In this paper, we develop a strand of research on estimating Russia’s export potential in the two-fold manner. First, two forms of export potential with different driving forces are formulated and estimated separately: diversification potential pushed by moving to the related areas of product specialization, and inertial potential pulled by growing traditional destination markets. Second, we account for market, logistics and production constraints on implementing export potential, as well as for competition in the local markets. Diversification export potential equals $59 billion, while the 2 /3 of this amount is blocked mainly by production and sales constraints; inertial component of export potential is $46.7 billion, and more than 1 /4 of this amount is blocked by production constraints; estimation results are also detailed by industries, partner countries and regions of Russia. We highlight the important role of economic policy in ensuring the full implementation of the export potential (specifically, by eliminating production, market and logistics constraints). 

The Russian economy operates under the constraints of sanctions and countersanctions introduced since February 2022. Their impact has been significantly weaker than initially anticipated. This article examines the influence of trade sanctions on Russia’s economy using input—output tables, which allow for the inclusion of intersectoral linkages in the analysis, combined with econometric tools. Export and import sanctions are considered separately. The effect of export sanctions is analyzed basing on the potential reduction in government demand, which leads to a decline in both oil-and-gas and non-oil-and-gas revenues of the consolidated budget. We expand our approach by including calculations of output changes in response to reduced intermediate imports, derived from econometric models. The article also examines the effects of import substitution of final goods in the economy, accounting for the potential increase in demand for intermediate imports. Import restrictions are largely overcome by business restructuring, changes in the structure of imports by country, and shifts in the structure of production within broad product categories. 

In this article, we analyze the policy of direct subsidizing of academia— industry cooperation projects in Russia. Using the difference in differences method and companies’ microdata, we assess the policy impact on the change in the revenue growth rates of 133 subsidy recipient companies in 2010—2022. It is established that subsidies have the most noticeable impact on small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs) and companies from high-tech industries. Additionally, using logit regression based on surveys in 2017 and 2022, we determine that research organizations which have used this measure are characterized by the presence of young researchers, access to foreign scientific and technical information databases, and experience in academia—industry cooperation. At the same time, organizations are not interested in this subsidy if they already used other financial instruments (for example, grants from research foundations), had orders from state corporations, and a high level of international scientific interactions. Based on the results of the study, recommendations have been developed to improve public policy by differentiating mechanisms to support academia—industry cooperation for large companies and SMEs, concentrating resources on high-tech industries and strengthening universities’ access to young talent and global knowledge databases. 

As companies evolve, they face the need to continuously search for new resources to create innovation — the basis for long-term competitiveness. Potential opportunities tend to lie in areas that are difficult to navigate, with high levels of ambiguity and risk. Navigating through them requires a complex cognitive quest — establishing organizational ambidexterity, which means combining two strategic actions that are difficult to combine. In addition to ensuring sustained efficiency in current operational processes, there is a need for constant exploration of valuable assets in unfamiliar dimensions. This becomes particularly relevant in a changing geopolitical context in which countries are faced with the “closure” or transformation of established resource spaces. Technological selfsufficiency acquires the status of a key priority in national strategies. The article explores the topic of building up in-country technological potential for gaining the corresponding self-sufficiency, reveals the picture of emerging cooperative configurations. It analyzes the essence of the most suitable for these purposes business model — unrelated diversification and its key tool — organizational ambidexterity. A review of initiatives of different countries and companies using these mechanisms in an effort to achieve technological leadership in the new environment is given. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the achievements of the Russian state corporation “Rosatom” in the implementation of the unrelated diversification model from the point of view of its contribution to increasing the technological sovereignty of the country.

The paper presents an approach to better account of the top-income groups in measuring income inequality in Russia. There has been a number of suggested approaches to deal with this problem using household income surveys, administrative sources — mainly tax data, and also combination of different data sources. In this paper, we present a solution based on combining of microdata of the Statistical Survey of Income and Participation in Social Programs (SSIPSP) and tax data. In experimental calculations we use tax data to correct income from paid employment as the most significant source of livelihood for the most of the population. The results of the correction are extended on the household and per capita income. The study has shown that the adjustment of the distribution of income with use of tax data occurs in the group with very high income representing less than 2% of the population. Applying correction at the microdata level makes it possible to obtain more complete estimates of income inequality not only for the population as a whole, but also for some social strata.

The paper examines the relationship between income inequality and life satisfaction during the coronavirus pandemic in Russia. The restrictive measures caused by the pandemic led to an economic crisis, which manifested itself including falling employment and incomes. Governments responded to these challenges by adopting anti-crisis aid packages, aimed at supporting particularly vulnerable groups. While the effects of these measures are better understood at the macro level, gaps remain at the individual level. Although it is clear that citizens from high-income groups have coped better with the pandemic, it remains unclear which mechanism is responsible for this: differences in the risks of getting sick, the risks of losing a job, or differences in anxiety levels. Using data from four waves of the Values in Crisis project, we use T-tests, principal component analysis, and panel regression to show that the strongest mechanism explaining the difference in life satisfaction between the “rich” and the “poor” is the increase in anxiety. The findings are important for understanding the optimization of overcoming inequality, especially during periods of external shocks.

The fragmentation of international financial systems, the reshaping of the global economy, and the scramble for resources, stand acutely the question of international payments and money. Modern technologies make possible to organize international currency based on commodities/resources, within a certain group of countries, a regional bloc (BRICS, Africa, Gulf region, etc.), and significantly reduce the transaction costs of maintaining the system. The spread of this idea leads us to return to its intellectual history. In this paper, we outline the main point of the debates in the past, including the positions of the leading economists of different schools who have supported the idea of resource based international currency, such as Jevons, Fisher, Hayek, Friedman, Keynes, Tinbergen, Kaldor, Cooper, Yeager, several French politicians and scholars (such as the PM Pierre Mendes France, Jean de Larentaye, Gabriel Ardant), etc. Special attention is paid to the unknown names in the discussions, and indeed, the fathers of the idea — to Benjamin and Frank Graham, and the Dutchman Jan Goudriaan. An attempt is made to explain this form of consensus on international monetary substantialism.