Monetary policy played a dominant role in ensuring macroeconomic stability in the advanced economies for two decades, from the mid-1980s to 2007, and appeared to be a very effective tool for smoothing economic cycles and maintaining price stability. After the global financial crisis of 2007—2009 the effectiveness of monetary policy was put under question, since it did not succeed in ensuring rapid economic recovery in the advanced economies despite massive use of both conventional and unconventional monetary tools. The paper addresses the factors which are responsible for the weakening of the monetary policy effectiveness including global disinflation, the Phillips curve flattening, the effective lower bound problem and the neutral real rate decline. Unconventional monetary policy tools, such as the “helicopter money”, targeted refinancing and other prospective tools, are analyzed. We critically assess recommendations of the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as the most consistent heterodox theory. Based on the analysis, we draw conclusions about the possibility of monetary policy weakening in Russia in the foreseeable future and desirability of the implementation of the hybrid fiscal-monetary measures.

This paper examines how the COVID-19 pandemic will affect macroeconomic policy, setting the dynamics of interest rates in the short to medium term for developed countries and developing (transition) economies. The macroeconomic model of general equilibrium (IS-LM) was chosen as a simple tool for analysis allowing us to identify mechanisms for translating the effects of the pandemic and the corresponding government policy on interest rates. We emphasize the fundamental differences of the situation in the countries that were already in a liquidity trap at the beginning of the pandemic and in the economies still far from this state. The results of the analysis demonstrate the limited effectiveness of monetary policy to restore economic activity in both groups of the countries and the need for fiscal stimulus to reduce uncertainty (or lower the slope of the model curves). Under these conditions, the capacity of debt financing of additional public expenditures, the functioning of the financial sector and ensuring macroprudential stability pose serious problems for economic policy.

This paper describes a new approach that makes it possible to assess the impact of foreign exchange interventions implemented under the fiscal rule on the Russian ruble equilibrium exchange rate. The essence of the approach is to quantify the impact of foreign exchange interventions carried out within the framework of the fiscal rule on the balance of supply and demand of foreign exchange, and to reflect this influence in macroeconomic models using the “effective” oil price indicator. The article describes in detail the calculation of this indicator. The advantage of using the “effective” oil price indicator compared to alternative methods lies in the efficiency (the ability to apply for monthly data), simplicity (the possibility of using for scenario forecasting of the exchange rate), as well as the flexibility of the method (the possibility of taking into account periods of suspension of the fiscal rule and deferred purchases). The current gap in the real effective exchange rate of Russian ruble was calculated based on the data for February 2008 — October 2019. The assessment of the contribution of the fiscal rule to the equilibrium value of the real exchange rate was about 2 pp., at the end of 2019 Russian ruble was overvalued.

The article examines the problem of comprehensive official reporting on public sector debt. It considers the IMF toolkit for public debt statistics, the peculiarities of its practical use and inherent methodological issues influencing the quantitative assessments. Estimates of the total liabilities and liquid assets for the components of the Russian public sector are given, which show, inter alia, the increase of the total liabilities of the largest state-owned enterprises (as a share of GDP) since 2016, first of all, due to the growing share of stateowned banks in the banking sector. The importance of regular monitoring and review of the public sector liabilities and assets is substantiated.

The aim of the article is to compare the theories of demand for money by C. Menger and J. M. Keynes. The history of economic thought states Keynes’s priority in developing a system of motives for demand for money within the framework of his theory of liquidity preference. Despite the prevailing opinion, in this article it is shown that Menger distinguished the same elements. The basic method is content analysis of Menger’s little-known works of the 1880—1890s, in which he examined the motives of demand for money for transactions, precautionary motive, and the initial outline of a speculative motive. It is important that for both authors the key factor of the precautionary motive is the equally understood uncertainty of the future, and it is this factor that determines the limited impact of increasing the supply of money on economic processes, since economic agents begin to prefer money as a durable asset compared to the investments in productive assets. In the analysis of the current macroeconomic situation, the legacy of such different authors opens up additional prospects for the formation of rethinking economic policy.

The paper discusses a critical episode in the history of economic thought of the 19th century — the first encounter between marginalism and Marxism. It happened in 1884, when Philip Wickstead published a short twenty-page text in the magazine of “scientific” socialism “To-Day” under the laconic title “Das Kapital: a Сriticism”. The paper briefly traces the creative path of Wickstead; considers the reasons that prompted him to make a stand against Marxism; analyzes his main criticisms; describes the reaction to them by his contemporaries (both professional economists and adherents of socialism) and evaluates the place of his work in the history of ideas. It is noted that Wicksteed’s article was not only the first encounter of marginalism with Marxism, but also the first popular exposituion of the theory of marginal utility (in the version of S. Jevons), which was completely new for that time. His criticism was radical in nature, since it was aimed not at revealing partial shortcomings, but at the complete collapse of the Marxist construction and its replacement with an alternative theoretical scheme. Amazingly, none of Marx’s supporters dared to accept Wickstead’s challenge and his criticism was never publicly contested by them. This seemingly inconspicuous event turned out to be of crucial historical significance. Under the influence of Wickstead, the Fabians rejected the labor theory of value and British socialism (in its main part) ceased to be Marxist forever.

The article discusses the main ideas of the book “Economic thought: A brief history” by the renowned historian of economics Heinz D. Kurz. Despite its brevity, the book covers a wide range of historiographical issues, ranging from Plato to E. F. Fama. One of the greatest virtues of the book is a productive balance between the analysis of economic ideas per se and consideration of the contexts which gave birth to one or another concept. The book is also remarkable for its generosity to intellectual opponents and its opposition towards considering the past theories in the light of modern economics. The book compares favorably with many other works in the history of economic thought because Professor Kurz successfully avoids splitting economic concepts into “good” and “bad” categories.

Russia and Germany use fundamentally different models of science funding. Russian government has inherited planning and distribution system’s principles in this sphere, when the development of the military-industrial complex was an absolute priority. The modern Russian model of R&D financing is also characterized by the predominance of the state research funding and insignificant business participation in R&D investment. The German model of science financing with the predominance of the business sector in the structure of investment in science shows more significant results and contributes more to the transformation of science into a real productive force. These fundamental differences directly affect the export performance of high-tech products (in Germany it is 20 times higher). The comparison of approaches to R&D financing and the results of their application lead to the conclusion that it is necessary to reform the Russian model of financing usage.