Journal of Economics

The question may seem rhetorical. She, like, and she revived, as evidenced by named (and unmentioned) innovative research work of post-Soviet period. We must have patience – and after, say, 5-10 years and in Russia there will be the masterpieces of economic science.

But the fact that, in my opinion, economic science affects social life mainly through the activities of the scientific community, not individual scientists outside of this community.Nor society in general, nor the political ruling class can not because of their incompetence in the special issues to determine the value of individual research papers. This makes the scientific community. The process is very complicated, and in the history of world economic thought (as in the history of science in general) you can find examples of undervalued contemporaries scientific papers and scientists. Thus, in the familiar economic Sovietology I had underestimated the scientific merits of such economists as Nahum Clear and Igor Birman. For a long time underestimated the work of Hayek.

And yet, let me say that the scientific community in the West much more time to recognize the value of outstanding scientific work and outstanding scholars. It is through recognition by the scientific community of prominent scientists have had a tremendous influence on public life. Thus, Keynes, before he became internationally known for his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money “, wrote several other books that have received recognition of the scientific community. We can say that in the Western scientific community, there are (at least was) more or less justified rating of scientific achievements.

That provides a rational and socially beneficial effects of this community? Obviously, its centuries of rational construction. Without going into details naukovedcheskie, assume that it will not only focuses on the scientific results, but it is so capable and objective assessment. Incidentally, the same as existed in Soviet and Russian scientific community in areas of science that are not subject to ideological control (mathematics, physics), and where, thanks to this outstanding scientific achievements were world class.

As, however, be with the Russian scientific community, which for decades was formed in an ugly social conditions? A priori, we can say that it is as a whole is incapable of giving an objective assessment of scientific advances in their science. The evidence is, for example, that I have listed outstanding work in our economic literature, or concealed, or ridiculed. If we somehow miraculously appeared scholars level of Adam Smith, Karl Marx or John Maynard Keynes, I am afraid of this society would not know. Unlike 1960, in Russia now there is no authoritative body of social thought, as the magazine Novy Mir.

The question therefore is how can (and can I do) to change the character of this community. The problem seems unsolvable in principle. As soon as the economic research community is numerically dominated by ersatz scientists, they are by their sheer crush of the present. The challenge, then, boils down to how to get rid of these ersatz scientists to alter the balance of power in the scientific community. There can of course be no question that this will very scientific community.

Obviously, the main source of economic rottenness of the scientific community is the rottenness of the Russian society. What is society, so is science. That is why the task set is like a utopian. But society is heterogeneous. It contains both modernization and traditional sectors. Let us imagine that due to some reasons (economic crisis, military defeat, a split in the ruling layer – all very real events in today’s Russia) layer of modernization, despite its small size, comes out in some way a victory by discrediting the traditional layers. This often happened in the history of Russia in similar circumstances. Then get up before him the task of revival of Russian science in general and economics in particular.

If, as I have tried to show, the main obstacle to the development of economics in this are the institutional factors that we would go about changing the nature of academic institutions, established during the Soviet era, and little changed in the post-Soviet period. But this is not enough: they must be accompanied by the presence of a society needs in science. Attempts to modernize the scientific and educational institutions in the early 90-ies of XX century have failed primarily due to the fact that both the society (government, business enterprises) has shown indifference to science, and population – to quality education. Hence – a turn toward science and the state economic enterprises is a prerequisite to the improvement of science. In fact the modernization society, it is an axiom.

On this occasion in recent years, says a lot, and we hold, something which is done: in particular, greatly increased government spending on science and education. But the strange thing: more money is allocated and the results of scientific and educational activities worse: less quoting Russian scientists, university rankings fall. Obviously, it is not only and not in money, but in the institutions, but their afraid to change the Russian gosudarctvo.

State modernization inevitably will upgrade the scientific and educational institutions.The key here is the fate of the Russian Academy of Sciences as a leading research institution in Russia. On the evils of this institution has been said so much that it is difficult to add something. The tragedy is that universities and colleges in general, about which science is created in the West, we still have much worse in all respects.

It is difficult to expect significant results from the efforts to revive the already existing scientific and educational institutions – the brainchild of a bureaucratic system. They do not have a healthy critical nucleus. I think that the shift can be expected from new scientific and educational institutions. But the prerequisite for their success is a fundamental change in relations between state and economy to science and education.The failure of similar attempts in the 90 years was due not falsity of ideas, and the fact that the then society and economy, science and education by and large were not needed.

It is not clear that now the situation has changed. Despite the rhetoric about innovation, etc. This will be speaking in earnest only when orders for research will not approximate to persons and institutions, and on a competitive basis – teams and scientists, to present the best projects and have really the best scientific advances . The experts will act not biased national experts, and more impartial best foreign experts based on objective indicators of scientific activity (citation indexes, patents, etc.). Equally, economic enterprises for the prosperity and survival need real science. But this implies a fundamental change in the functioning of the Russian state and economy. Such restructuring is close to social revolution. It is doubtful that it will implement the current Russian leadership, formed during the destructive reforms and responsible for them.

This creative restructuring (as opposed to a devastating second half of the 80-ies) will gradually solve the seemingly intractable issue of the old economic research and educational institutions. The best scientists will gradually move to work in the new academic institutions, the old will die either by themselves or (rarely) try to regroup, getting rid of infertile managers and employees.

It is easiest to implement such a restructuring of the humanities, where research requires minimal technical base. The fate of the Department of Economics, RAS then generally loses any significance. State refuses, of course, from the ridiculous (and it seems that nowhere else in the world is not observable) reward for the title of academicians and corresponding members. Thus, under these new institutions gradually (it will take a decade) will be a real scientific community.

Revival of economic science in Russia could contribute to the presence of gosudarctvennoy scientific and educational policy. It would be useful to resume the awarding of prizes (like Stalin in the past or premiums on energy in the present) for a truly outstanding achievements in economic science objective for the Commission of their adjudicated. This would raise the prestige of economics in society and in the eyes of youth. In a much greater extent than they do now, scientific achievements should be considered in assessing the work of teachers of high schools. The state could subsidize the translation of scientific economic journals in foreign languages, or detailed summaries of scientific articles, as well as the best books by Russian authors of a special publishing house. The budgets of state universities could laid funds for the translation of the best works of teachers being sent to foreign journals. This would allow much wider acquaint foreigners with the achievements of Russian economists.

Much remains to be done for the training of young scientists and economists. Especially big drawback is poor knowledge of economic history and the inability to analyze the economic reality. It would be nice to gather the best teachers to start in one or two economic schools and organize them in a high-quality training of economists for science and teaching. These institutions could become centers of economic research. A lot of work to retrain hundreds of thousands of the most able economists, who established yet in reality are not, since received a disgusting education. The same re-training is required for most capable professors.

Conclusion

Consideration of the private, it would seem, the question of the backlog of Russian economic science has revealed its causal indigenous peculiarities of the Russian historical process of many decades and a deep imperfections in the basic institutions of a modern Russian society and its moral values. Therefore, to change the situation without addressing these fundamental issues is impossible. Price as of this issue is great. Without qualified, talented and desirable, brilliant economists and humanitarians is no way out, in essence, a stalemate of modern Russian society. Difficult to imagine the continued existence of a country with vast territory and natural resources, but the declining population and deteriorating economy and defense, surrounded by populous and rapidly developing countries deprived of natural resources. In similar situations, many societies have died and some survived – because they were necessary intellectual resources. Knowledge – force!