Economic theory suggests that market economies are likely to underprovide innovation because of the public good nature of knowledge. Empirical evidence from the United States and other advanced economies supports this idea. We summarize the pros and cons of different policy instruments for promoting innovation and provide a basic “toolkit” describing which policies are most effective according to our reading of the evidence. In the short run, R&D tax credits and direct public funding seem the most productive, but in the longer run, increasing the supply of human capital (for example, relaxing immigration rules or expanding university STEM admissions) is likely more effective.

Many Russian and foreign economists are not sure, why it is essential to take efforts to improve energy efficiency in general and in Russia in particular. Unlike labour productivity improvement, energy efficiency improvements are viewed as desirable for the economic growth, yet not at all sine qua non, as economic growth is taken as mostly driven by labour and capital, with an inconspicuous shadow of energy vaguely swaying in the background. This paper aims to show the actual importance of improving energy efficiency to achieve economic growth. It highlights the contribution of energy efficiency in addressing five problems related to economic growth: removal of growth constraints by improving the affordability of energy; improvement of competitiveness; enhancement of multifactor productivity through a better ‘quality of energy’; mitigation of the natural resources scarcity; ensuring growth despite tough environmental limitations. Historically, 1 percent GDP per capita growth requires 0.5—0.8% reduction in GDP energy intensity. This latter value grows as the level of economic development increases.

This paper is devoted to the analysis of the main factors of economic growth stability of Georgia persistent during the last 30 years of the country’s development. Exceptional gravity of the crisis in the beginning of market transformation of Georgia in 1980—1990 as well as the success of market reforms is discussed. The article also highlights the consequences of the transitional period both for the citizens of the country and for the whole economy, in particular for human capital development under conditions of persistent socio-economic imbalances. In addition, this research analyzes recent changes in the structure and the drivers of economic growth and the dependence of Georgian economy on external financing (both investments and personal remittances). Even though there has been a noticeable macroeconomic stability in the post-Soviet period which manifests itself in stable GDP growth rates, social development of Georgia is still characterized by a number of problems such as low natural population growth, high levels of poverty and social inequality.

The paper discusses the feasibility of institutional changes in the Russian banking regulation (supervision). The historical and modern practice of the organization of regulatory activity in financial markets is described. Traditional theoretical arguments in favor of and against combining the functions of monetary policy and banking supervision within the Bank of Russia are considered and analyzed under current conditions. The impact of the global financial crisis is taken into account in terms of the need to institutionalize macroprudential policies and to coordinate them with microprudential policies. Based on this analysis the conclusion is made about the absence of fundamental preconditions for preserving the status quo in relation to banking supervision by the Bank of Russia in the context of considerable costs of correcting its errors. There commendation to phase out seniorage financing of banking supervision is given.

The paper shows that now the mainstream of the economic theory is in crisis losing the heuristic potential. There is some positive potential of the institutional approach that is close to (without admitting it) a number of methodological approaches in Marxist political economy (allocation of objective determinants of economic behavior, an implied confession of existence of similar economic systems, emphasis on property relations, etc.) and goes farther than neoclassics. The “ failures” of institutionalism are specified, and it is emphasized that in a number of points (especially, in exaggerating the role of institutions — political, in particular — as bases of economic changes) the criticism of R. I. Kapelyushnikov’s “pan-institutionalism” is justified but positive proposals of the author, the “ideational” approach, are themselves subject to criticism. The conclusion is drawn that active discussions concerning the methodology and paradigmatic foundations bases of economic theory are on the agenda.

This work analyzes the development of M. Reutern’s economic views in the period before he had become Minister of finance. His role in redemption operation during the Peasants liberation reform is also studied, as well as his economic policy while being Minister of finance. The article describes his main achievements — progressing to budget proficiency, building of railroads, encouragement of private entrepreneurship, creation of commercial banks system. The article also demonstrates that it was not Reutern who initiated the projects which are commonly considered to be his mistakes, such as attempts to restore rouble exchange rate, the sale of Alyaska, privatization of Nikolaevskaya railroad. Reutern’s activity to prevent abuse of power and corruption are considered. The programme of stage-by-stage rouble exchange rate recovery, initiated by Reutern, was worked out by E. Lamanskiy and failed mostly due to political reasons. The article shows incorrectness of some assessments of Reutern’s activity, presented both by Reutern’s contemporaries and by modern scholars.

Deep comprehension of the advanced economic theory, the talent of lecturer enforced by the outstanding working ability forwarded Vladimir Geleznoff scarcely at the end of his thirties to prepare the publication of “The essays of the political economy” (1898). The subsequent publishing success (8 editions in Russia, the 1918­-year edition in Germany) sufficiently demonstrates that Geleznoff well succeded in meeting the intellectual inquiry of the cross­road epoch of the Russian history and by that taking the worthful place in the history of economic thought in Russia. Being an acknowledged historian of science V. Geleznoff was the first and up to now one of the few to demonstrate the worldwide community of economists the theoretically saturated view of Russian economic thought in its most fruitful period (end of XIX — first quarter of XX century).

The article investigates the specifics of the functioning of the insurance market in Russia and the regions. Factors are structured and problems of regional development of insurance are revealed. The intensive growth of life insurance against the background of reduction of property types of insurance is revealed. The mechanism of mutual influence of economic and geographical features of development of the region and its insurance market is traced. It is shown that the development of the insurance business is influenced by the economic development of the region. In the applied aspect, the analysis is carried out in the context of federal districts. In particular, the comparison of GRP and insurance premiums is presented, the regional structure of insurance premiums by types of insurance is analyzed. It is revealed that the level of development of voluntary insurance dominates the insurance market of the Central federal district. The least developed market is the North Caucasus federal district, but other federal districts are characterized by extremely low rates of insurance premiums, payments and unstable level of payments. The regional problem is the lack of registered insurance entities in most regions. This entails the lack of differentiated policies of insurers in the regions and overestimation of the cost of insurance. This situation is due to the limited demand for voluntary insurance and related intermediary services. An obstacle to the development of insurance in the regions is the poor quality of insurance services, which is confirmed by the statistics of complaints of policyholders against the subjects of insurance business. In turn, the limited economic potential of regional insurance has a negative impact on the socio-economic development of the region, since enterprises and citizens do not receive full insurance coverage, and the regions do not have investment resources.