Financial and technological sovereignty is becoming an important driver of the economic transformation in response to current trends toward regionalization, disruption of value chains, and non-market trade and financial restrictions. Fiscal and financial policies that promote macroeconomic stability and unencumbered operation of economic mechanisms can be considered key components of a country’s financial sovereignty. This article concentrates on analysis of the reforms carried out in Russia over the previous ten years. These reforms have facilitated creation of one of the world’s most effective state budget systems, reduction of dependence on oil price volatility, and enhancement of countercyclicality. Revising budget rules and increasing the efficiency of the fiscal system, including tax administration, were the key decisions that enabled these changes. The importance of the reforms has been confirmed by their success in counteracting the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the pressure from unprecedented sanctions while also ensuring rapid changes in the structure of Russia’s economy. During the crisis period, the principal ways of implementing budget policy adhered to four main principles: maintaining due proportionality of budget support to the scale of shocks, targeting support, holding fast to strategic objectives, and encouraging structural transformations. This article addresses the new challenges ahead by outlining a medium-term development model for the Russian economy. This model envisions establishment of the conditions essential for technological advancement. It also highlights the role of fiscal and financial policy instruments in creating long-term financing sources, offering tax incentives, and providing targeted support measures throughout various stages of the technological cycle. The importance of continuing efforts to develop an independent financial and payment infrastructure aimed at facilitating free foreign economic activity is also emphasized.

The trade war initiated by the United States against some of its trading partners from 2017 to 2019 has become a crucial factor in the current transformation of the global economy. The main confrontation unfolded between the US and China, as the imposition of high tariff barriers on a wide range of goods in bilateral trade led to the contraction of trade flows. Technological rivalry between the two countries also fed the trade war that has now become a central aspect of the ongoing US-China economic conflict. The article examines the content and scope of the US trade war restrictions and the retaliation against them by other countries; and it provides an overview of specific empirical studies that trace out the consequences of these measures for the global economy and individual countries. The authors use a general equilibrium model to simulate the effects of the trade war at both the macroeconomic and sectoral levels. The primary markets analyzed are those of the US and China because their economies are the most deeply involved in the conflict. The modeling indicates that the tariff restrictions on bilateral trade have adverse effects on the GDP of both the US and China, and the majority of sectoral-level indicators are also negative. The positive effects on certain industrial sectors are due to less dependency on imports or exports subject to increased duties or to options for quickly redirecting trade flows to alternative suppliers and customers. The resulting partial reorientation of trade has had positive effects on other countries that are trading partners with the US and China. In the long term, the unwavering policy of technological decoupling between the US and Chinese economies is the most significant factor in the future course of their interactions. Both countries are trying to exclude the most sensitive technologies from economic cooperation and tend to impose non-tariff measures such as export controls more frequently than tariffs.

The Bank of Russia uses monthly InFOM survey data to provide a quick estimate of household inflation expectations. A more complete picture of the interrelationships between inflation expectations and the consumer and financial behavior of individuals can be derived from data in the fifth iteration of the Russian National Household Survey of Consumer Finance (Survey of Household Finance — SHF), which for the first time included questions about inflation expectations. This paper compares the results of these surveys, analyzes the reasons for variation of inflation expectations in the SHF, and studies possible ways in which these expectations influence individual behavior. Comparison of the InFOM and SHF data shows that the amount of inflation expected by various socio-demographic groups in the SHF is always higher than in the InFOM survey. However, the inflation expectations in these surveys are not otherwise uniform. Such factors as socio-demographic characteristics, financial situation, perceptions of economic conditions, and the financial literacy of members in a household are the main factors that cause inflation expectations to differ. For example, lower inflation expectations are more typical for young people with higher income and greater financial literacy. The SHF respondents’ decisions about consumption and acquisition of financial assets are nevertheless quite rational. Those who expect higher inflation tend to spend more and at a faster pace while saving less. The results obtained here constitute another argument for maintaining price and financial stability as well as for increasing the financial literacy of the population.

The article analyzes the impact of the tourism boom on catch-up development in the Northern Caucasus and examines how “modernization from above,” which emphasizes the state’s role in improving underdeveloped regions, and “modernization from below,” which sees the role of market-oriented private business as crucial, accommodate the increasing demand for tourism. Both models have responded quite effectively to the new opportunities and challenges presented by the tourism boom. State institutions charged with development have contributed to increased capacity at the ski resorts under their management, which have shown significantly better results than resorts that do not operate under a single company. Private business, however, was able to create a market for excursions and ethno-tours almost from scratch by providing a variety of tourist attractions and adapting services to tourists’ requirements. In order to improve the quality of tourism and counteract opportunistic behavior by contractors, businesses have applied new institutional tools. The two modernization models also exhibit some symbiotic relationships. For example, expanding ski resorts attract private businesses while entrepreneurs often compensate for mistakes made in planning resorts. Nevertheless, the weaknesses of these models when stressed by growing demand are also evident. In one instance, the development institute responsible for Northern Caucasus tourism has not yet found optimal ways to coordinate its activities with the authorities of the districts adjacent to the resorts or with private businesses. The state is also not fully capable of promoting successful development of private business, especially if this requires investment or administrative intervention above the regional level.

As the worldwide economic paradigm changes, higher education becomes an extremely important factor in ensuring a country’s scientific and technological sovereignty. This article compares the state of higher education in the Russian Federation (RF), the Republic of India (RI), and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and ranks the development of their respective higher education systems in order to derive a model for advancing the innovative competitiveness of the RF’s institutions of higher education and to identify the components required to make them more competitive. Study of statistical data and regulations along with retrospective and systemic structural analysis indicate that program and process management is an innovative way to increase the competitiveness of universities. This result is grounded in a descriptive analysis of previous scientific studies, which substantiated the authors’ definition of what makes universities competitive. Comparison of the programs and projects implemented in the three countries examined leads to the conclusion that the RF should accelerate the creation of a wide network of program and project initiatives in higher education. Although a comparative analysis of the RF’s nationwide Project 5–100 and Priority 2030 program reveals certain problems in university management, it also establishes that applying existing regulations for strategic planning as well as for program project management in order to develop universities can assist in reaching the targets of Presidential Decree No. 145 dated 28 February 2024, entitled “Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development of the RF” (SSTD).

This paper develops a partial equilibrium model and employs it to analyze the immediate consequences of introducing an export duty. Published materials confirm that the general premise of duopoly models is that external and internal sales markets are segmented and that this segmentation determines the long-term orientation of models in which production is a variable. In contrast to existing theoretical approaches, the relationship between domestic and foreign sales markets assuming fixed production volumes makes it possible to arrive at short-term estimates of the consequences of introducing an export duty. Such a duty will impact the domestic market price of the exporting country, the volumes of its exports and its export prices, and the price and volume of foreign supplies from global export (the totality of other exporting countries that supply to the foreign sales market of a given exporting country), etc. The results of the study indicate that the increase in welfare for an exporting country (the total increase in producers’ profits, government revenues, and consumer gains) from an export duty depends directly on the ratio between the supply of products on the domestic market before introducing the duty and the increase in domestic supply (decrease in export volumes) after its introduction. The finding is that welfare will increase only under specific conditions. The possibility of imposing an export duty without loss of welfare depends in fact on what share exports have in production volumes prior to the introduction of the duty. For quite realistic estimates of the coefficients of inverse demand functions, the conclusion is that welfare will increase for any value of the export duty if the production volume in the exporting country prior to imposing the duty was approximately twice (2.25 times) higher than the volume of exports. Estimates of the distribution of gains and losses from the introduction of export duties were arrived at for three main groups — producers, consumers, and the state budget in all sales markets. To illustrate how the theoretical constructs of the model operate, the effects of introducing an export tariff on the Russian wheat market in 2021 were analyzed.

This article examines aspects Sevastopol’s economy from its founding in 1783 through the beginning of the nineteenth century in order to identify the main components in the city’s economic development during that period. Five key patterns in Sevastopol’s economic development emerged from this analysis. First, the city’s economic development was influenced by a policy that favored integration by making the local population loyal to Russia, settling farmers in the surrounding territory, declaring the city open to friendly nations, and undertaking ambitious civil and military construction. Second, over 95 percent of the population in Sevastopol at the end of the eighteenth century was military, and for the purposes of this study that fact justifies designating the urban population military oriented. Third, the inadequate development of agriculture around Sevastopol ensured high prices but also contributed to increased trade. Fourth, there was a rather narrow sectoral specialization of industry, which was dominated by state-owned enterprises in ship repair, construction, food, and building material. The resulting shortage of industrial products in the city was partially offset by handicraft production and home industry. Fifth, the fast pace of trade development was essentially a way of compensating for the deficits in agriculture and industry; that is, Sevastopol’s specialization as a trading center helped it overcome the shortage of agricultural and industrial goods in the city.