Search results

Economic security of the national state is traditionally considered to be implemented only at macro level of the national economy. However, a new reality of the XXI era has shown that the key aspects of the national security are being arisen at micro level of economic activity. Innovations have created not only new factors for prosperity but given birth to specific risks and novel threats for the national state. Digital ecosystems (DESs) that have just come to light have been generating a host of state threatening consequences. Nowadays most if not all of the largest world companies are parts of digital ecosystems. Market capitalization, total sales and total business operations of the digital ecosystems equal or even exceed the gross domestic product of many independent states. A typical profile of a digital ecosystem comprises such characteristics as self-regulation and independent business; vague industry and geographic frontiers; absence of clear inner structural elements within the firm; absence or minimization of material (brick-and-stone) assets. The services of the digital ecosystems lie in a variety of highly different production, transportation, market, and after-market spheres including finance and logistics. The intangible power of DESs is based on ICT technology, e. g., M2M and IoT, which could work in an autonomous regime even off Wi-Fi areas. Cloud computing, fog computing and edge computing allow to storage and manipulate big data over the firms' boundaries and stay off the government control. Although M2M interactions are good for telemedicine, industrial security, payment systems, etc., smart digital activity of DESs might be harmful for national economic security. Firstly, as digital ecosystems are collecting huge amount of private data, they have access to more subtle behavioral aspects of individuals than government offices. Using their private databases, DESs could influence clients in both economic and political areas. Secondly, digital cartels could implement brand-new types of price discrimination which are out of government regulations. Dynamic pricing in both sides of the digital platforms (for content providers and for consumers) could add to national inflation rates. Thirdly, information that is used to elaborate and implement government economic policy could be easily manipulated within DESs due to low quality of IT operators or because of hacker-driven misinformation. It means that the critically important statistics are in fact in the hands of the digital ecosystems, which have been transforming into tacit co-partners of government economic and social policy. In social sphere DESs have introduced a special business model, that is, worker-on-demand. Like video on demand or car sharing, employees can be hired temporarily with no labour contracts, no social security plans, no any feasible limitations on time, place, and conditions of work. Quantity of labour force, level of wages, and other important elements of working life are in the hands of algorithmic management, a special IT program elaborated by DESs' specialists in the interests of the DESs. Such practices of labour market undermine the government social policy and increase social tensions. Digital ecosystems have changed labour resources in the direction of cyber wars. In order to defense their own infrastructure and virtual space of their activity, DESs are in the process of establishing their own cyber-army. The DES employees usually act as potential (and actual sometimes) cyber-worriers in detecting and eliminating unsanctioned penetration in digital nets of the company. The problems of digital ecosystems having too much economic power are being under consideration in many countries. For example, in China in 2021 the government replaced its former liberal IT policy for tight IT regulation of DESs. Thus, thinking about national economic security, we should take into account a new digital reality in forms of digital ecosystems and their desire (consciously or unconsciously) to substitute national state in its significant economic and social functions.

Economic reality has dramatically changed in the 21st century. Competition and monopoly behaviour are under radical transformation due to digital effects in contemporary business world. Digitalization has engendered many new types of monopolistic conduct and deeply altered traditional forms of firms' misconduct. In a digital era, the antitrust policy should rethink its concepts of regulation, market power, and anticompetitive behaviour. The analysis of contemporary competition policy in different countries shows that traditional antitrust rules could not effectively deal with digital activity. Having entered even in an ordinary space of anticompetitive firm behaviour, digital world has challenged traditional concepts of antitrust policy. The antitrust rules that dominated in the 20th century are mostly outdated when applied to digital era trends. What should and could competition policy do to meet the requirements of the 21st century? The article touches upon contemporary foreign investigations in the sphere of competition and competition policy. Our analysis demonstrates the challenges that are under way in antitrust regulation. Special attention is paid on new patterns that characterize traditional forms of monopolistic behaviour (cartels, dominant misconduct, predatory pricing, exclusive dealing, etc.) in a digital world. There was drawn the conclusion concerning the vital necessity of a cardinal transformation for the antitrust policy from a hard state controller into a flexible business consultant, with the aim not to punish but to prevent market misconduct.

Digital economy has significantly changed business reality. The radical transformations are ubiquitous. New patterns feature economic behaviour of market participants, their interactions, their business models and their market activities. What about competition? What forms of competitive conduct have lost importance in contemporary digital economy? And what are the newest strategies that enhance competitiveness of the firms? Which digital business practices could limit competition? And which of them could stimulate business rivalry? Digitalization has changed many, in not all, of our traditional conceptual visions in the area of competition, market, market power, relevant market actors. The nature of competition itself is under scrupulous investigation. What conclusions could we draw from current theoretical and empirical analyses of competition mechanism? First of all, we deal with new forms of competition. The old Schumpeterian question – whether competition is a creative innovative destruction or it leads only to unfair elimination of competitors from the market – has arisen again nowadays. Online competition has two radically different outcomes. On the one hand, lower transaction costs, more possibilities to compare prices and assortment, expanding markets beyond geographical limits, low entry barriers reinforce rivalry. On the other hand, online activity of the firms can mitigate competitive pressure though new forms of product differentiation and usage of phantom strategies, phantom products, phantom plans. In order to increase their overall competitiveness, firms have elaborated an O2O (online-to-offline) business model that is allowed to utilize virtual and actual activity at the same time. Restaurant business, cosmetic industry, taxi deals are examples of its successful implementation. Is more competition better for consumers? This concept has been considered doubtful. Digital competitive pressure has led to a novel format of product differentiation, that is, targeted product design. Unlike traditional view in line with Salop circular model, contemporary firms choose product strategies that target as little individuals as possible. The less the circle of potential clients is, the less their price elasticity would be, and the weaker price rivalry might become. Traditional concept views competition as a Markov stochastic process. Contemporary analyses demonstrate more complicated nature of competitive mechanism. Online and offline innovations transform competition into non-linear process with "humps and jumps", the outcomes of which are not always in the interests of consumers' welfare.

The 21st century competition has proved to become an educational rivalry. International leader and competitive champion will be the nation that will catch the new global trends in contemporary education and adequately modernize its training of personnel system. The article is aimed at demonstrating the newest tendencies in education sphere that have arisen in the latest years. The review of the empirical investigations, statistical data and theoretical concepts can forecast future development of education models under globalization and digitalization. The latest decades have demonstrated radical changes in labor market all over the world. The participation rate of low educated employees has significantly declined. The majority of labor force now have education (bachelor/master degree). The gap in wages between low- and higher-educated workers has also risen. What factors can explain the education premium? The viewpoints of Gary Beсker and Michael Spence are nowadays far from adequately explaining the education-related bonus dynamics. In a global digitalized economy the benefits from education lie mostly in public good nature of learning. Value of education is considered to be not only in economic terms (like productivity and income) but also in terms of its major contribution to social, political, religious and cultural life of the society. Education transforms personal tastes, values and preferences towards healthier and more ecologically friendly alternatives. As education, especially higher education, is becoming a kind of a merit good for all, new roles for a teacher have occurred. The educator now is not a monopolistic provider of information. Rather, he is a consultant and a tutor in a system of relationships where students are treated as equal partners in the educational process. Can online education fully substitute class learning? Empirical data does not provide evidence for giving a positive answer. The existence of peer effect means that effective education advances can be achieved only under personal (offline) interactions between peer students and teachers. Competitive education nowadays represents a special model of social relationships. It is not just a contact of a student with an object, whether the latter be virtual or real. Basically, it is a dialogue between two parts with equal rights, a teacher and a student, and its inner intensity depends on personal communication face-to-face.

The latest phenomena in the area of industrial economics have turned out to be beyond the traditional models of industrial organization theory. This theory deals with the four basic market structures, namely that of free competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly and monopoly, with a common evolutionary pattern from competition to monopoly. However, contemporary technological competition has engendered a brand-new type of market structure. Some key features of it are outlined in the article with the stress on contemporary trends in network market development that have arisen under the influence of digitalization. The traditional approach to network market is through escalation effect, when network spillovers exist either in technology or in demand, and companies or IT platforms should gain a benchmark mass of clients, as fast as possible, in order to have the whole market. All other consumers have tendency to buy the leader's product; thus, the market becomes a natural monopoly of the leader (at least, natural oligopoly). With the advancement in ICT technology, especially with digitalization, a new configuration of network market structure is being developed. Niche players are gaining their positions. It is arisen a multiple offer of ICT products. Market is becoming more and more fragmented. Network products evolve from substitutes into complements. The market drives from natural monopoly (oligopoly) into a very competitive structure. The author examines the mechanisms and results of network market transformation in contemporary digital era. Unlike the previous period when network services were provided separately, the newest tendencies, starting from TV, demonstrate that the frontiers among network markets become blurred, the separation between markets and particular ICT products vanishes/ So far, the formerly independent network markets are being transformed into shapeless segments of a single and indivisible multimedia area. In this integrated area any ICT provider obtains an opportunity to successfully compete with any other. The differences between various electronic devices, between ICT, broadcasting and address services, and even non-ICT products disappear. Network market evolves from a very concentrated and monopolized structure into a fragmented competitive industry with tough price competition. This brand new structure could be titled as concentric (ring) market, or a center-periphery model. The relationships within it mean unknown possibilities and challenges both for market participants and governments.

What is information technology for modern business? Is it an ordinary resource among many others necessary for simple existence of a firm? Or is it the key factor of a company's competitive strategy? In the article, risks and advantages of a corporate IT system, IT projects efficiency factors are analyzed. World experience has shown that the information system could be efficient only under conditions of complementary components being introduced and utilized along with it.

The article analyzes a model of vertical product differentiation applied to IT area which demonstrates that IT market is a natural oligopoly, the number of applications, the degree of compatibility in basic IT product modifications, the level of network effect being the main criteria of vertical product differentiation. Characteristics of IT products and types of competition in IT sphere are analyzed as well as the situation on the Russian IT market.

The evolution of antimonopoly policy in Russia is analyzed. The positive nature of policy transformation is stressed: it has been evolving from purely prohibitive measures towards monopolies in the 1990s to a more reasonable approach in terms of recommendations and ex ante regulations. Russian antimonopoly policy is being transformed to competition policy with broader view on inter-firms interactions and industrial organization.

The article analyzes new phenomena in the field of television associated with the digital era, in particular, the transformation of media market under the influence of technological, economic, financial and institutional factors of digitalization. Contemporary international and Russian television industry is in the process of digital revolution. The era of traditional television as a typical broadcasting technology, a traditional social, economic and cultural phenomenon, has come to an end. We are on the verge of a global and irrevocable shift to mass utilization of various digital devices that certainly affect the positions of television as a separate industry. Modern television is outlined as a part of a wide digital media market, just a segment of a highly competitive entertainment structure with complex network interactions. In terms of Russia, the new phenomena accompanying the evolution of media and television markets in the process of digitalization urgently need an economic analysis. In what direction is it necessary to develop the local broadcasting? Is there a sound commercial future of national and regional television companies? What lessons can extract Russia from world experience? What else does Russian television need to improve efficiency and global competitiveness? These issues are detail considered in the article. Trends and obstacles for the implementation of a prospective business model for Russian TV are shown. It is concluded that successful development of the Russian television industry is possible only under the conditions of efficient formation of a fundamentally new configuration of a multi-market structure type.

The article considers a simple overlapping generations model. The authors show that the existence of the stock market (which at the first stage of its evolution may be modeled as an increase in the number of firms in the economy) contributes to the reduction of volatility of economic growth.

Karl Marx saw only one aspect of the whole variety of relationships between labor and capital — the conflict leading to revolution. These relationships can be viewed as a game under the "prisoners' dilemma" situation where two main strategies of both parties are to conflict or to cooperate. Within this theoretical framework, different outcomes from partial and general equilibrium point of view are considered in the article. The cooperative outcome is treated as the only Pareto-efficient.