Browsing by Author "Elomaa, Antti"

In the study the present is mirrored to the past in the Russian economy with focus on similarities in the fields of investment/capital, knowledge/technology and entrepreneurship. The periods were 1894 to 1914 and 2000 to 2020. The fields appeared as central factors in programs for economic modernization in 1890s and the 2000s. It was assumed, that there would be major similarities in the studied areas in the two periods. The hypothesis was tested by applying roughly the hypothetico-deductive method while utilizing freely the theories of Anthony Giddens. The material consisted primarily of secondary sources. Major similarities in investments were the primacy of defence and the transport sector, pipelines in the 2000s and before 1914 railways. Both served the export of raw materials, grain respective hydrocarbons. The incomes from these main export products were largely invested into the transport sector and the defence of the huge territory. The state remained the main actor steering largely investments in a way that increased the defence capability of the country, the railways having a military function. In both periods a strict monetary policy was conducted. In the field of knowledge, the structures favoured creation of theoretical knowledge but not of innovations. While private entrepreneurship remained important, the state became the main actor in the economy promoting modernization. In the earlier period it implemented an economic program whose main factors were the building of railways, attracting foreign investments and maintaining high custom barriers. In the 2000s the lack of one single program was compensated by the generally greater role of the state, state companies and the huge state-owned defence industry. The custom barriers were initially lowered, but in the 2010s the policy of import substitution and devaluation of the rouble brought similarities to the former system. In both periods the wealth and military power of the country grew from the initial level. Yet the results were far from the ambitious goals set. The systems remained monopolistic, relatively inefficient and disinterested of inventions, with corruption, bribery and dishonest business practices. The border between state and private sectors was blurred. Subsidies provided mainly by the export of raw materials bolstered the systems. These features could be seen as obstacles for economic modernization. To verify whether they all are would require including more theory of economic modernization. Both in good and bad, the structures of the two periods seem so much alike even on a detailed level, that one could suspect partial imitation of the past in the 2000s. The similarities could as well be due to long-term structures of Russia, be they cultural, institutional, geographical or geopolitical. They could result either from direct continuities from earlier periods or features that re-emerge due to a change of conditions. Mentions of similar traits in other periods of the Russian history might indicate the predominance of structural causes, making quick changes difficult. A more plausible explanation would require the widening of the study to include more countries and time periods.