To the present, digital platforms, as an institution organizing economic activity (platform economy), represent a key driver of the modern economy in many countries. This institution can be understood as a mechanism that harnesses technological capabilities of an advanced digital economy. A fundamental characteristic of this form of economic organization is that it is a private institution. Its operation is based on the benefits that economic agents receive or expect to receive from its use. At the same time, digital platforms may abuse their market position, which necessitates the development of regulatory constraints. Moreover, the development of this phenomenon significantly outpaces its legal regulation. A principal challenge of existing regulation lies in the fact that it is largely developed in the absence of reliable assessments of the scale of the platform economy and without thorough analysis of the economic impact of different regulatory scenarios. So the costs of regulatory measures can exceed those of non-intervention, both for consumers and for the country. This article addresses the task of identifying the parameters of such an optimal regulatory framework, alongside evaluating the economic effects of digital platforms’ activities on Russia’s GDP under various regulatory scenarios. To this end, an agent-based model was employed, enabling the assessment of the impact of different regulatory scenarios without substitution effects — that is, without resource reallocation within the economy in response to regulation — across six scenarios. One of the key parameters for the baseline assessment is the contribution of digital platforms to Russia’s GDP, estimated at 5.5% in 2024. This estimate is derived from aggregated transaction data processed by the four largest Russian platforms in the goods and services sectors between 2021 and 2024, which account for approximately 80% of all digital platform activity. The modeling results indicate that even the implementation of a single stringent measure (such as strict quality control, rigorous discount regulation, or reclassification of employment status from self-employment) leads to an estimated GDP reduction of approximately 2.2 to 2.4 p.p. by 2028, absent substitution effects. Conversely, a balanced regulatory approach demonstrates the fastest convergence and a GDP growth impulse of 2.66 p.p. without substitution effects as early as in 2025.

The issue of resource misallocation is becoming more closely linked to the persistent gaps in total factor productivity (TFP) and the decline in its growth. At the micro level, we examine the tendencies of misallocation and its relationship with TFP by using a wide range of Russian companies. TFP dispersion has increased by 8.9%, indicating that the misallocation in Russia is deteriorating from 2012 to 2022. The TFP gap between large and small companies is the primary factor, accounting for up to 63% of intra-industry misallocation. Furthermore, the variance in TFP is attributable to leverage, asset profitability, liquidity, and foreign ownership, all of which have a positive impact on its level, as well as age, which has a negative impact. The impact of state participation varies across industries. Insufficient exit of low-performing companies and the absence of new companies with a higher level of TFP than the existing ones exacerbate the misallocation. The evaluation of the VARX model has revealed a lack of priority in attracting investments in the most rapidly expanding technology companies and disproportionate capital transfers in favor of large companies, which is an additional source of misallocation. The findings support the necessity of a long-term national state program to monitor and enhance the TFP of companies, as well as the utilization of this indicator to evaluate the efficacy of the company’s management and make investment and financial decisions.

Perestroika (restructuring) was the last of three large-scale attempts to reform the Soviet economy on the basis of market principles. Similar to the previous two attempts (the NEP and the Kosygin economic reform of 1965), it failed to produce a sustainable result but led to the aggravation of political problems. However, unlike the previous two, perestroika ended with the collapse of the entire Soviet system. The paper deals with the processes of unfolding of the economic crisis, objective problems of the Soviet model and mistakes of economic policy in 1985—1991. The author discusses the principal possibility of implementation of market reforms while remaining within the framework of the Soviet political system. Special attention is paid to the logic and consistency of socio-economic policy, the correlation of macroeconomic, institutional, and structural transformations. The sources of the systemic crisis and the first programs to overcome it are considered as well.

Carrying out decarbonization of the economy requires a mechanism for determining the price of carbon. The work is built on the data of the world’s leading studies, statistical and exchange indicators, that are analyzed using the methods of descriptive statistics and integral equations. The features of carbon as an external effect are highlighted, which, in comparison with standard exchange assets, to a greater extent limit the possibility of setting a price for it in the course of negotiations and bargaining (the Coase theorem). The incompatibility of ensuring physical equivalence of emitted and stored carbon with economic equivalence, taking into account time preferences, is shown. The method for determining the price of carbon is proposed to achieve a balance of interests between current and future generations, taking into account differences among countries and emitted greenhouse gases. This method was tested for Russia. The criteria and mechanisms of carbon pricing as an external effect, keeping in mind its highlighted features, are put forward. Measures aimed at maximizing the effect of decarbonization of the economy are proposed.

The methodology is developed for constructing complete regional input—output tables for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation based on analytical regionalization methods. Unlike most existing approaches, which are limited to regionalizing only the first quadrant of input—output tables, the proposed method covers all three quadrants: intermediate consumption, final use, and value added. The construction of the tables relies on a combination of location quotients, data from the Transport-Economic Balance (TEB), and international trade statistics from the Federal Customs Service (FCS), along with the application of the RAS balancing method to eliminate discrepancies with official GRP statistics. Full intersectoral tables have been compiled for 85 regions and 8 federal districts for the year 2018. The developed approach ensures the consistency of product flows between intermediate and final use and incorporates both interregional and international trade. The results provide extensive opportunities for analyzing regional economies, spatial economic modeling, and constructing interregional input—output tables, while also laying the foundation for further empirical and theoretical research.

There are many studies successfully investigating international trade and output produced within a country. However, most of papers deal solely with the former or the latter type of data. Those few works digging into both sources of data often have quite a high-light description of how two data sources were benchmarked one against the other. Same time there is a limitation for those interested in tackling this subject area. There is no publicly available classifier with the unambiguous matching in-between two sources, while the publicly available ones are based on the many-to-many matching principle. The absence of such unambiguous matching at the levels higher than the very granular one requires solving a problem of finding homogenous commodity groups at the interim level. But every researcher has to pass this way on his own. Thus, the findings of different papers can be hardly compared to each other. We are closing this gap by justifying transparent and reproducible approach to such matching. Moreover, we readily disclose the outcome of such a procedure in the form of a final classifier. More so, the value of our solution lies in that it allows to recreate the classifier subject to any changes in the initial data hierarchies. Such an outcome is guaranteed by our unique solution on how to map the raw data at the interim level of aggregation which is formed on the many‑to‑many principle at the level more aggregate, than the very granular one.

The paper addresses conceptual issues in prudential banking regulation. Prevailing regulatory frameworks are largely grounded in approaches to bank risk management, which primarily emphasize exogenous sources of banking risk and often insufficiently account for the specific objectives of regulators. The analysis substantiates the argument that endogenous mismanagement risk constitutes the principal threat to bank stability. Furthermore, the study contends that there is no measurable relationship between the stringency of prudential standards and the degree of bank stability, suggesting that the perceived sensitivity of such norms to stability risk is largely illusory. The paper critiques the excessive emphasis placed on regulation within the prudential framework and proposes refinements to the underlying conceptual approach. Specifically, it is recommended that the risk of mismanagement be recognized as the central focus of prudential regulation. Such a focus would clarify the objectives of prudential policy and optimize the selection of policy instruments. The adoption of a compliance-based approach, utilizing straightforward calculation methods and expert-defined threshold values, is advocated for the construction of mandatory prudential ratios. The paper also presents an approach for detecting mismanagement risk and clarifies the distinct roles and responsibilities of banking regulation, supervision, and governance in the process of regulatory change.

We offer an economic explanation of the position of the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court regarding the application of the norm on collective dominance which was formulated in the “Review of judicial practice related to bringing to administrative responsibility for violations of antimonopoly legislation”. Our results are based on a literature review and a brief retrospective analysis of antimonopoly cases concerning collectively dominant companies. This paper provides arguments for the conclusion on the restoration of the principle of complementarity, compatibility of economic theory and law, the theory of oligopoly and the concept of collective dominance. The significance of the approach proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to the application of the norm on collective dominance is explained using the concept of meso-institutions. We have uncovered potential challenges and opportunities for various interest groups in the light of expected significant institutional changes which are not related with changes in the relevant norms of the Russian legislation.