Vol 10, No 1 (2023)

The article gives the author’s interpretation of the nature and degree of influence of the events of the Time of Turmoil at the beginning of the XVII century in Russia on the evolution of the foundations and principles of Russian statehood. The author of the article notes that this problem, which is important for understanding the history of Russian statehood, has not yet received proper coverage and the necessary scientific study. Agreeing with the opinion of researchers who assess the events of the Turmoil as the first deep state crisis in the development of the country, the author of the article draws attention to the fact that modern publications do not take into account the fact that in many respects it was the tragedy of the Turmoil that predetermined many new phenomena in the state and public life of Russia, which ensured the country’s exit from the Turmoil and the restoration of state order. On the one hand, the masses, under the influence of the events of the Turmoil, began to assimilate new ideas about the relationship between the government and society that were not peculiar to them before, linking the concept of the state with the “land”, with the concept of “common benefit”. On the other hand, the Russian political elite was also forced to revise the previous methods of government and build their relations with citizens on the basis of taking into account public interests, common “zemstvo” benefits. The article substantiates the methodologically important position that it is from the events of the Turmoil that it is possible to start the formation of a new understanding of the state and state power in Russian society in their modern meaning. The author of the article leads to the idea that it was these changes in the consciousness of the masses and the behavior of the elite that became decisive for the country’s exit from the Turmoil, at the same time drawing a parallel with the Byzantine model of power, the stability of which in times of crisis was also explained by the presence of a unique state structure that connected the rigid monarchical vertical and the horizontal of developed self-government.

The understanding of the basic laws of the political history of Russia will be obviously incomplete without a scientific understanding of the role of the community (agricultural, rural, peasant) in the development of national statehood at each appropriate stage. The unity and continuity of the national history up to and including the Soviet period was ensured by the reproduction of the community in its various concrete historical forms. The way out of the most significant points of bifurcation in the history of Russia is inextricably linked with the communal tradition: the revival of the national statehood both after the overthrow of the Horde yoke, and during the overcoming of the Troubles of the beginning of the XVII century. The article is devoted to the consideration of community tradition as a long-term factor in the history of national statehood. The markers of the civilizational specificity of Russia associated with the community (attitude to private property, neighborly character) are emphasized. The view of the politogenesis of the Eastern Slavs and the statehood of the lands of pre-Mongol Russia as the formation and development of a system of subordinate communities is consistently substantiated. The inclusion of the estate self-government of the tyagly posadsky and volost worlds in the system of state administration of Moscow Russia as a grassroots administration is revealed.

Currently, there is a certain discrepancy between the theory of public administration and declarations in this area to the real state of affairs in the modern state. The purpose of the study is to search for the origins of public administration in the texts of the Hebrew Bible, as well as to compare modern principles of public administration with biblical ones in order to demonstrate the relevance of politically oriented texts of an ancient religious monument. Comparative analysis, retrospective analysis, as well as the system method were used as scientific methods in this study. The work used the texts of the Holy Scriptures, as well as the approaches of domestic and foreign scientists to understanding these texts in the context of studying the basics of public administration. A comparative study of modern principles of public administration and those foundations of statehood, which were described in the Hebrew Bible, allows us to demonstrate their continuity. The authors come to the conclusion that, if we do not take into account the divine version of the cessation of the existence of the statehood of the ancient Jews for a long time, it can be stated that it was the violation of the principles of state organization that destroyed the ancient state. But the politically well-developed mentality of the people and political culture allowed this statehood to resume after millennia. Thus, the organization of public administration, according to the Hebrew Bible, with proper adaptation to modern realities, can at least partially solve problems in this area.

The authors analyze the concept of human capital in its modern understanding. The article shows that high human capital does not provide significant rates of economic development but makes it possible to increase the welfare of citizens, GDP per capita, the volume of high-tech exports, as well as exports of services. The authors analyze human capital and human potential of the territories of LPR and DPR that joined Russia in 2022. It is shown that the regions have a fairly high human potential: residents of 4 new subjects of the Russian Federation are distinguished by a high level of happiness, they are characterized by developed traditional and labor values, work occupies a significant place in their lives. There is a high level of rejection of offenses. However, the study revealed a low level of interpersonal trust.

The object of this study is the “Great Reforms”, which led to institutional changes in Russia during the reign of Alexander II. A problematic question is posed: how did replacing the obsolete institutions of the Russian Empire with new ones under Alexander II affect the economy? Because of the persisting dichotomy with regard to the results of Alexander II’s reforms, a hypothesis is put forward: in addition to the impact of the new institutions introduced during the period of the “Great Reforms”, the efforts of the transformations were not aimed at the complete elimination of outdated institutions. To test the hypothesis, the main objective of the study is formulated: to reflect the institutional changes in Russia during the reign of Alexander II and their impact on the economy. The theoretical framework of the study includes a number of concepts of domestic and foreign scholars: Douglas North’s concept of institutions, which is exemplified by his works “Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Functioning” [1], “Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance” [2] and “Institutions and Economic Growth: Historical Introduction” [2]; Sergey Yu. Glazyev’s theory of long-term technical and economic development, reflected in the article “Modern Theory of Long Waves in Economic Development” [3] and the book “Russia in the New Technological and World Economic Patterns” [4]. This selection is due to the fact that the provisions of institutionalism and the concept of technological modes give the most complete answer to the problem question of the research. The work used the following set of methods: general scientific methods, such as logical analysis, synthesis, comparison, systematization of the available scientific literature on the topic of research; specific scientific theoretical methods: literature analysis on the selected historical period (the reforms of Alexander II), collection of statistical data (primarily economic indicators), analysis of the transformations in various spheres of social life and their results conducted in the specified historical period. The result of the study was the reflection of institutional changes in the economy of the Russian Empire and the country’s transition to a “new technological mode”.

The spread of digital technologies in the everyday life of citizens (social networks, streaming video, messengers) and in the socio-political sphere («smart city», e-government) has led to an increase in the power of transnational corporations specializing in the development and launch of these products and services on the market - digital TNCs. Thanks to the increase in financial power, such firms became actors that were able to influence the political sphere, for example, by influencing the views and attitudes of voters during electoral campaigns or mass protests, collecting confidential user data and providing it to intelligence agencies, etc. The purpose of the article is to characterize digital TNCs as actors with political power. To analyze the activities of digital TNCs at the present stage, the author applied the approach of Marius Busemeyer and Kathleen Thelen, who proposed to consider business representatives as actors with instrumental, structural and institutional sources of power. It is concluded that at the present stage, digital TNCs implement an instrumental and structural type of power, and also have the potential to implement institutional power, which involves the replacement of a number of government functions.

George Monbiot is the author of the online publication “Neoliberalism - the ideology at the root of all our problems”. He is a British author well-known for his political and environmental activism. In addition, he founded The Land is Ours, a movement in the United Kingdom that advocates for the right to access the countryside and its resources. The online journal discusses neoliberalism’s anonymous characteristics, such as how it attempts to reshape human life and establish a world governed by competition. In addition, it also discusses the birth of neoliberalism and how it entered the mainstream. Furthermore, it broadcasts the guileful validation of neoliberal theorists in policymaking. The author explains how neoliberalism reduced the size and influence of the state and how it defined freedom in a discordant way. The author also discusses the diametrically opposed philosophies of Keynesianism and Neoliberalism. He posited that it is not enough to oppose a broken system; a coherent alternative system tailored to the demands of the 21st century has to be proposed. However, the author’s suggestion to have an economic Apollo program - a new system tailored to the demands of the 21st century - is not an easy occupation.