The history of political economy in Russia is inextricably linked with the history of Moscow University, where the Department of Political Economy was established in 1804, when there was no yet either Marxism or mainstream as branches of classical political economy. Rapid development of capitalism in the 19th century became the basis for further development of political economy and the formation of neoclassical trend of economic theory, which further transformed into a generalized term ‘economics’. In future, the market principles of economics spread throughout the world, which predetermined the place of economics as the basis of economic science and economic education, highlighting it as a mainstream. However, despite the historical zigzags in the development of Russia, the Department of Political Economy retained its generic name while simultaneously teaching and researching all the schools of economic theory that arose in the 19th–21st centuries. This approach is consistent with one of the most important principles of Moscow State University — to foster fundamental and consistent university education of its graduates. Without diminishing the importance of any part of modern general economic theory, the article shows that it is political economy that forms the fundamentality and consistency of economic knowledge, constantly maintains a connection with economic development and its problems, revealing the leading role of an individual in the digital intellectual age.

Comparative historical political economy (CHPE) is an analytical approach to understanding social practices. That approach is not development specific, and many applications of it are not motivated by development questions. Despite that, such applications often generate development-pertinent insights. I illustrate CHPE’s approach to understanding social practices using non-development applications that nevertheless furnish lessons relevant for contemporary development.

The transition to an economic policy of high taxes, large government expenditures related to developing infrastructure and implementing social programs means the construction of a “welfare state”. Tax cuts, market liberalization, and the privatization of part of the public sector are usually associated with the neoliberal state. Achievements of scientific and technological revolution, together with exogenous shocks of the 1970s (energy crisis and the collapse of the Bretton Woods system), led to the economic collapse of the welfare state. Most rich countries have undergone a transition to neoliberalism, accompanied by fragmentation and reduction in the share of the middle class. These processes have led to the replacement of stable democratic majorities with situational coalitions of minorities formed on most important political issues. The global 2008–2009 financial crisis is interpreted by many economists as a collapse of neoliberal economic policy. However, unlike the crisis of the 1970s, which led to the rejection of the welfare state, and the crisis of 1989–1992, which led to the rejection of Marxism in most former socialist countries, neoliberalism has not been rejected. Criticism of neoliberalism has become respectable, the authorities have stopped using the old rhetoric, but in the economic policy of most countries everything remains outwardly the same. At the same time, a number of phenomena in the modern economy suggest that much is changing, but economists cannot notice it due to the “blind spot” effect. Segregation processes are unfolding in the 21st century. Racism based on biological characteristics is considered immoral. However, the practices of social racism, which lead to a sharp slowdown in both vertical and horizontal mobility, while accelerating the processes of social differentiation of society, are tacitly approved by many social groups. New political economy is a discipline that allows us to characterize and analyze these processes. The practices of social segregation are becoming more widespread, but they do not exist in the economic mainstream, as well as in the official political discourse.

The pursuit of dynamic and inclusive economic development is a common goal for countries worldwide. The 2024 Nobel laureates in Economics, Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, posited that institutions are endogenous and are the fundamental determinant of development success or failure. However, the authors argue that their hypothesis does not align with crosssectional and historical evidence. From the perspective of New Structural Economics, this paper contends that a comparative-advantage-following development strategy is the key to an economy's dynamic growth and equitable income distribution. Institutions, including aspects such as corruption, openness, and expropriation risks, are themselves endogenous to the choice of development strategies. The authors’ proposition is supported by cross-country empirical evidence. Finally, the paper points out that for a developing country's government, adopting a comparative-advantage-following development strategy is more conducive to guiding the country's economic development than adopting an inclusive institution as proposed by Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson. This is because an exogenously imposed institution is unlikely to be effective.

The article raises the problem of generalizing critical assessments of modern economics in the context of ontological, epistemological, methodological and ideological components of the paradigm of economic theory. The paper shows crisis manifestations of all four components at the current stage of world economic development. The methodological basis of the study are modern Western concepts of a new paradigm of economic theory, such as the multilevel paradigm and the “embedded” economy, as well as the original author's concept of cyclical modification of the dominant paradigm depending on the cyclical change of phases of long-term technological and world economic development. The author shows that the locomotive role of production technologies and protectionism contribute to the final discrediting of previous economic orthodoxy and clear the way for a new paradigm of economic theory. The phase of the locomotive role of transport technologies and the phase of free trade provide a “golden age” for the dominant orthodoxy, which attributes to itself the results of economic growth and welfare gains achieved within these phases by maximizing the scale effect. The phase of information technologies and the accompanying phase of globalism reveal significant paradigmatic shortcomings of the dominant orthodoxy, which, however, are temporarily mixed by incorporating the ideas of ontologically close, but epistemologically different economic schools. The author argues that the completion of the cycle of long-term technological and world economic development, consisting of the three specified phases, prepares the transition to a new paradigm and a new dominant orthodoxy of economic theory. The important role of the ideological (apologetic) component in the evolution of the paradigm at each phase is substantiated in the form of a change in the dominant political and economic groups that act as customers of the corresponding theories. The findings suggest that the new industrial revolution and the new world economic order are giving rise to a new elite layer — “industrial digitalists” — interested in a radical change in the paradigm of economic theory.

The purpose of the paper is to consider some of established mechanisms of economic growth in modern Russia and possible prospects for their development. Formation of these mechanisms is linked to an important specific feature of our country, i.e. preserved market nature of the economy (especially regarding price mechanism) combined with the growing role of the state as a regulator of economic activity, which provides direct support to certain industries or enterprises. Due to this combination, the economic growth has two “engines”. The first, the market one, is switched on by the reaction of economic agents (primarily entrepreneursinvestors and banks) to the changes in demand structure, caused by societal (especially demographic) development trends. The second, the state support one, is switched on by political decision of the government, which decides to support this or that industry or region. Normally these two engines do not work in the same direction, since generally it is unreasonable for the state to spend limited budget resources on supporting those who have successfully caught the trend and is actively growing on its own. Nevertheless, based on performance analysis of some state support programs, the paper claims that sometimes — due to either political decision or incomplete foresight — the state support contributes to growth in spheres that would grow even without such support. This results in the emergence of economic resonance, i.e. the combination of state support and market forces working in the same direction. Such resonance may lead to fast economic growth, especially in case when the state support involves “simple” mass investments, occurred in the economic sector defined as the “simple things’ economy”. Drawing on the Strategy of Spatial Development of Russia and relevant demographic trends, the paper makes certain forecasts on most probable effects of the economic resonance in the forthcoming years.

The paper analyzes the impact of the model of MSU Economics faculty on forming the system of teaching political economy in China in the 1950s. The focus of the research is on the activities of MSU economists at the People’s University of China (V. A. Zhamin, N. K. Karataev) and Peking University (Ya. S. Kumachenko). The study is based on the materials in Chinese that reveal little-known aspects of the work of Soviet economists in China. In Russia, this topic has not been sufficiently studied, while in China negative assessments of the borrowed Soviet model of economic education prevailed for a long time. The paper is aimed at a comprehensive objective reconstruction of the processes of transferring theoretical economic knowledge and practical teaching experience from the USSR to China. The subject of the research is the forms and mechanisms of interaction between MSU teachers and the Chinese economic community, including giving lectures, compiling curricula and manuals. The author puts forward a hypothesis that mastering the Soviet model of teaching economic disciplines was due to the need to accelerate the replacement of old pre-revolutionary courses in economics with Marxist political economy, alongside the practical need to build socialist economy in China. The paper examines the contribution of MSU economists to training qualified teaching staff capable of using theoretical knowledge to analyze Chinese problems. The role of MSU teachers in establishing “teaching and research sections” (kafedry) in Chinese universities according to the Soviet model made it possible to coordinate educational work and organize scientific research. Although Chinese interest in the Soviet version of Marxist political economy declined under the influence of political changes in the second half of the 1950s, it had a long-term impact on teaching and research of economic theory in the PRC. The author concludes that the academic tradition transferred by the economists of Moscow State University in the 1950s has undergone a lasting and comprehensive sinofication.

The article examines the scientific work of Fyodor Yakovlevich Polyansky, one of the founding fathers of the Department of History of National Economy and Economic Doctrines, whose 75th anniversary was celebrated at MSU Economics Faculty in 2024. The task is to reveal the scientific contribution of Professor Polyansky to the history of economic thought. Drawing on a detailed study of the texts, the author analyzes the achievements of this scholar in interpreting economic ideas of Antiquity, the Middle Ages, Modern and Contemporary Times. It is argued that in science, F. Ya. Polyansky was a consistent Marxist who studied social motives of economic doctrines, carried out the principle of scientific historicism, evaluating the content of a particular concept taking into account the real circumstances of the era. The author emphasizes that freedom from eclecticism does not interfere with the richness and meaningfulness of his historical and economic analysis and highlights F. Ya. Polyansky strive for fundamentality as a fundamental quality of his scientific activity. This property manifests itself in his work on university-level courses. It was Professor Polyansky who initiated the preparation of the World History of Economic Doctrines (in six volumes). He was also the author of the main structure of the publication, and managed to write a number of chapters and paragraphs for it. It should be noted that not everything in the ideological heritage of F. Ya. Polyansky has retained its value. From today’s standpoint, there are comments on both the form and content of his publications, especially in terms of polemics with ideological opponents. The paper concludes that the scholar's contribution to science is determined not by individual weaknesses, but by strong and profound provisions of his works that have retained their relevance.

The article examines the historiographical concept of a prominent Soviet scholar, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, head of the Department of History of National Economy and Economic Studies at the Faculty of Economics of Lomonosov Moscow State University in 1958–1982 Fyodor Yakovlevich Polyansky. Based on a textual analysis of his published works, it is shown that F. Ya. Polyansky occupied independent positions on many important issues of the economic history of West European Middle Ages and Russia during the genesis of capitalism and defended them throughout his scientific and pedagogical activity. The research reveals and characterizes the views and conclusions of F. Ya. Polyansky on such issues as the genesis of feudalism, the content of feudal synthesis, the constituent features of feudalism, the economic policy of workshops in West European countries, the role of commodity production and the law of value in the feudal economy, the initial accumulation of capital in Russia, the economic system of Russian manufacture. The findings underscore the great contribution of F. Ya. Polyansky to the political economy of feudalism and the relevance of his work for modern research in the field of the history of national economy

By the end of XX century the constructed complex of economic theories was used as an implicit background under the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN 2015. In fact, the actual path of global development has moved along its own path. Collective efforts of economic policies to pull this path onto an attractive trajectory of well-being and sustainability were not very successful. Global governance crisis and evolving geopolitical conflicts had completed disillusionment. It is time to recognize the SDG idea as a quite positive by intentions but utopia. Actual condition and character of development have been undergoing different crises but pessimism should not drive us to a widespread hopelessness. Mankind – it appears – will not reach in this century either interstate or social equality, or stable climate with +1,5 C, or wellbeing for expected ten billion inhabitants of our planet. None of radical objectives of any social theories – pretending to dominate our thinking – will be achieved. And the very dream of utopia should be considered as a utopia. It is reasonable to recognize the fact that we do not fully realize global socio-economic forces. To create future realistic program of a global development it would be reasonable to initiate the program which we call “Critical analysis of the theoretical background of SDG”. As the decade of global governance destruction has demonstrated, no success can be expected without coordination of countries in the accepted logistic. The findings demonstrate the need for elaborating applied economic theories oriented towards a coordinated global survival.

The paper addresses the issue of demographic growth facing Russia, which, against the background of the ongoing global demographic transformation, is assuming an existential importance for the country. The purpose of the article is to examine the specifics of Russia’s place in the global demographic and geopolitical system, as well as the challenges and opportunities generated by the 21st century. To achieve this goal, the article uses a scenario approach that allows us to consider alternative demographic forecasts for Russia and show the country’s place in the case of both development options. The results show that the inertial scenario will move Russia from the current 9th place in the international demographic ranking to the 15th in the early 2050s, thereby losing its status of a giant country with corresponding international prestige. Implementing a proactive scenario based on demographic expansion of the population, Russia will be able to move from 9th place in the international demographic ranking to 7 h thereby significantly strengthen its geopolitical position. The demographic challenge for Russia is compounded by the fact that countries with large populations sooner or later become economic and technological leaders, quickly overcoming the technological lag from more developed countries. This acceleration is based on the technological paradox discovered by the authors, which consists in a contradiction between averaged macroeconomic indicators and stylized facts at microand meso levels. A typical manifestation of this paradox is the China–USA pair, which has achieved approximate technological parity against the background of a multiple lag of China in terms of per capita GDP. Applied calculations make it possible to rethink the importance of demographic advantages of giant countries in a new way, which has long been denied by the orthodox position on the primacy of technology over demography. The findings emphasize the expediency of implementing super efforts on the part of Russia to implement the demographic expansion scenario.

This article examines the political economy of green protectionism as an emerging phenomenon in global trade, in which environmental objectives are combined with the goals of maintaining domestic industry and ensuring technological sovereignty. The central hypothesis is that the evolving regime of green protectionism represents a shift toward a model of selective market access, where entry is conditioned on compliance with environmental and technological standards unilaterally defined by the world’s largest economies. The aim of the study is to analyze the policy instruments employed by major economies to reshape the architecture of international trade by integrating climate objectives into industrial policy. The article focuses on a comparative analysis of key initiatives such as the European Green Deal (EGD), the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), drawing on sources from the WTO, UNCTAD, UNEP, UNIDO and official regulatory documents. The author systematizes the stages in developing green protectionism, identifies its core instruments, and highlights the distinctive features of current measures, including their extraterritorial impact and implications for developing countries. Special emphasis is placed on the drivers underlying the convergence between climate and industrial policy into a unified regulatory framework, and on the contrasting approaches of the European Union and the United States in shaping the new rules of global competition. The study concludes that green policy is increasingly being used as a strategic tool through which leading economies seek to consolidate their technological and economic dominance.

Modern educational programs are focused not only on providing subject knowledge, but also on developing a wide range of skills and values. At the same time, graduates often indicate that the link between the subjects studied and future employment remains unclear, while employers emphasize the lack of developed ‘soft skills’ in job seekers. The purpose of the study: to evaluate which skills and knowledge gained from economic education are related to socioeconomic benefits of graduates and to identify which value orientations contribute to mastering these skills and knowledge. Drawing on OLS-regressions and ordinal logistic regressions as modeling methods, the authors conducted a survey of 451 graduates of the Economics Faculty of Lomonosov Moscow State University (1993–2023). Obtaining practical knowledge and skills is positively related to five dependent variables out of six (getting in-demand profession, salary, forming connections, forming a network of like-minded people, career growth), while obtaining theoretical knowledge is positively related to only two (getting in-demand profession and competitiveness). Among soft skills, teamwork, adaptability, efficiency, and ability to accept criticism showed a positive relationship with one or more of the dependent variables. The coefficients in front of the variables reflecting the ability to learn, oral presentation skills, and the ability to find information were not significant in any of the models. Respondents' personal values explain about 30% of the variation in knowledge and skills acquired. Openness, desire for self-development and independence are positively related to most of educational outcomes. Unlike other studies, attention is paid to both skills and knowledge formed during training and the personal values of graduates. The obtained results can be used in drawing up educational programs.

The article analyzes the development of the theory of industrial crises in Russian economics. The author considers the stages in forming basic theoretical positions that reveal the causes of the development of economic instability and the periodic recurrence of industrial crises. The task is to highlight the most striking and scientifically sound conclusions of well-known representatives of Moscow University, who have made a profound impact on the development of the theory of crises. Acquaintance with the scientific ideas of I. K. Babst, A. I. Chuprov, A. N. Miklashevsky, A. A. Manuylov, S. A. Pervushin, I. A. Trakhtenberg, Z. S. Katsenelenbaum leads modern economists through the “labyrinths” of their scientific laboratory (the second half of the XIX — early XX centuries), bringing closer to understanding the mechanisms of instability and a clear representation the systemic consequences of the disruption of economic ties during the crisis. A. I. Chuprov, S. A. Pervushin, I. A. Trachtenberg linked the beginning of preparations for the global crisis with the migration of loan capital free of border visas and the expansion of credit relations: “the chain of debt obligations now connects the farms of not only one country, but the whole world”. This statement by A. I. Chuprov reveals one of the key symptoms of the crisis. The author argues that the characteristic feature of the research of Russian economists was an integrated approach to the study of the process of cyclical economic development. The article shows that the systemic approach of Russian economists to the phenomenon of economic instability contributed to the formation of a multidimensional idea of the interaction of microand macroeconomic factors in the industrial cycle, developing a multifaceted macroeconomic understanding of economic processes.

Since its founding, Moscow University has set the tone for a whole bunch of research in economics, looking at the role of university science in Russian and global economic thought, its uniqueness, and the way the university's social functions, statutes, and educational policies have influenced the development of science. In this review of the conference held at the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University on December 2–3, 2024, timed to coincide with the 270th anniversary of Moscow University and the 75th anniversary of the Department of History of Economy and Economic Thought, an attempt has been made to systematize the views of the conference participants expressed in their reports on history, characteristics, and prospects for the development of university economic disciplines. To this end, the author summarizes and systematizes the views of the speakers on the stages of evolution of university economic thought, the specifics of the political-economic discourse of the Soviet period, and the place of Moscow university school in world economic science. The paper identifies the uniqueness of the university economic tradition, rooted in history and consisting of pronounced interdisciplinarity, systematicity, attention to regional characteristics, and the importance of applied research. The views of conference participants on the functions of universities, in particular as a special scientific platform to carry out complex research and projects at the intersection of disciplines, are summarized. In connection with the historical perspective of the conference, the views of the speakers are analyzed separately.