One theoretical tradition holds that money is neutral in the long run. Although the neutrality of money is an attractive doctrine in economics, the empirical evidence for it is somewhat ambiguous; this uncertainty opens up debate about how to choose the target for monetary policy. The purpose of this paper is to apply econometric analysis to test the hypothesis that money exhibits long-term neutrality and superneutrality in Russia. The article considers the long-term impact on real output and its components (consumption, government expenditure, and gross investment) from permanent shocks to various monetary aggregates. The resulting calculations show that, for the Russian economy from 1995 to 2023, neither hypothesis can be rejected in general — money is neutral and even superneutral. This conclusion is robust across different monetary aggregates. This means that monetary expansion is unlikely to increase production in the long term but will merely result in higher prices. The study found no evidence that non-neutrality was a factor in the investment channel. Therefore, the position that aggressive easing of monetary policy stimulates investmentdriven economic growth is not supported by the data. The best way for the Central Bank of Russia to provide conditions conducive to economic growth would be to ensure low and stable inflation. 

This paper is one of the first studies to investigate how downside market risk affects cryptocurrency returns. Based on weekly data for more than 900 cryptocurrencies from 2014 to 2018, downside market risk is considered in three different forms as it arises in the cryptocurrency market, the aggregate alternative investment market, and the stock market. The empirical part of the study employs regression analysis applied to each of three definitions of market risk. First, individual cryptocurrency betas are obtained with a rolling window approach. Second, factor portfolios are constructed based on individual betas to test factor strategies. Third, cross-sectional analysis is used to estimate risk premiums. The conclusion is that cryptocurrency returns are very sensitive to cryptocurrency market drops and insensitive to the dynamics of other financial assets. Downside market risk has a positive and significant effect on cryptocurrency returns, a result which is valid for both individual-instrument and portfolio investment. However, the effects of downside market risk for cryptocurrencies are not offset by any other risk factors, and the key conclusion to be drawn is that high cryptocurrency returns are fair compensation for elevated downside risk. A three-factor model that incorporates a downside market risk factor along with SMB and WML factors was the most useful of those considered, as it explained more than half of cross-sectional returns and surpassed other established models. These results may be useful for daily cryptocurrency trading as well as for further study of cryptocurrency returns. 

The article examines the impact on regional economic growth from intraregional fiscal decentralization and the structure of regional financial assistance to local public budgets. For this purpose, a panel regression was arrived at using the data from Russia’s regions for 2011–2021 or for 2015– 2021. The resulting calculations demonstrate that the relationship between the degree of decentralization of expenditures and the rate of economic growth is ∩-shaped. While an increase in the decentralization of expenditures can have a positive effect on economic growth, that holds true only for those regions in which the initial level of decentralized expenditures is significantly below 30%. However, there is no significant relationship between the degree of decentralization of taxation and the rate of economic growth. The impact on GRP growth of individual instruments for providing financial assistance to local budgets turned out to be different for wealthier and low-income regions. In low-income regions, regional financial assistance has a negative effect on economic growth; that is, economic growth in such regions should be fostered by increasing the revenue of the local budgets (or revenue base). In addition, for low-income regions, targeted financial assistance tends to dampen economic growth; therefore, non-targeted financial assistance to such regions is preferable. Capital subsidies accelerate economic growth, and this effect is more pronounced in wealthier regions. However, neither increasing tax sharing by a few percentage points, nor an overall increase in the level of tax decentralization, showed a significant impact on economic growth. 

When environmental quality is poor and also varies widely between individual regions, new ways of
addressing environmental problems are needed with special emphasis on reducing differing impact
that these problems have on individual territories. Involving the third (non-profit non-governmental)
sector more directly may be a means to that end. This study outlines environmental projects that
have been initiated and implemented by non-profit organizations in the Russian Federation and assesses their success in reducing regional variation. Data was analyzed from 5,853 projects submitted from 2017 to 2023 in competitions for Presidential Grants related to the environment. Indicators
from the Federal State Statistics Service and Rosprirodnadzor were also employed. Content analysis
of project applications relied upon descriptive statistics methods and calculation of correlation coefficients. The environmental projects that were submitted as well as those that won exhibited a high
degree of differentiation by specific topics and regions. In addition, there has been debate over the
past two years among some grant applicants and fund experts about the importance of certain
environmental problems. Waste management projects developed by non-profit organizations often
do not take into account the relative urgency of solving such problems for a given location and
are largely guided by prior experience and expertise. The experts do consider the relative value of
projects (although not to its full extent) for a territory along with the experience of grant applicants
and the region itself. As a result, the projects implemented contribute very little to reducing the
differences in environmental quality among the country’s regions. There is also path dependence
that can have both positive and negative consequences. The article provides recommendations for
changing how the authorities and the officials at the Presidential Grants Fund work with non-profit
organizations.

In accordance with the Imperial Constitution of 1871, the German Empire of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was a federal state. The governments of the center (the Reich) and the federal states pursued a fiscal policy that had some features of “proto-competitive” federalism. Over the subsequent fifty years, however, German federalism evolved toward fiscal federalism. This transition was finally consolidated during 1919 and 1920 due to some endogenous factors and even more to exogenous ones. The article is based on statistical material as well as research from various studies, including those available from the library of the Goethe-Institut. The article compares the extent to which there were indications of proto-competitive federalism in the German budgetary system prior to Matthias Erzberger’s (finance minister of the German Empire) financial reforms (1919–1920) and indications of fiscal federalism after them. The transformation in both the distribution of power and responsibility as well as in provision of resources by various levels of the budgetary system to support those changes during the transition from proto-competitive to fiscal federalism is analyzed. The attempt to strike a balance between the fiscal interests of the center, federal states, and municipalities is explored; and equalization is singled out as a new function of the empire’s budget process. The creation of a so-called self-sufficient economy in the empire just before the First World War and its subsequent survival under pressure from sanctions and international isolation demanded a flexible balance between centralization and decentralization of spending powers along with an appropriate allocation of resources. Fiscal federalism through centralization of funds allowed Germany to begin recovery from geopolitical and socio-economic challenges, while maintaining decentralization primarily in non-tax revenues encouraged local governments to continue developing their economies. The logic derived from this historical study of the changing models of German fiscal federalism is also applicable to Russia: the reduction of revenues and growth of expenditures in the Russian Federation’s federal budget in recent years makes centralization of fiscal resources at the federal level more important, and the growth of expenditures in the regions and municipalities necessitates transfers and equalization measures.