Vsevolod Ostapenko* “RUSSIAN ECONOMICS” OR ECONOMICS IN RUSSIA: WHAT WAS BUILT ON THE RUINS OF THE SOVIET UNION? (first draft) Abstract To be added… JEL: A11, A14, B29 * St. Petersburg State University, Faculty of Economics, associate professor, [email protected] 1. Introduction. Dismantling of the Soviet political system and transition to the market economy in Russia were inevitably accompanied by fundamental changes in spheres of science and education. The long- lasting existence of two key branches in the field of economic thought, namely political economy of capitalism and political economy of socialism, broke off. Russian economists started to rethink their research strategies and paradigms within which they had been operating. This process has not been completed yet. Economics profession in the country remains in the situation of blurring scientific standards and substantial fragmentation of the research area. As it is stated by Joachim Zweynert, sphere of economic science in Russia has evolved into something so heterogenous and manifold that one should even use term “economics” with caution. We will thus exploit different paraphrases like “Russian economic thought”. The initial problem arising is whether it’s reasonable to describe economics in national context. Of course, the history of economic thought is rich in examples of using national signs in defining various scientific schools: for example, British political economy or German historical school. More often the title of the school contains also the name of the university (research center), which gave work to its most prominent representatives (like Chicago or Stockholm schools). In 2015 a great volume on national and geographical features of economic science was published under the editorship of Vincent Barnett (Barnett, 2015). The appearance of this edition confirmed the soundness of picking out country-level characteristics of economics. Francois Allisson’s contribution on Russia and Ukraine in this volume covers mainly pre-Soviet and Soviet economic thought (Allisson, 2015). Our paper partly complements his analysis by extending the period and concentrating on the modern-day Russia. We are trying to figure out main patterns in the development of economic thought in post-Soviet era. Two key questions are posed: 1) Is there currently a consistent system of analytical methods, scientific approaches and policy conclusions which could represent the national school in Russian economic thought? To put it differently, has a phenomenon of “Russian economics” emerged after the transition to capitalism? The alternative hypothesis presumes that the only factor uniting Russian economists is the language used, and in that sense no specific attributes of a school of thought could be outlined. 2) Has the economic science in Russia become global? To understand the overall contribution of Russian economists in their research fields it is necessary is to locate Russian economic thought in international coordinates. To get at least preliminary answer for the second question we run a 2 quantitative bibliographic analysis of publications of Russian scholars in top international peer- reviewed journals in 2014-2018. Many historians of science have analyzed the transformation of Russian community of economists since the collapse of the USSR and beginning of market reforms. The paper extends and augments several seminal pieces on the latest developments in Russian economic thought. First, it follows the strand of research on specific features of the national economic science (Muravyev, 2011; Libman, Zweynert, 2014; Maltsev, 2016; Grigoryev, 2017). The key empirical contribution is estimation of the current degree of integration of Russian scholars into the global economic science. Second, it readdresses the big discussion around the legitimacy of separation of so-called “Russian school of economic thought”. This discussion took place at the beginning of the new millennium and was initiated by one of the patriarchs of the Soviet political economy Leonid Abalkin. The most significant papers on the topic were published in Russian in Voprosy ekonomiki (2001), and English translation of these texts appeared in Problems of Economic Transition (2002). 2. Debates over Russian school of economics and its aftermath. Keeping in mind the conditional character of all the terms used, we would like to recall the pros and cons for speaking about Russian school of economics. In the first decade of the new millennium many issues related to the history of formation and development of economic science in Russia were widely discussed. The increased interest in this subject was primarily determined by intention to apprehend scientific traditions of the past and their possible reflection in economics of post-Soviet Russia. Special conferences were held in 2000 and 2003, their results spilled over into the collective monographs, which outlined divergent positions and galvanized further debates (Abalkin (ed.), 2003; Yakovets (ed.), 2003). One of the leading and highly influential titans of political economy in the Soviet Union Leonid Abalkin claimed the existence of unique «Russian school of economic thought» (Abalkin, 2002), and the formulation of this hypothesis provoked rigorous discussion. He insisted that virtually all eminent Russian scholars of the second half of the ХIX century and till the early 30s of the ХX were the members of the school. There are 24 persons in the list of Abalkin and he admitted the possibility of its enlarging. Abalkin’s view was supported by a group of renowned Russian economists of the same generation, including Iurii Ol’sevich (Ol’sevich, 2002), Dmitry Sorokin (Sorokin, 2002), Viktor Ryazanov (Ryazanov, 2003; Ryazanov, 2010) and others. But many prominent thinkers and historians of economics were either skeptical or directly rejected 3 Abalkin’s view. Among them were Vladimir Avtonomov (Avtonomov, 2002), Leonid Shirokorad (Shirokorad, 2003), Vincent Barnett and Joachim Zweynert (Barnett, Zweynert, 2008). Adherents of the “Russian school” hypothesis exploit the specific approach to the history of economic thought. It is connected with an idea of the dependence of economic theories on particular historical and sociocultural features of the country. In a broader context these features constitute the whole complex of “civilizational traits” (Ryazanov, 2010). The appearance of national economic doctrines reflects the diversity of economic conditions and acts as a reaction of the science on various social inquiries. Thus, the history of economics has to be studied in a close collaboration with the specifics of the given national economic system. Scholars united by Abalkin in the group titled “Russian economics”, from Sergey Witte to Nikolai Kondratiev, did not have much in common if to consider research methods, ideological and theoretical positions. It would be more appropriate to say that all the well-known attributes of a school of thought differed dramatically. So in case we regard a scientific school as a group of scholars with common views, principles and methods, Abalkin’s hypothesis of “Russian school” may seem unreasonable. But Ryazanov and Ol’sevich claim that basis for Russian school of economic thought is the common object of research. They define Russian school as the one aimed at analyzing national economic development. This quotation helps to understand their position: “… One should not reject the possibility of aggregation of economists with diverse views and methods of analysis into the united school. The fact of the matter is that all these different opinions had one and the same root, which is conditioned by the special attention to Russian economy, by the necessity to justify the choice of economic development strategy… Such a general focus on the central problem of economic development can serve the basis for the emergence of Russian scientific school in a broader sense, in spite of the fact that it is characterized by divergent opinions and estimates… In this case the common object of analysis, that is the current economic system and the search for the best development strategy, including the direct clash of different opinions in scientific discussions, brings economists together” (Ryazanov, 2010, p. 74-75) The same is Ol’sevich’s approach: “The national economy, or, in other words, the “concrete theory” of the Russian economy… was based on the study of the fundamental specific features and long-term, stable trends of that economy along with the objective requirements of national development” (Ol’sevich, 2002, p. 114). These authors augmented initial Abalkin’s hypothesis 4 and suggested a new title – “Russian school of national economy”, or pochvennicheskaya school. They claim that key features of Russian school include the idea of diversity in economic structure (mixed and multi-sector economy as the sustainable type of social organization) and justification of “nationally-oriented”, not “liberal, or market-oriented” reforms and development strategies. According to the advocates of such approach, taking into consideration national specificity should make it possible to avoid the practice of simple copying Western economic theories. Economists criticizing the concept of Russian school pay attention to the fact that the role of national factor may not be rejected, but it cannot create the grounding for a separate school of thought. Oleg Anan’in once famously noted that Russia is a different, unique country, but all countries are unique. Vladimir