resources extraction and professional training to non-productive consumption [1]. Technological structure comprises a closed macro production loop including extraction and production of primary resources, all stages of processing and manufacturing of end products that meet the needs of public consumption type. The main characteristics of a technological structure are its core and factors.
The core of a technological structure is comprised by the dominant industries and activities with a maximum rate of return of capital. Key factors of technological structure are technological innovations that form its core.
Change in technological structure is a process of development of productive forces, replacement of dominant technologies and respective relations. Changing technological structure is accompanied by a technological revolution which has four attributes: growth of innovation activity, rapid increase in production efficiency, social and political acceptance of new technological opportunities, changes in price ratios in accordance with a new technological system. Change of technological structures occurs when technological and economic opportunities are starting to lose potential to increase profit margins.
Technological structures lead to revolutionary leaps in productivity and quality of life in all sectors. During the course of history the civilization has had a number of pre-industrial and industrial technological structures, each of which had a significant impact on productivity and quality of life.
The analysis of the technological structures and their development shows that several technological structures may coexist in the economy of one country. This state of economy is called a multi structure system which can be defined as coexistence of several technological structures in a country at the same time. According to the approach to technological structure shared by the author, multi-structure economy can combine several forms of ownership (private, state, collective), several types of economic organization (natural economy and commodity economy) etc.
In line with our definition of technological structure, multistructure economy can be described as simultaneous existence within one economic system of productive forces at various levels of development with their inherent dominant technology and economic relations.
Technological multistructures that coexist in the global economy impact economic development and create a
new type of economy by changing the behavior of economic agents, causing them to develop a new strategy and tactics.
Economic multistructures can be characterized by the following properties: use of advanced technology, volume of industrial production, spending of industrial organizations on innovation, number of innovative companies, structure of investment in fixed assets. In terms of the use of advanced technologies, in Russia only 34% of technologies are in line with the sixth technological structure, 37%
- the fourth technological structure, and 29% - the fifth technological structure [6]. In the industrial production in Russia the third technological system accounts for 55%, the fourth technological system accounts for 45%, and the fifth and the sixth technological structures are not present.
Spending of Russian industrial enterprises on innovation is mostly allocated for the third technological system sectors (50.1%), the fourth technological system sectors receive 36.5%, the fifth technological system sectors receive 6.2%. In terms of the number of innovative companies in Russia, only 17.4% belong to the driving sectors of the fifth technological structure, 29.1% - to the driving sectors of the fourth technological structure, 43.3% - to the driving sectors of the third technological structure. There
are no enterprises of the sixth technological structure dealing with innovation in Russia or their share is comparable with a statistical error. Investments in Russia are directed to the driving sectors of the second (6.7%), third (53.8%), fourth (32.4%), and fifth (7.1%) technological structures. The analysis of multistructuralism of the Russian economy shows no tendencies of developing the sixth technological structure.
1. Барашов Н.Г. Структурно-технологическая трансформация экономики в контексте теории длинных волн // Вестник Тамбовского университета. Сер. Гуманитарные науки. 2009. Вып. 8 (71).
2. Белоусов В.И., Белоусов A.B. Технологические уклады и преодоление экономических кризисов. URL: www.kapital-rus.ru/articles/article/175896.
3. Глазьев С.Ю. Развитие российской экономики в условиях глобальных технологических сдвигов. М.: Национальный институт развития, 2007.
4. Назарова E.A. Многоукладность экономики и техникоинновационный потенциал экономического развития России // Проблемы современной экономики. 2007. №3 (23).
5. Хаустов Ю.И., Соловьев Б.А., Бочаров В.П. Инновационный процесс в системе общественных отношений. Воронеж: ВГУ, 2001.
6. Яковец Ю.В. Циклы. Кризисы. Прогнозы. М., 1999.
удк 338.24 A. V. Fomin
LIMITS OF EFFICIENCY OF STATE REGULATION AND POSSIBILITY OF INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT
The paper deals with the analysis of deficiencies of state regulation in modern economy and searching for tools to eliminate them. The author suggests using mechanisms of institutional management for elimination of those deficiencies. Special attention is given to specific nature of institutional cultivation.
Key words: state, state regulation, institutions, management of institutions, institutional trajectory, institutional cultivation, institutional designing.
A.B. Фомин
ГРАНИЦЫ ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТИ ГОСРЕГУАИРОВАНИЯ И ВОЗМОЖНОСТИ ИНСТИТУЦИОНААЬНОГО УПРАВАЕНИЯ
Данная статья посвящена анализу недостатков государственного регулирования современной экономики и поиску инструментов их устранения. В качестве метода устранения недостатков госрегулирования автором предложено использование возможностей институционального управления. Особое внимание уделяется специфике институционального выращивания.
Ключевые слова: государство, госрегупирование, институты, управление институтами, институциональная траектория, институциональное выращивание, институциональное проектирование.
The state role in economy is still very strong. The history of all human civilizations shows that state has always been “involved” in economy. However, the possibilities and limits of efficiency of state regulation in modern economy can not get an accurate assessment. This is primarily due to its multi-dimensional character and the need to strike a balance between the methods of market and government regulation. Many manifestations of state regulation efficiency, such as social stability in society, in general, do not have clear parameters. Government regulation in general proved to be highly effective. After it was built into the economic mechanism of the capitalist society,
the development of the Western countries is marked by a high economic dynamics, rapid growth of the efficiency of production, more or less moderate unemployment and a noticeable increase in the level and quality of life, mitigating conflicts, and social stability. All of these factors compare differentiate favorably state regulated, socially-oriented modern capitalism from capitalism with free competition.
The XXth century saw especially rapid development of economic activities of the state. During this period three “waves” of nationalization of economy can be observed. One of them was related to the First World War and the
