• Mst. Afanasiev - Results-Based Budgeting (New Tendencies)
• I. Dezhina - Reform of the Budgetary Organizations in Science (Experience, Scope, Risks)

     The question of limits of state burden on the economy is considered in the article. In the countries - leaders of economic growth in XIX century taxation was minimal (approximately 8% of GDP). But during the First World War it sharply increased. The economic crisis of the 1930s expanded scales of intervention of the state in the economy. The fastest growth of taxes was observed during the Second World War and in the post-war period attempts to lower tax burden were not undertaken. State burden on the economy continued to grow up to the end of the 1980's (up to 50% of GDP and more) and modern liberal tendencies could only slow down the growth of taxes. In socialist countries tax burden was traditionally high - close to 50% of GDP, that is the limit for developed countries. In East-European countries it remains at a high level, also due to the necessity to carry out social obligations inherent to EU. In the CIS countries the transformational crisis lasted longer, so tax burden was fixed at lower level. The question of direct influence of state expenditures on rates of economic growth remains unsolved but there are limits of taxation for each level of per capita GDP: when taxes reach them rates of growth slow down.

     The articles by the experts of the Association of Studies of Public Economics analyze the situation with firms of the state sector of the Russian economy along three directions:
- qualitative analysis of Russian and foreign experience in governing the public sector of the economy;
- institutional and legal analysis of state unitary enterprises (SUEs);
- comparative statistical analysis of performance indicators of public and private firms in Russia.
     On the basis of Russian and foreign experience authors study unsuccessful attempts to create effective forms of state entrepreneurship, argue the impossibility to make positive incentives for managers within the system of "bureaucratic entrepreneurship" and the necessity to limit state intervention into economic activity by a small number of public goods which cannot be provided by markets. Authors give a number of examples of various forms of inefficient governance and misuse of public property in modern Russia. Authors study the evolution of the legal form of SUEs which was created in the Soviet-type economy, perspectives of its existence in the modern Russian legislation. They prove the contradictory nature of SUEs and make conclusion about the inevitability of transformation of this sector of the Russian economy.
     The results of performance indicators comparison of private and public enterprises are contradictory. Federal SUEs show significantly better results than private firms in return on sales, liquidity and financial stability though return on labor and capital (labor productivity and return on assets) is lower in the SUEs. At the same time corporations with a majority block of shares in the hands of the federal government (which are similar to the SUEs in many aspects) are the worst performers among all types of firms with state participation. Authors attempt to explain these contradictions.

     Russia's financial requirements in respect to foreign countries have considerably lowered during recent years without noticeable return for the country's budget. Different assessments of the value of foreign financial assets are considered in the article and main reasons that have led to their lowering are revealed. The state policy in the field is critically analyzed, alternative variants of increasing the effectiveness of foreign financial assets realization are offered.

     The article continues the discussion on the urgency of Marx's ideas for modern Russia started in No 5 and 6 by the article of E. Gajdar and V. Mau "Marxism: between the Scientific Theory and "Secular Religion" (Liberal Apologia)" and continued in No 7 by the article of A. Buzgalin and A. Kolganov "Do We Need Liberal Marxism? " In the first part of the article questions of economic theory, first of all the difference in treatment of the category of production relations between Marx and domestic scientists are considered. The author pays attention to treatment of the category "direct producer": for Marx this one is the businessman making economic decisions and responsible for their success with his property. Besides it is underlined that Marx had not finished the work on the second and the third volumes of "Capital", and most likely the marginalist revolution could have played a leading role here. Inadequate translation of some of the terms in Russian (sometimes deliberate) can also be blamed for distortion of Marx's heritage.
     To the author's opinion initial installation is important in consideration of Marx's theory: the choice of political approach exaggerates revolutional ideas of his doctrine (at the end of his life Marx had rejected many ideas and called "Manifest" "party excrement of twenty years' prescription"). The scientific approach will allow the scientist for example to continue the analysis of submission of labor to capital, to investigate qualitative aspects of the labor theory of cost.

     This article considers the basic tendencies of development of trade and economic cooperation of the two countries with accent on increasing volumes and consolidating trade and economic ties in Russian-Chinese relations. The author compares Russian and Chinese participation in the world economy and analyzes the counter trade from the point of view of basic commodity groups.

     Taiwan experience of SME development has attracted attention of the international organization "Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation" which carried a number of actions to study similar experience. The article covers issues of the history of SME development in Taiwan, forms, methods and directions of its support on the part of political power as well as successful stories. The study of foreign experience in the field of SME development, its creative application in Russia are important for establishing conditions for the construction of a strong social state and a knowledge based society.

     The focus of public sector budgeting in many countries has changed from input budgeting to results-based one which calculates how many services or products are being produced. Main definitions and elements of the new concept, its advantages and the history of development are presented. The problems of using performance budgeting in Russia and other countries and ways of their resolving are described.

     The article deals with the issue of reform of budgetary organizations in the science sector in Russia as an important prerequisite for creation of a market-oriented national innovation system. Quantitative characteristics of the network of budgetary organizations are analyzed as well as the directions of changes and specificity of government measures aimed at transformation of the budgetary sector. Scenarios of possible reforms are suggested and potential consequences and risks of delayed reforms are analyzed.