The article investigates causes and consequences of the introduction of capital controls. The evolution of the views of international organizations on capital mobility restrictions including the revision of liberal views of economic community after the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, when it became clear that high capital mobility is one of the sources of imbalances in the financial sector, is examined. The main theoretical concepts, which take into account the advantages of openness and related macroeconomic risks, are presented, as well as the economic consequences of inflow and outflow of various types of capital flows, including foreign direct investment, portfolio investment, loans, etc., are analyzed. The evolution of capital controls in Russia, considered simultaneously with the dynamics of inflow and outflow of capital from the Russia, shows that the key factors in the movement of capital are the stateof the Russian economy, as well as internal and external shocks, while the practice ofusing restrictions on the financial account has proved to be poorly effective. According to the analysis of theoretical concepts and international experience of functioning of economies in the face of restrictions on cross-border capital operations by the example of Brazil, Malaysia, Chile, India, China and other countries, as well as the study of the Russian practice in regulation of capital transactions, the authors conclude that capital controls can only be imposed in exceptional cases when it is necessary to mitigate the negative effects of shocks associated with changes in conditions of global financial markets. In this case, the advantage should always be given to macroprudential measures.

Keywords: capital control, capital mobility, financial account, macroeconomic stability, investments, financial crises.

JEL: E52, F21, F38.

Alexandra V. Bozhechkova, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (82, Vernadskogo prosp., Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation).                                                                E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Evgeny L. Goryunov, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy (build. 1, 3-5, Gazetny per., Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation).                                                                                                                                                                                        E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Sergey G. Sinelnikov-Murylev, Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor, Russian Foreign Trade Academy (4a, Pudovkina ul., Moscow, 119285, Russian Federation).                                                                                                                                          E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Pavel V. Trunin, Cand.Sci. (Econ.), Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (82, Vernadskogo prosp., Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation).                                                                                             E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

In the article, we focus on measuring gains from integration in the form of import substitution at the 4-digit HS2007 commodity level (1199 groups) and EBOPS services(11 groups). Integration studies based on CGE models and gravity equations usually provide the less accurate results the more detailed level of commodity disaggregation is used. We propose a new approach to estimate gains from integration in the form of import substitution, based on the “product space” concept developed by Hausmann and Klinger (2007) [The Structure of the Product Space and the Evolution of Comparative Advantage; CID Working Paper No. 146]. In our approach, the main driver of import substitution is the difference between actual and potential comparative advantages. Our method relies on international trade data to estimate the reduction in import value of those goods and services that are heavily imported by a country. We calculate the gains for the Eurasian Economic Union and show that machinery, chemicals and some services benefit much from integration in the form of import substitution. As a whole, integration seems to be a minor factor of the import substitution potential (only 5.5 percent of potential reduction in imports is associated with integration). However, integration is the major factor for some goods and services, such as telecommunication and transport services, transmission shafts and cranks, insecticides, fungicides and herbicides, motorvehicles for the transport of goods, orthopaedic appliances and hearing aids (for these products and services, the contribution of integration to import substitution potential exceeds 50 percent).

Keywords: import substitution potential, economic integration, Eurasian Economic Union, import of commodities, import of services.

JEL: F14, F15, F17.

Alexander Yu. Apokin, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting (off. 1308, 47, Nakhimovsky prosp., 117418, Moscow, Russian Federation).                                                                                          E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Andrey A. Gnidchenko, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting (off. 1308, 47, Nakhimovsky prosp., 117418, Moscow, Russian Federation).                                                                                E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Ekaterina M. Sabelnikova, Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting (off. 1308, 47, Nakhimovsky prosp., 117418, Moscow, Russian Federation).                                                                                                    E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Using computable general equilibrium (CGE) model GLOBE v1 we investigate various scenarios of the integration in the Pacific Rim within the framework of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). For the considered scenarios we obtained forecasts of changes in GDP, aggregate exports and sectoral output, which are stable for changes in input parameters of the model. CGE-modelling of considered Free trade areas (FTA) was performed via mutual zeroing-out import tariffs for FTA-member countries. As tariff values applied in the model for countries of Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) we used our calculations of trade value weighted averages for Common Customs Tariff rates of EAEU. It was shown that non-participation of the EAEU in the Pacific Rim’s integration has a very small positive impact on the economies of the EAEU countries. Meanwhile, participation is generally beneficial for all EAEU countries and it gives more or less noticeable gains in key macroeconomic indicators, though it creates risks for some sectors. Joining TPP will be the most beneficial for EAEU only under the condition of China’s participation in TPP. Due to the uncertainty of China’s joining TPP a good alternative for EAEU isits entry into RCEP. In the case of EAEU’s accession to the RCEP Russia’s real GDPis expected to grow in the long-run by 0,74% (about 10 billion US dollars). For some sectors the answer to the question whether in a particular sector will be observed growthor decline in output levels is determined by the scenario of integration — these sectors are at risk: chemical, rubber and plastic products; motor vehicles and parts; wood and paper products; textiles; wearing apparel; food production sector.

Keywords: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, computable general equilibrium model.

JEL: F13, F15, L60.

Alexander Yu. Knobel, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (82, Vernadskogo prosp., Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation); Russian Foreign Trade Academy (4a, Pudovkina ul., Moscow, 119285, Russian Federation).                                                                                                       E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Vladimir V. Sedalishchev, Cand. Sci. (Phys.-Math.), Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (82, Vernadskogo prosp., Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation).                                                                   E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The modern world is a world in which environmental and social aspects play the most significant role in comparison with revenue and profit. Sustainable development (from macroeconomic and microeconomic point of view) is not determined only by the level of economic benefits, but it is such a development which is impossible without social and environmental responsibility of the business, its partnership with the scientific and educational sector. This article outlines the basic solutions that can be used to provide environmentally responsible activities and development of Russian business and corporate structures. The main decisions that must be included in the national environmental policy as a major incentive for the further transition to a sustainable and “green economy” are considered in the article. “Green economy” is not only low carbon, but also environmentally friendly activities of business entities (corporate and business structures). The key aspects of the further development of the “green economy” in Russia can include scientific and practical basic solutions that provide active creation, implementation and use of “green technologies” to provide environmentally responsible sustainable socio-economic growth. At the same time the important tool here maybe the transformation of environmental policy aimed at encouraging innovation entrepreneurship and ensuring reduction of anthropogenic and technogenic damage of the environment, natural resource management, as well as the reproduction of the natural capital.

Keywords: “green economy”, “green technology”, material production, immaterial production, environmental responsibility.

JEL: P21, O2, O33, Q5, Q57.

Mikhail N. Dudin, Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor, Senior Research Fellow, Laboratory of Strategic Management of Development of the National Economy (Management and Marketing Institute), RANEPA (82, Vernadskogo prosp., Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation).                                                                                                                                             E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Sergey O. Kalendzhyan, Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor, Honored Economist of the Russian Federation, Head of the Higher School of Corporate Management, RANEPA (82, Vernadskogo prosp., Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation). E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Nikolaj V. Lyasnikov, Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor, Senior Research Fellow, Laboratory of Strategic Management of Development of the National Economy (Management and Marketing Institute), RANEPA (82, Vernadskogo prosp., Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation).                                                                                                                                          E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

In this paper, using RLMS-HSE micro-data of 2000–2015 we analyze demand for preschools in Russia. Measuring demand for preschools, in particular unsatisfied demand is of high importance for public policy, but it is a challenging task due to the traditional identification problem: only a joint outcome of demand and supply is130 Спрос на услуги дошкольных образовательных организаций: эмпирический анализobserved but not the demand itself. This problem is particularly severe in the Russian case where supply of slots in preschools is rationed and prices are regulated by state. To overcome this problem we employ an approach first proposed by Poirier (1980) and estimate a joint system of demand and supply equations as a partial observability model. Our results confirm a widespread view about the strong deficit of slots in preschools in Russia. We find that almost 80% all mothers with children of age 0–7 are willing to use preschools, but almost half of them are not able to do that due to the limited supply. At the same time, we show that there is a non-negligible group of households which potentially might use preschools but don’t do that. This indicates that a more effective redistribution of resources within the Russian public preschool system could lead to a higher enrollment. We also find that the amount of unsatisfied demand among non-employed mothers is higher than among the employed ones, which suggests that raising the availability of preschools could stimulate labor force participation of Russian women.

Keywords: preschool education, Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey.

JEL: J13, J18, C35, D12.

Mark I. Levin, Dr. Sci. (Econ.), professor, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (bldg 1, 82, Vernadskogo prosp., Moscow, 116571, Russian Federation); National Research University Higher School of Economics (20, Miasnitskaya ul., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation).                                                                              E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Aleksey Yu. Oshchepkov, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), senior researcher, National Research University Higher School of Economics (20, Miasnitskaya ul., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation).                                                                     E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Nadezhda V. Shilova, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), assistant professor, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (bldg 1, 82, Vernadskogo prosp., Moscow, 116571, Russian Federation); National Research University Higher School of Economics (20, Miasnitskaya ul., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation).                                              E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The decision making mechanism at university is one of important factors affecting university’s performance. Universities exhibit a wide range of governance mechanisms. In contrast with for-profit firms rank-and-file employees in universities take part in decision making and collegial bodies play an important role. We look for appropriate mechanisms in the case when clear criteria for effectiveness are missing and at the same time one can rely on professors’ knowledge. We study the situation when the university’s founder has to delegate decision making power and choose among several types of governance. The first type of governance is sharing governance; in this case the decision is made on the basis of majority voting. The second type is autocratic governance without rotation. The third type is autocratic governance with rotation, and finally we have governance when the decisions are made by a committee. If the founder cannot assess the preferences of professors and choose professors with specific characteristics, sharing governance gives the best results. This happens since the interests of all professors are taken into account which in turn decreases the moral hazard. The second best chose is to delegate the decision to a committee. Autocratic governance with or without rotations leads to weak performance. In this paper we obtain additional justification for implementation of sharing governance in universities.

Keywords: university, governance, committees, decision-making.

JEL: D7, I290.

Anna A. Panova, National Research University Higher School of Economics (24/3, Myasnitskaya ul., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation).                                                                                                                                                                                    E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The article explores the issue of regulation in the market of court representation services. It draws upon a variety of comparative law data which is usually neglected or distorted incurrent discussions. The author is skeptical regarding the long-cherished idea of the bar to introduce bar monopoly in the Russian Federation. In particular, he shows that such monopoly is far from being a universal phenomena — many developed countries lack this institution, at least in some areas of judicial disputes. The author comes to conclusion that economic, legal and political arguments in favour of the bar monopoly are weak, and suggests a number of alternative measures. Instead of the bar monopoly, in civil disputes an emphasis should be made on ex post control — by way of disbarment (suspension of unscrupulous suppliers of legal services as soon as they committed certain violations). Itis proposed to establish free admittance to the bar for all holding university and scholarly degrees in law; in case of violation of laws or professional morals they may be suspended for a certain period of time or for life, depending on the gravity of the offence, in which case they are to be put on public electronic register (“black list”) and thus lose the right to represent in courts anyone except themselves or close relatives. Besides, the author argues for the right of self-representation being preserved for all, but this should be balanced by a substantial increase in court fees (up to the level of economically similar countries) in order to reduce the number of “frivolous suits”.

Keywords: bar monopoly, courts, legal market.

JEL: K4, L84, N43, N44.

Alexander N. Vereshchagin, Ph.D. (Law) (University of Essex, UK), LL.M. in European Business Law (Pallas Consortium of European Universities); Leading Researcher, Institute of Applied Economic Research of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (84, Vernadskogo prosp., Moscow, 119571, Russian Federation).                                                                                                                                                                           E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

From the perspective of the organization of state administration, one of the most complicated federal territories has quite recently been the Kaliningrad region, which is detached from the rest of Russia by the borders of the new states, including the member countries of the EU and NATO, and by international waters. In the world practice, special modes of management and mechanisms of support are applied to such territories. In order to select instruments and volumes of state support it is imperative to obtain an understanding of what and to what extent these measures are to compensate. Through the spectacle of institutional economic theories, authors have studied causes of additional transactional expenditures, proposed a classification and estimated volumes of such expenses. Thus, the total amount of additional transactional costs of the Kaliningrad region, calculated in terms of 2014, is at least 23,3 billion rubles, wherein a large burden falls not on the regional population but on economic entities. In this way, additional expenses of economic agents are 8,2% of the gross value added in the region. Additional costs of the Kaliningrad region population are 5,6% of the level of final consumption of households. When developing regulatory acts that govern activities in the conditions of the Kaliningrad region it is imperative to consider the factor of objectivity of additional transactional costs that are specific to the conditions of the Kaliningrad region, and to develop both compensation mechanisms and measures to support the population and specific sectors of the regional economy accordingly. The results of this research can be utilized for elaborating state regional policy measures and be of avail to scholar and practitioners concerned with the issues of development of special Russian territories.

Keywords: Kaliningrad region, institutional economic theory, transaction costs.

JEL: D23.

Vitaliy P. Zhdanov, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Senior Researcher, Independent Expert on Regional Economy, Member of the Board of the Kaliningrad regional Union of consumer societies (41, Komsomolskaya ul., Kaliningrad, 236000, Russian Federation).                                                                                                                                                                     E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Mikhail Yu. Pliukhin, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Vice President, “AVTOTOR Holding Management” LLC (4, Magnitogorskaya ul., Kaliningrad, 236013, Russian Federation).                                                                                                                                E-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Andrey P. Zaostrovtsev, Cand. Sci. (Eсon.), Senior Research Fellow, The ICSER “Leontief Centre” (25, 7-ya Krasnoarmejskaya ul., St. Petersburg, 190005, Russian Federation).                                                                             E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Nickolay V. Raskov, Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor, Strategic and International Management Chair, Higher School of Management of St. Petersburg State University (3, Volkhovsky per., St.Petersburg, 199004, Russian Federation). E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it