Models of industrialization with the cumulative effect of the economic policy pursued in Russia

In the pre-sanctions period in the development of the Russian economy, the task of its industrialization caused scientific and political discussions. However, the issue of organizing the growth of a new quality, open economic wars and sanctions only increased its relevance. The purpose of the study is to typify the models of industrialization of the Russian economy that would be consistent with the general task of stimulating economic growth, taking into account the cumulative effect of the ongoing economic policy, which manifests itself not only at the macroeconomic level, but also in the implementation of sectoral government measures. The task was also a theoretical substantiation of the cumulative effect of state policy on development goals. The research methodology is based on the theory of economic growth and economic policy, the author’s theory of economic system restructuring; it involves the use of econometric, taxonomic, comparative empirical analysis. The general result of the study is that, firstly, the introduction of a concept of various options for the cumulative effect and the strength of economic policy instruments; secondly, the confirmation of technological stagnation in the Russian economy, at least in civil industries, what is requiring active industrialization, reduced to technological re-equipment; thirdly, obtaining conditions for assessing the growth of the economy during its industrialization, which is reduced to the growth of the sector of means of production, which creates them for its own functioning and ensuring other types of activity. The model of industrialization as a restructuring is also shown, acceptable deindustrialization and passive industrialization are highlighted depending on the dynamics of the consumer sector. The ambiguity of the choice of the industrialization model at the theoretical level of analysis is confirmed, what provides a difficult choice when developing an appropriate policy, when it is necessary to take into account the cumulative effect. Thus, the perspective of the study is the refinement of specific instruments of industrial policy by industry with the identification of their current and potential force of use, in terms of achieving the goal of industrialization and economic growth.

1. Andreoni, A. and Chang, H.-J. (2019), “The political economy of industrial policy: Structural interdependencies, policy alignment and conflict management”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 48, iss. C, pp. 136–150.

2. Crafts, N. (2005), “The First Industrial Revolution: Resolving the Slow Growth. Rapid Industrialization Paradox. Papers and Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Congress of the European Economic Association”, Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 3, no. 2/3, pp. 525–534.

3. Erlikh, A. (2010), Diskussii ob industrializatsii v SSSR. 1924–1928 [Discussions about industrialization in the USSR. 1924–1928], Delo ANKh, Moscow, Russia.

4. Freire, C. (2019), “Economic diversification: A model of structural economic dynamics and endogenous technological change”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 49, pp. 13–28.

5. Gabardo, F.A., Pereima, J.B. and Einloft, P. (2017), “The incorporation of structural change into growth theory: A historical appraisal”, EconomyA, vol. 18, iss. 3, pp. 392–410.

6. Glaziev, S.Yu. (2022a), “How monetary policy depresses economic growth in Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union”, Russian Economic Journal, no. 2, pp. 4–20.

7. Glaziev, S.Yu. (2022b), “Management of innovative processes in the new technological and world economic structures”, Economic Revival of Russia, no. 2 (72), pp. 24–27. Jevons, H.S. (1931), “The Second Industrial Revolution Source”, The Economic Journal, vol. 41, no. 161, pp. 1–18.

8. Kuo, C.-C., Shyu, J.Z. and Ding, K. (2019), “Industrial revitalization via industry 4.0 – A comparative policy analysis among China, Germany and the USA”, Global Transitions, vol. 1, pp. 3–14.

9. L’vov, D.S. (2002), Ekonomika razvitiya [Development Economics], Ekzamen, Moscow, Russia.

10. Lu, Y. (2017), “Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues”, Journal of Industrial Information Integration, vol. 6, pp. 1–10.

11. Mikul’skii, K.I. (2017), “Russia in Search of a Model of Economic Growth”, Society and Economics, no. 3–4, pp. 5–15.

12. Philbeck, T. and Davis, T. (2019), “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”, Journal of International Affairs, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 17–22.

13. Rifkin, J. (2011), The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World, St. Martin’s Griffin Pbl., N.Y., USA.

14. Romano, L. and Traù, F. (2017), “The nature of industrial development and the speed of structural change”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 42, pp. 26–37.

15. Sukharev, o.S. (2013), “Economic policy of reindustrialization of Russia. opportunities and limitations”, National Interests: Priorities and Security, no. 24 (213), pp. 2–24.

16. Sukharev, o.S. (2015), Ekonomicheskaya dinamika. Institutsional’nye i strukturnye faktory [Economic dynamics. Institutional and structural factors], Lenand, Moscow, Russia

17. Sukharev, o.S. (2016), Teoriya restrukturizatsii ekonomiki [Theory of economy restructuring], Lenand, Moscow, Russia.

18. Vaidyaa, S., Ambadb, P. and Bhosle, S. (2018), “Industry 4.0 – A Glimpse. 2nd International Conference on Materials Manufacturing and Design Engineering”, Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 20, pp. 233–238.