Theoretical and methodological approaches to the formation of anti-crisis economic policy

UDC 338.2
Publication date: 30.11.2019
International Journal of Professional Science №11-2019

Theoretical and methodological approaches to the formation of anti-crisis economic policy

Теоретико-методологические подходы к формированию антикризисной экономической политики

Ayrapetyan M. S.
Feshina S. S.
Slavyanov A.S.

1. Dr. of Economics, Professor -
Russian presidential Academy of national economy and public administration
2. Candidate of Economics, Associate Professor of the Department
Financial Univercity
3. Candidate of Economics, Associate Professor of the Department –
Moscow State Technical University N.E. Bauman
Abstract: The article discusses the causes of the" long crisis " of the Russian economy and the world crises of 2007-2009. and methods of economic management in times of instability. The analysis of traditional approaches to the formation of anti – crisis policy-Keynesian and neoclassical. The specifics of the Russian economy do not allow to fully use the recommendations of traditional approaches. It is noted that Russia has not yet formed full-fledged subjects and objects of management, which makes it difficult to exit the economy from the crisis. When forming anti-crisis policy, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of culture and institutions for economic results and their impact on the economic process. Recommendations on synchronization of political and economic cycles, reduction of import dependence and transition to long-term Pro-cyclical policy and management system are given in the work.
Keywords: financial crisis, economic cycles, subjects and objects of management, capital, import dependence, economic policy.

Introduction After carrying out political and economic reforms, Russia was integrated into the world economic system, which itself was in an extremely unstable state. Having barely recovered from the devastating oil crisis of 1973, the industrialized countries of the world entered a new world crisis of 1997-1998, caused by the collapse of a number of Asian exchanges. The opening of the markets of Eastern Europe and the collapsed USSR for a decade suffered another crisis of the market system. In the future, crises of various types began to shake the world economy every year more often [1]. While industrialized countries endured the negative effects of the crisis relatively painlessly, the consequences of each crisis in developing countries were catastrophic.

Methodology As it is known, in the world theory and practice of management there are two main approaches to anti-crisis policy: neo-Keynesian and neoclassical [2]. However, in Russia, any of these approaches will be ineffective for two fundamental reasons. The first reason is the lack of full-fledged objects of economic policy, the «weakness» of the public and private sectors of the economy. The second reason is the lack of full-fledged subjects of economic policy, the «weakness» of state and corporate governance systems. This «weakness» and autonomy – the isolation of subjects and objects of management-hide the sources of crisis and recovery in the economy. Therefore, these phenomena create an imbalance of direct and indirect regulation. As a result – forced «manual control». This means that any anti-crisis policy measures are effective only after the creation of full-fledged subjects and objects of state and corporate governance in Russia. There are no such objects and subjects of management – there is no management itself. Moreover, the fundamental condition for the effectiveness of anti-crisis policy is the «temporary existence» of subjects and objects of management. Thus, the subjects of management exist within the framework of political cycles, and the objects of management-economic cycles, which is one of the reasons for the contradictions between politics and Economics. The problem is that political and economic cycles in Russia exist autonomously and asynchronously. In industrialized countries, such cycles are interconnected and synchronized, which is a key condition for the development of these countries [3]. It is the absence of full-fledged subjects and objects of management, as well as the asynchrony of political and economic cycles – various «time fields» of objects and subjects of management – that block Russia’s exit from the «long economic crisis», regardless of the «planned» growth rates of economic parameters. This means that Russia needs not only the formation of full-fledged subjects and objects of governance, but also the synchronization of political and economic cycles, the creation of a single «long time field» of their existence. But such a mechanism is quite thin, it requires constant «tuning». Without it-any, even the «best» economic – anti-crisis-policy will be ineffective.

Modern foreign and domestic methodologies for analysis and forecasting of macroeconomic processes, as well as the economic policy and law formed and implemented on their basis, are generally non-systemic and mainly subjective in nature, since they are developed, as a rule, on the basis of timeless and/or extra-spatial economic models [4]. Hence, it is clear why these models include mainly abstract conditions, as well as a chaotic, random and uncertain set of secondary principles and directions of economic development, the direct result of which is the lack of sufficiently accurate, systematic and interrelated forecasts of economic development. Existing models of macroeconomic processes, which are based on standard quantitative methods of analysis and forecasting of economic development, are practically unacceptable. First of all, it concerns either the definition of qualitative and quantitative estimates of past, current and future States of economic development, or these methods are implemented only partially with the assumption of many accompanying errors in management decision-making and associated economic losses. The theoretical and practical unacceptability of these models is associated with incorrect conceptual attempts to identify the main patterns and trends of economic development, mainly, assessing the duration of its periods on the basis of purely economic methods of the analysis and forecasting of economic development, through Autonomous economic studies with relevant economic parameters.

Result and discussion The non-systemic and subjective nature of modern economic models is determined mainly by the following basic features of quantitative analysis and forecasting of economic development, which are associated with the power-opposition dichotomy and therefore have a political and legal character: — official bodies of state power in order to preserve their own identity tend to overestimate the achieved and projected quantitative values of the state and pace of economic development; — opposition to this power in order to preserve their own identity and, accordingly, coming to state power shows, as a rule, the opposite trend, that is, the tendency to underestimate the current government and the projected quantitative values of the state and the pace of economic development. Therefore, the conceptual basis of policy and law of state power should be based on the methodology of economic recovery, the ideology of positivity.

The opposition to the government is based on the methodology of the economic crisis, the ideology of negativity and, accordingly, on the tactical denial of the economic recovery [5]. But what is characteristic-in both cases there is a denial of economic cycles. This approach also manifests itself in the subjective definition of periods of «economic upswings» and «economic crises», which are based, in General, on empirical calculations of characteristics. These characteristics include the duration of economic development, or periods of economic cycles, the calculation base of which are individual or a limited number of quantitative economic parameters [6]. Thus, although it is this duality of the principles of analysis and forecasting of economic development (overestimation and underestimation of the values of its States and rates) is one of the key. The same applies to permanent and objective factors of economic development, the implementation of which is due to periodic mutual transformation (change of subjects of power and opposition) [7]. These factors determine the need for a qualitative, in General, neutral approach to solving many problems of economic development, including the formation and implementation of economic policy and law. The need for a qualitative approach to the analysis and forecasting of economic development is determined by the fact that systemic cyclic fluctuations of economic parameters include local cyclic increases and decreases in the values of economic parameters. They reflect the multidirectional dynamics of cycles-many of their increases and decreases in any of the periods, which are mistakenly qualified in the framework of these models, as well as in the formation and implementation of economic policy and law as systemic «economic UPS» or «economic crises». The presence of such fluctuations, first of all, a set of such «economic crises», determines the following paradox of the formation and implementation of economic policy and law: within the economic cycle it is impossible to overcome or block all «economic crises» at the same time.

In fact, this applies only to local cyclical fluctuations in the values of economic parameters. As measures against one «economic crisis» at the same time (or with delay) is of the economic system to another «economic crisis», a local identification of cyclical fluctuations in selected economic parameters, occurring over the entire economic cycle, from system cyclic fluctuations of economic system and leads to the formation of erroneous conclusions about the permanent «economic crisis». This indicates their ineffectiveness or the need to minimize the importance and role of the state and its economic policy and law and, consequently, the absence of periodic economic cycles. Thus, the formation and implementation of effective economic policy and law depend mainly on the consistency and adequacy of the underlying economic model, that is, on the methodology of analysis and forecasting of economic development, including macroeconomic processes. The lack of theoretical and applied research to determine the economic processes that occur within one or a number of economic cycles, as well as opportunities to determine their main characteristics, mainly the duration of these processes, determines the subjective qualification of individual periods of economic development and their States as random, erroneous or as periods of economic chaos. Accordingly, this determines the need for a radical change in the currently accepted theoretical and applied ideas about the content and objectives of the analysis and forecasting of macroeconomic processes, which includes, first of all, their objectification and systematization. This is possible if these processes are studied within the framework of periodic economic cycles, that is, not only within the framework of States of economic equilibrium and / or growth, but also economic recession.

To implement anti-crisis policy, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of culture and institutions for economic results and their impact on the economic process is becoming increasingly relevant. This is of great importance at different levels and especially in the process of transition of the economy from a non-stationary regime to a stationary one [8].

The most important element of anti-crisis policy should be considered import dependence of strategic sectors of the economy. To reduce the impact of this negative factor, it is necessary to establish control over foreign capital [9] and direct funds to the development of their own high-tech industries [10].

Summary In such conditions, the main task of Russia’s domestic and foreign policy is to increase the Pro-cyclical adaptive capacity of the economy and politics to global cyclical fluctuations, reducing the influence of random and subjective factors on them. As a result-in active inclusion in the world economic and political trends and the transition from «manual control» to a sustainable long-term-Pro-cyclical-policy and management system. Such a transition excludes the possibility of stagnation, autarky or disintegration of Russia through the creation of state and corporate structures resistant to economic and political crises, the formation and reproduction of the mechanism of economic and political development within synchronous cycles. And these measures should be taken before the next synchronous crisis. Their main goal is to prepare for such a crisis, to stop the growing «push» of resources, capital, income and working-age population from the country, to block the achievement of such a push «critical point». This is the essence of Russia’s anti-crisis policy. Such a «critical point» Matures in the conditions of destruction of the competitive environment, maintenance of mythical «stability» in the economy, reduction or stop of growth in prices for major export commodities, as well as lagging behind widely announced «planned» indicators and non-implementation of projects. The full implementation of such a policy should ensure the annual 6-7% GDP growth required before the future crisis. Otherwise, with the current 1– 2% growth, Russia will face hard times. Because the expected crisis will dramatically worsen the situation and increase all kinds of risks. Such growth would be justified if there was a real change in the structure of the economy in favor of manufacturing, high-tech industries, the construction sector, health care, agriculture. The fact is that each generation follows a certain «cyclic circle» – especially during the periods of generational change and before the» peak » of the cycle-during the entire period of economic growth, believing that it will be able to avoid a crisis in the future. But every time it inevitably repeats the mistakes of past generations and leads the world and local economy and politics to a crisis


The article was supported by The Russian Foundation for basic research, project №. 17-06-00500

Работа выполнена при поддержке Российского фонда фундаментальных исследований, проект №17-06-00500


1. Kates S. The Global Financial Crisis: What Have We Learnt? E. 256 dward Elgar Publishing, 2011, 256 p.
2. Kriton J., Savona P., Fratianni M. Global Financial Crisis: Global Impact and Solutions, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013, 348 p.
3. Elson A.The Global Financial Crisis in Retrospect: Evolution, Resolution, and Lessons for Prevention. Springer, 2017, 255 p.
4. U. Hacioğlu, H. Dinçer Global Financial Crisis and Its Ramifications on Capital Markets: Opportunities and Threats in Volatile Economic Conditions
5. Aslund A. Russia's Crony Capitalism: The Path from Market Economy to Kleptocracy. Yale University Press, 2019, 320 p.
6. Sharpe M. Problems of Economic Transition, Problems of Economic Transition, Volume 52, Issues 1-8, 2011. 172 p.
7. Myant M., Drahokoupil J. Transition Economies after 2008: Responses to the crisis in Russia and Eastern Europe, Routledge, 2014. 211 p.
8. Yerznkyan B.H. The importance of the cultural and institutional contexts for managing the development process // New trends and best practices in socioeconomic research / Book of abstracts. Podgorica, Montenegro: ELTR, 2019. P. 46.
9. Khrustalev E.Y., Slavyanov A.S. Formation problems of an investment strategy in innovation-oriented economic growth // Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2011. Т. 22. № 3. p. 237-244.
10. Slavyanov A. S., Khrustalev E. Yu. Dependence on imports as a threat to innovative development of the Russian manufacturing sector // Digest Finance. 2019. Vol. 24. № 2 (250). p.p. 124-134.