“…The problem of the «enclaves of wealth» building in the countries with emerging markets is highlighted and analyzed in the international and Russian economic literature (Brich, 2003;Kryukov, 2002;Levin et al, 2017;Sokoloff, Engerman, 2000;Gallagher, Zarsky, 2007;Conning, Robinson, 2009;Hansen, 2014). The model of dual enclave economy of Joseph Stiglitz (Stiglitz, 2002) is of particular importance in the framework of the study.…”
The study relies on the institutional economic history framework. We focus on the value of exclusive political resource leading to the building of hierarchically organized conglomerate of enclaves of wealth in the Russian economy. Various milestones of Russian history are emphasized. The functioning and evolution of enclaves of wealth are characterized through a complicated interweaving of added value chains and chains of value redistribution. The enclave nature of the Russian economy means that there is sustainable fragmentation of domestic economic markets. Integration of economy and society is ensured by the centralized market of power. Historically caused process of the building and functioning of enclaves of wealth in the modern Russian economy is the subject of special analysis. Their types are highlighted, and their impact on the development of the rest of the economy is characterized. The modern Russian economy is based on the export-resource enclaves of wealth. Industrial enclaves of wealth, which have been built in a number of Russian regions (for instance, Kaluga region), are the «inner maquiladoras» serving high-margin markets in the megalopolises and large cities. Innovation and scientific-educational enclaves of wealth have emerged as the result of projects of innovation development of the Russian economy and the transformation of the scientific-educational sector. These are positioned as the most important directions for building the innovation economy in Russia. However, the authors suggest that they are «pure recipients» receiving economic resources from the rest of the economy.
“…The problem of the «enclaves of wealth» building in the countries with emerging markets is highlighted and analyzed in the international and Russian economic literature (Brich, 2003;Kryukov, 2002;Levin et al, 2017;Sokoloff, Engerman, 2000;Gallagher, Zarsky, 2007;Conning, Robinson, 2009;Hansen, 2014). The model of dual enclave economy of Joseph Stiglitz (Stiglitz, 2002) is of particular importance in the framework of the study.…”
The study relies on the institutional economic history framework. We focus on the value of exclusive political resource leading to the building of hierarchically organized conglomerate of enclaves of wealth in the Russian economy. Various milestones of Russian history are emphasized. The functioning and evolution of enclaves of wealth are characterized through a complicated interweaving of added value chains and chains of value redistribution. The enclave nature of the Russian economy means that there is sustainable fragmentation of domestic economic markets. Integration of economy and society is ensured by the centralized market of power. Historically caused process of the building and functioning of enclaves of wealth in the modern Russian economy is the subject of special analysis. Their types are highlighted, and their impact on the development of the rest of the economy is characterized. The modern Russian economy is based on the export-resource enclaves of wealth. Industrial enclaves of wealth, which have been built in a number of Russian regions (for instance, Kaluga region), are the «inner maquiladoras» serving high-margin markets in the megalopolises and large cities. Innovation and scientific-educational enclaves of wealth have emerged as the result of projects of innovation development of the Russian economy and the transformation of the scientific-educational sector. These are positioned as the most important directions for building the innovation economy in Russia. However, the authors suggest that they are «pure recipients» receiving economic resources from the rest of the economy.
The paper is devoted to the clustering of coal-mining regions of Russia based on the analysis of their investment and innovation activity. The indicators characterizing investment and innovative activity were formed. The group of investment indicators included indicators highlighting the total shares of investment in fixed capital by types of activities related to the extractive and manufacturing industries. To assess innovation activity the total share values of the costs on technological innovations of extractive and manufacturing organizations were calculated. The results of hierarchical analysis fulfilled on the group of investment activity indicators allowed authors to identify four clusters of coal-mining regions. The coal-mining regions were divided into three clusters based on the indicators of innovation activity. Verbalization of the results allows authors to conclude that the most of coal-mining regions are characterized with the following: low/medium level of investment activity in extractive and manufacturing industries; medium level of innovation activity in extractive industries and medium/low level of innovation activity in manufacturing industries. On the whole, coalmining regions are not able to modify the general «picture» of resource-mineral-raw materials dependency of the Russian economy in the short-term period.
The article is devoted to institutional features of agricultural technoparks as a new form of scientific and industrial cooperation in agriculture, possessing system interrelation with steady development of rural territories, export of agricultural production and possibilities of a conclusion of a domestic agrarian science on world level of researches. Long-term crisis manifestations in Russian agriculture in recent years have only been purchased quantitatively, mainly due to the winning conjuncture of export markets, but not overcome qualitatively, which retains its main disproportions and related risks. The given crisis phenomena are considered in article as system which subsystems are agrarian science, state support of agricultural commodity producers, development and financing of rural territories. These three interrelated and interdependent problems, on the one hand, presented by the crisis of overproduction of budget-funded scientific research in agriculture, and by the crisis of profitability of agricultural production, on the other hand, by the crisis of budget financing of rural areas, can be comprehensively solved through the creation of agricultural technology parks as a means and mechanism for the development of continuous scientific and production cooperation in agriculture and its digital transformation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.