Journal of Economics

Enough sad state of Soviet economic science by the end of 80 years has further aggravated in the post-Soviet period. True, the ideological pressure decreased, the increased possibilities of international contacts have expanded the economic outlook and the enlarged luggage economists achievements of world science (but often also its mistakes and failures, which seems to be getting more).

It seems to me, however, that it became a lot more drawbacks. First of all, drastically decreased the prestige and social status of the researcher. The Russian leadership has shown a striking disregard for the fate of science at the very time when its role in the development of society has increased dramatically. Rightly pointed out the futility of many (if not most) scientists and scientific institutions, it is, instead of requiring the perseverance of the mind and hard work to reform the organization of science (and education), has decided to put them on the starving. Left alone with virtually no means of subsistence, many researchers have either left the academic institutions, good for economists in this period, opened the big money and job opportunities in the new economic structures, or switched to a teaching job (the number of students of economics has grown every 5, if not more) . About any of their scientific work could not be considered.

Graduates of Russian economic institutes have the opportunity to much (and often – a dozen times, such as investment banks) to earn better than a scientific or educational work. Of course, the fanatics of science have always been and will be, but it is still the exception. Many of the breakdown (for textbooks needed communication) researchers have found a profitable sphere of existence in a squalid edition copies of Western textbooks, for which paid well, too.

Has become much harder with the publication of books. Have not gone away, and old diseases of the Soviet economic science. Organization of scientific research and academic institutions themselves has not changed: still the same large structure and a bureaucratic organization. But almost disappeared in the civil order: her to seize more dexterous various centers close to power through participation in their creation of former government officials (for example, headed by E. Gaidar Institute of Transition Economics). Needless to say, and a very modest place of science in the work of universities even more diminished and became almost invisible.

Preserved and akademkratiya. Destroyed in the heat of the “reform” a lot of useful features former economic and social system, the Russian leadership did not dare to long overdue reform of one of the most inert elements of the old bureaucratic system – USSR Academy of Sciences, hastily renamed before the collapse of the USSR to the Russian Academy of Sciences, the orders it remained almost the same as in the Soviet.And most importantly, preserved the primacy of academics in this system, the election which is less dependent on scientific merit.

True, the influence of the Academy of the social life decreased markedly. To view the economic institutions of power and the new leaders of the economy, radical reformers, almost did not listen.

It should nevertheless acknowledge that the criticism of the Office of Economics, RAS (as well as many other economists) economic policy of the Russian leadership during this period was a fair and useful. In professional terms in this debate academic science seemed more persuasive and probative.

Academic life in economic academia in this period increasingly felt faint. The leaders of many of them focused on the delivery of space for lease. Very few academics and economists in this period produced serious work.

Perhaps most evidently degradation Department of Economics, RAS, and the entire Academy of Sciences, the loss of its elementary members of professional and ethical standards appeared in history with his election two years ago as an honorary member of the Academy of Sciences Vladimir Quinta. Honorary members of the Academy are the foreign scientists who have made outstanding contributions to science. As far as I know, this requirement is indeed satisfied. In the Department of Economics foreign honorary members elected for a long time not only to the decline of perestroika and the post-Soviet period, they were two really great scientists – the inventor of the input-output balance Wassily Leontief and large econometrics of macroeconomic forecasting, Lawrence Klein.
After the death of Wassily Leontief’s new honorary member of the RAS was unexpectedly elected as an economist at the U.S. Vladimir Quint, who worked in the 1970′s – early 1980 at the Institute of Economics of the Siberian Branch of RAS, then – at the Institute of Economics of the USSR. His scientific work at the time no one could remember, but spoke of him as a very energetic man with connections. After his departure to the U.S. in the late 80′s in the Russian press (mostly newspapers) regularly appeared his articles are interesting, but rather journalistic. Major works in Russian or in English the word did not appear. To test their impressions of the new foreign members of the RAS, I asked two highly qualified scientists familiar in the U.S. and the Netherlands, spent many years studying Soviet and Russian economy. They had never heard (!) Of such researchers.
In general, it seems to me, fell markedly and the demand of society for the study of high scientific level, even compared with recent years of the Soviet period. Ceased to be interested in the achievements of economic science state power, because the intellectual degradation of the latter.

Very well change the power relations of science in the Soviet and post-Soviet period, estimated in early 1990, Academician NN Moiseev: “Those who are commanded by our country before, were smart cunning men. And they understand how much they do not know. And so from time to time invited to these specialists. Something heard and something wound on the condition … now governing the country came to the people who think they are educated. They have a “syndrome of self-sufficiency.” They do not need independent advisers, and helpers are needed. And they have to recruit from the same familiar environment of people who did not receive this education. And then the wave is not very competent mediocrity with conceit inherent in “semi-sciences” has swept our country “.

As an example of the indifference of Russian authorities to serznoy economics I note the complete disregard for the use of the intellectual potential of the same Igor Birman, often comes to this period in Russia.

Due to a general decline in the prestige of science in society disappeared such an important factor in the Soviet period, as the scientific recognition. Our business needs are not primarily academic economists, and practice, knowing the basics crafts, which most big companies are recruited from among graduates of Western universities or foreigners. Although, of course, there are exceptions …

Passion for the economic-mathematical methods in the post-Soviet period has been less noticeable because of the obvious futility and the emergence of a more demanding and lucrative fields of study. Nevertheless, they have not disappeared entirely. First, in the western economics and publications, which equals more Russian economic science, they are still held in high esteem. Secondly, many scientists do not know anything else. In recent years there has been a surge of interest in these methods (in particular, inter-sectoral balance sheet) at the advent of government demand for the definition of economic development prospects in Russia. This could be a positive side, if researchers took care of the reliability of their use of data and a real assessment of the situation in the economy. But neither the one nor the other has not yet observed.

Finally extinguished scientific schools, and the scientific community has become a collection of singles, to solve their scientific and financial problems.

General cultural and professional level of scientific and economic communities even more degraded. True, most have links to foreign authors. But only today. Knowledge of economic history and the history of economic thought to be close to zero. Ability to understand the relationship between economic data and events – a great rarity. Cultural level is depressingly low. Librarians in higher education in one voice complain that teachers do not read anything. But worst of all, no discomfort from his professional and cultural low, many scientists no longer have. No one was ashamed of. And there is no need.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to think that in the post-Soviet period did not appear in the Russian economic science is nothing worthy of attention.

It is interesting to two points. First, the best works belong malotitulovannym scientists.I’m certainly not familiar with all the economic literature, and therefore may miss some major work. I write about what I know.

Among the most important works of this period, written by professional economists call the book of Professor St. Petersburg State University, VT Ryazanov, “Economic Development of Russia. XIX-XX Century “, SV Onischuk” Historical types of social reproduction “, AA Prokhorov,” The Russian system of governance, “Potemkin” Virtual Economy “, by Andrei Belousov on the Soviet economy. The last three were the author of “only” candidate of economic sciences at the time of these books.

Secondly, very original work written by economic laymen: Parshev “Why Russia is not America” ​​and “Why America begins, S. Kara-Murza” Soviet Civilization, ML Khazin (co-authored) “The Decline dollar empire and the end of “Pax Americana” »and a number of other studies with analysis amerikanckoy and Russian economies. Many subtle and profound economic thinking is contained in books, Maxim Kalashnikov, and Sergei Kugusheva (of which only the most recent Economist).

In 2002 I wrote an article in which he justified the idea of ​​redistributing income as a key element for economic growth in Russia. Some time later I was introduced to become a physicist Chernavskaya a physical journal for 1997, which was justified on the same idea. Very interested in our economic weekly, where very often publishes in-depth articles entirely untitled journalists. In a relatively competitive market conditions, economic products scientific nomenclature clearly lost nenomenklaturnym researchers.

Degradation of the Russian economic science after 1991 was much more painful for the society than the Soviet period. In Soviet society, it affects mainly the political economy and makrokonomicheskuyu statistics. In Russian society, she touched all economic disciplines. In Soviet society counterweight to the degradation of economic science were viable economic system, a huge economic experience and qualifications governing economic cadres at various levels. In post-Soviet economy deteriorated in the qualification with respect to almost all levels of economic management: public economic management, management firms and enterprises, shops. Exceptions are extremely rare.