|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Nationalization: To be or not to be
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-4-133-145
Abstract
The article is aimed at ordering, in the first approximation, the subject field of the study, namely, structural alternatives for the reaction of Russian public authorities to the decision of foreign companies to withdraw their business from Russia. Approaches of the new institutional economics are used (especially in terms of comparative analysis of discrete structural alternatives), as well as elements of regulatory impact assessment to explain, first of all, the consequences of forced nationalization and the introduction of external administration. The conclusion is made about the limited possibilities of Russian manufacturers in a number of industries to replace the products of foreign companies leaving the market, which is associated with insufficient implementation of the import substitution strategy. The necessity of a differentiated approach to the choice of a regulatory response is explained, including various models of market participants behavior.
Keywords
external administration,
institutions,
nationalization,
regulatory impact assessment,
import substitution
JEL: D62, E14, H23
About the Authors
A. E. Shastitko
Lomonosov Moscow State University;
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey E. Shastitko
Moscow
A. I. Meleshkina
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administratio
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anna I. Meleshkina
Moscow
References
1. Arzamasov Y. G. (2019). Regulatory impact assessment and risks in law: Experience of Russia and Continental Europe. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey Shkoly Ekonomiki, No. 5, pp. 4—31. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2019.5.4.31
2. Grigoriev L. E., Luchina Y. V., Plaksin S. M., Samsonov V. L., Shangina E. S., Shastitko A. E. (2002). Mechanisms for buying and selling a business. Moscow: Teis. (In Russian).
3. Enikolopov R. S. (2020). Evidence based development economics: Nobel prize in economic sciences 2019. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 1, pp. 5—17. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2020-1-5-17
4. Siebert H. (2003). The Cobra effect. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University of Economics and Finance. (In Russian).
5. Shastitko A. E. (2013). Economic effects of errors in law-making and law enforcement. Moscow: Delo. (In Russian).
6. Shastitko A. E. (2022). Possibilities and limits of reform (On the book by Thrainn Eggertsson “Imperfect institutions. Possibilities and limits of reform”). Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 2, pp. 147—157. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-2-147-157
7. Shastitko A. E., Pavlova N. S. (2022). Pigouvian vs. Coasian approach: Ideas, values, perspectives. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 1, pp. 23—46. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-1-23-46
8. Shaulova T. V. (2017). Regulatory impact assessment: Another hobby or a development tool? Nauchnye Trudy SeveroZapadnogo Instituta Upravlenija RANEPA, No. 1, pp. 139—143. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3826436
9. Eggertsson T. (2022). Imperfect institutions: Possibilities and limits of reform. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publ. (In Russian).
10. Beacham A. (1950). Nationalization in theory and practice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, No. 4, pp. 550—558. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884387
11. De Vita G., Tekaya A., Wang C. (2011). The many faces of asset specificity: A critical review of key theoretical perspectives. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13, pp. 329—348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00294.x
12. Genova A. (2010). Nigeria’s nationalization of British Petroleum. International Journal of African Historical Studies, No. 1, pp. 115—136.
13. Gonzalez-Perez M., Sosa S. (2015). Governments as owners: Nationalization of international business and social responsibility. Advances in Sustainability and Environment, Vol. 17, pp. 219—232. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2051-503020150000017018
14. Honore A. (1961). Ownership. In: A. G. Guest (ed.). Oxford essays in jurisprudence. London; New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 107—147.
15. Moran T. (1973). Transnational strategies of protection and defense by multinational corporations: Spreading the risk and raising the cost for nationalization in natural resources. International Organization, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 273—287. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0020818300003489
16. Re E. (1952). The nationalization of foreign-owned property. Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 1212, pp. 323—342.
17. Rosa J., Perard E. (2010). When to privatize? When to nationalize? A competition for ownership approach. Kyklos, No. 1, pp. 110—132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2010.00465.x
Review
For citations:
Shastitko A.E., Meleshkina A.I. Nationalization: To be or not to be. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2022;(4):133-145. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-4-133-145
Views:
960
Email this article 
