Russian Journal of Economics
ISSN / EISSN : 2618-7213 / 2405-4739
Published by: NP Voprosy Ekonomiki (10.32609)
Total articles ≅ 149
Latest articles in this journal
Russian Journal of Economics, Volume 7, pp 137-159; https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.7.56634
This article uses archival documents and periodical publications to analyze the impact of the Civil War on the labor market in the regions of Eastern Russia. It considers key labor market institutions such as legislation, infrastructure (labor exchanges, unemployment funds, and professional and entrepreneurship organizations), and labor contracts. It has been established that there was continuity in the regulatory framework and labor market management tools between the Provisional Government and the anti-Bolshevik governments. The study shows the challenges and shortcomings of managing hiring and dismissal processes by soft regulatory methods given the deep economic crisis. The labor supply was backed by extensive cohorts of prisoners of war, refugees, and foreign workers, which contributed to a drop in labor rates. The government sought to stabilize the situation by reinforcing transactional barriers to reduce employment. The labor market in Eastern Russia was subjected to regionalization and localization.
Russian Journal of Economics, Volume 7, pp 93-104; https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.7.56600
This paper shows that railroad building in Russia, as in Europe and the US in the nineteenth century, improved the value of land, a classic benefit of transportation investment in largely agrarian countries. From a database constructed for this paper, we use cross-sectional data for the fifty European Russian regions to show the association of the length of the railroad (measured in 1894), land prices (measured in 1900) and annual growth of land prices (in rubles) for 1885–1910.
Russian Journal of Economics, Volume 7, pp 119-136; https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.7.51709
This paper studies the influence of the service sector (joint-stock commercial banks and railways) on the economic development of agricultural regions within the Russian empire in the second half of the 19th century, using the case of the Central Black Earth region. The study compares yield data for major crops, railroad transportation of grain and flour, and the banking services to agriculture producers and traders. Statistical analysis of this data disproves the prevailing historical economic viewpoint which claims that agricultural exports were not accompanied by bank support, because it did not take into account a rather high level of infrastructure around the Riga–Oryol railway trunk, which was formed back in the 1870s. The exports in this region consisted of the prior year’s harvest, which indicated a rather developed system of crop storage and accompanying banking services. The study reveals a dramatic growth in the services sector throughout the Central Black Earth region during the 1890s. In previous decades, this system could not be extended to the entire region due to a long history of unfavorable conditions in the agricultural and banking sectors. Thus, banking services in Russia at the end of the 19th century were provided to not just industrial and stock markets customers. In those regions dominated by agriculture, services infrastructure had been oriented towards this sector.
Russian Journal of Economics, Volume 7, pp 160-184; https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.7.51697
Despite the Soviet government’s declarative efforts to engage foreign capital in rebuilding the economy during the 1920s, most concessions did not last long and were liquidated before the respective contracts expired. This article considers the conditions and key outcomes of concession enterprises, as well as the reasons and mechanisms for their premature liquidation, using the textile industry as an example. The main focus is on the indicators and reasons for the high profitability of these enterprises, lending issues and Soviet methods for limiting the growth of foreign concession operator profits.
Russian Journal of Economics, Volume 7, pp 91-92; https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.7.71057
Russian Journal of Economics, Volume 7, pp 1-8; https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.7.66257
The paper serves as an introduction to the RuJE special issue on the circulation of economic ideas between Russia and the West. This circulation is a contentious issue, especially among Russian economists. In this article a specific pattern of West–Russia–West transfer is investigated. The pattern suggests that experiencing strong influence from the West, leading Russian economists developed and modified Western economic theories, adapting them to specific Russian political, ideological and cultural circumstances. As a result, they exerted a certain influence over the next generations of Western economists. Among these circumstances the paper mentions moral and religious factors, the peasant question, the special influence of Marxism, the development of mathematics and statistics in Russia in the 1890s–1920s, and the unique experience of building a planned economy.
Russian Journal of Economics, Volume 7, pp 19-33; https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.7.55686
Mikhail Tugan‑Baranovsky was one of the most prolific Russian economists at the turn of the 19–20th centuries. His thought was largely influenced by Western ideas, like most of his fellow Russian economists. But Tugan‑Baranovsky’s theories in turn also influenced Western economic thought to an unprecedented extent. Tugan‑Baranovsky’s Western legacy is first reflected on, before we examine the West’s reception of two of his works: “Industrial crises in England” (1894) and “Theoretical foundations of Marxism” (1905). We compare the conception of these works vis-à-vis their intended audience, and their reception in the international context of the circulation of ideas, so as to define Tugan‑Baranovsky’s relationship with the West.
Russian Journal of Economics, Volume 7, pp 50-66; https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.7.56826
This article addresses Kondratiev’s approach to the problems of economic dynamics, cycle and conjuncture in the context of a new methodological agenda which was formulated in the 1920’s in Europe and the USA by representatives of the “brilliant generation of economists,” mostly members of the econometric movement and its adherents among Russian economists. A distinguishing feature of this generation was that its representatives were striving to make economics an objective science penetrated by rigorous ways of thinking and based on a unification between the theoretical quantitative and the empirical quantitative approaches to the study of economic phenomena. This paper discusses Kondratiev’s project on the general theory of economic dynamics as an embodiment of that methodological agenda. It also highlights a free exchange of ideas between Kondratiev and economists from different countries as a breeding ground for the emergence of the project and a necessary condition for its implementation.
Russian Journal of Economics, Volume 7, pp 34-49; https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.7.57963
The paper provides an interpretation of Lenin’s earliest contributions (made in 1893–1899) to the study of economic development. In the 1890s, Lenin joined young Marxist intellectuals in their fight against the Narodnik economists, who represented the approach prevalent among the Russian radical intelligentsia in the 1870s–1880s. That was the fight over the right to control the Marxist narrative in Russia. Lenin elaborated his theoretical interpretation of Marxism as applied to the contentious issues of Russia’s economic development. The paper outlines the context of Lenin’s activity in the 1890s. It suggests that the main theoretical challenge to “orthodox Marxist” intellectuals in applying Marx’s theory to Russia stemmed not from their designated opponents, but from Marx himself, who presented two divergent scenarios — the dynamic and the breakdown — for capitalist development. Lenin provided an analytical substantiation for the dynamic one but eventually allowed for consideration of structural heterogeneity in the development process. This resulted in the notion of unevenness, on which he would rely upon later, in his studies of imperialism. The paper also briefly considers the place of Lenin’s early development studies in his legacy.
Russian Journal of Economics, Volume 7, pp 67-90; https://doi.org/10.32609/j.ruje.7.58034
Wassily Leontief jun. (1905–1999) moved to Berlin in April 1925 after getting his first academic degree from the University of Leningrad. In Berlin he mainly studied with Werner Sombart and Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz who were the referees of his Ph.D. thesis “The economy as a circular flow” (1928). From spring 1927 until April 1931 Leontief was a member of the research staff at the Kiel Institute of World Economics, interrupted by the period from April 1929 to March 1930 when he was an advisor to the Chinese Ministry of Railroads. In the journal of the Kiel Institute, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Leontief had already published his first article “Die Bilanz der russischen Volkswirtschaft. Eine methodologische Untersuchung” [The balance of the Russian economy. A methodological investigation] in 1925. In Kiel Leontief primarily worked on the statistical analysis of supply and demand curves. Leontief’s method triggered a fierce critique by Ragnar Frisch, which launched a heavy debate on “pitfalls” in the construction of supply and demand curves. The debate started in Germany but was continued in the USA where Leontief became a researcher at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in summer 1931. The Leontief–Frisch controversy culminated in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (1934), published by Harvard University, where Leontief made his subsequent career from 1932–1975. His later analysis of the employment consequences of technological change in the 1980s had some roots in his Kiel period.