• I. Borisova, B. Zamaraev, A. Kiyutsevskaya, A. Nazarova, E. Sukhanov — Russian Economy in 2009: Break Neck Fall and Slow Restoration
• O. Dmitrieva, N. Petukhova, D. Ushakov — The Transition from Distributive Pension System to Accumulative Type: The Results and Efficiency Forecast
• O. Solntsev, A. Pestova, M. Mamonov — Stress-testing Russian Banking System: Will Banks Need Government Assistance Again?

• Yu. Goland — Russian Reforms: Comparing the New Economic Policy Period to Post-Soviet Russia

• K. Korishchenko, I. Solovyeva — New Challenges in Regulation of the Financial Sector under the Crisis
• I. Kovzanadze — Crisis Lessons: A New Model of Regulation of Economy Is Needed

• L. Grigoriev, S. Agibalov — The Baltic States: In Search of the Way out of the Crisis

• To the Unified Space of Russian Economic Science (An Interview with A. Ya. Rubinstein, the First Deputy Director, Institute of Economics, RAS)

• E. Bukhvald, V. Pogrebinskaya — The Researcher of the Problems of Reproduction and National Economy Planning (To the Centenary of G. M. Sorokin, a Noted Soviet Economist)

• A. Molodtsov, V. Popov, E. Skorikov, A. Turkov — Agrotowns and Development of Depressed Regions

Abstracts

The article considers the evolution of some branches of modern economic theory from the perspective of the author’s biography as a scientist and his professional formation. It describes problems of econometrics, general equilibrium theory, uncertainty, economics of information, and growth. It is shown how different authors representing various fields came to similar conclusions simultaneously and independently, what were the problems, in response to which economists of the second half of last century developed their theories, and what were the contexts of such development.

The effect of the world financial crisis on the Russian economy in 2008—2009 is analyzed in the article. The external shock led to changes in the mechanism of monetary supply in the model of economic development based on exports of raw materials. The dynamics and parameters of production, gross fixed investment, internal consumer demand and external flows are considered.

The paper presents comparative analysis of two models of pension system: accumulative and distributive (pay-as-you-go) ones based on Russian and world experience. It is shown that "the effect of dual burden" is formed within the transition period which lasts about 50 years and will reach its maximum in 22 years after the start of the reform. Under Russian conditions returns on pension capital fail to compensate for inflation and they are significantly lower than indexation of distributive pensions and wages growth rates. The model simulations have provided the following results: given the length of accumulation for 40 years; the longevity period — 19 years; employees-retirees ratio is going down, the accumulative pension system is likely to be more effective than the distributive one if returns on pension capital are not less than GDP growth rates and operational costs of the accumulative system are equal to zero. Otherwise the distributive pension system is more preferable.

The article analyzes factors that affect growth of the share of non-performing loans in the loan portfolio of Russian banks and proposes approaches for this share forecasting on the basis of dynamics of macroeconomic indicators. It also deals with methodological issues of remote stress-test of lending agencies. Using the results of conducted stress-test of Russian banks the authors assess their perspective capital needs in 2010 and estimate the share of government assistance in capital injections. Furthermore, the authors define the scale of vulnerable banks groups in the Russian banking sector.

The article compares market reforms during the New Economic Policy (NEP) period in the 1920s to Post-Soviet Russia in relation to the transformation of institutions and economic policy. The consecutive stages in the development of NEP and Post-Soviet Russia are identified. The differences in the ideology and practice of financial stabilization in both periods leading to the production growth under NEP and economic fall in the 1990s are considered. Benefits of the combination of state regulation and market relations at the first stage of NEP and the lack of such combination in the 1990s are demonstrated. At the same time, excessive state intervention in the economy led to the erosion of NEP and hampers economy efficiency in modern Russia.

The current crisis has revealed many gaps in regulation of the financial sector and emphasized the need for major changes in this area that would help to prevent similar crises in the future. Different proposals have recently been presented for discussion. However, they do not cover the whole problem due to the fact that the main task of changing regulation has not been formulated yet. А sub-task of great importance in the context of global markets is the development of supranational regulation.

The article considers the process of forming a new model of regulation of economy that has become urgent because of the most destructive crisis for the last 70 years. Major statistics of the development of the world economy in 2009 and the forecast for 2010 are presented. Basic directions of reforming the regulation system of economy offered both by separate countries and the members of G20 are analyzed. The reaction of representatives of the world political and financial elite to these proposals is shown.

Ambitious targets were set up at the start of independent development of the Baltic States. But they were met only partially. The Baltic recession which has been lasting for more than two years now and definitely will continue through this year has turned out to be the deepest in the EU. Reinforced by the global economic crisis this recession has put an end to their initial development model. Now all the three states need new ideas and a new growth strategy. Among other factors, the current crisis is rooted in active deindustrialization, politically-led privatization and politically-biased orientation only to the EU. Now it is clear that service, transit and tourism are not sufficient for sustainable growth. Closer cooperation with the East is part of the solution.