Central Economics and Mathematics Institute

About: Central Economics and Mathematics Institute is a facility organization based out in Moscow, Russia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Foreign-exchange reserves. The organization has 297 authors who have published 580 publications receiving 6449 citations. The organization is also known as: Federal State Institution of Science Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

ОЦЕНКА ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТИ ИНВЕСТИЦИОННЫХ ПРОЕКТОВ В УСЛОВИЯХ РИСКА И НЕОПРЕДЕЛЕННОСТИ (Investment Project Evaluation under Risk and Uncertainty)

Abstract: Russian Abstract: Излагается новая теория ожидаемого эффекта для оценки инвестиционных проектов в условиях риска и неопределенности. Она ориентирована на анализ различных сценариев реализации проекта. Даны формализованные описания различных видов неопределенных величин: интервальных, нечетких, наделенных правдоподобием, случайных, интервально-случайных и других. Для установления общего вида критериев сравнения проектов с неопределенными результатами используется аксиоматический подход (в частности, такие критерии должны быть монотонными и аддитивными). Этот подход позволяет также исследовать ситуацию, когда неопределенные результаты проекта распределены во времени. English Abstract: This book gives the new expected effect theory of investment project evaluation under risk and uncertainty. This theory is oriented towards the analysis of various project realization scenarios. A formal description is provided for the interval, fuzzy, likelyhooded, random, interval-random and other types of uncertain values. To elaborate a general form of criteria allowing comparisons across projects with uncertain outcomes, the use is made of an axiomatic approach (in particular, it is noticed that such criteria should be monotone and additive). This approach has also allowed exploring a situation where uncertain project outcomes are occurring at different times (i.e. uncertain flow of project costs and effects).

Global Health Care System after Coronavirus: Who Has Responsibility to Protect

Abstract: The debate between the US and China about the responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic raises important questions about the obligations of national governments in the global health care domain. Whereas the US attempts to put the blame on China do not have any serious legal or moral justifications, there is certainly a rationale for the establishment of certain minimal standards in the provision of health care for particular countries. Externalities in the global health care protection are too obvious – costs of underinvestment into the national health care system are borne not only by the country in question, but by the whole world. It is argued that countries should have certain obligations in providing health care services and protecting the population from diseases, especially infectious diseases, similar to the obligations in the framework of the responsibility to protect (R2P) concept that requires countries to protect their citizens from human rights violations. From the point of view of ensuring high life expectancy at a given level of per capita income and spending on health care, China is doing better than many other countries, including the United States that has high per capita income, spends 17% of GDP on health care, but does not provide universal access to health care and lags behind countries with a similar level of economic development in terms of life expectancy (79 years).

A System Approach to Harmonization of the Country Model of Innovative Development

Abstract: One of the most common models of national innovation systems as of today is the triple helix model. Four- and five-tier constructions also exist and present an option for adapting the triple helix model to the economic conditions of different countries. In this paper, we are based on the system economic theory and propose to consider the national innovation system (NIS) of Russia as a complex of four socio-economic macro-subsystems: science, government, education, and business. In this case, science acts as a system of the object type: the government – as the environment type, education – as the process type, and business – as the project type. The interaction order and role functions of these subsystems are determined. A quantitative evaluation of the quadruple helix subsystem parity was carried out; namely, the system balance indices of the NIS of Russia for 2015–2019 were calculated. The world countries’ data used to calculate the global innovation index according to the methodology of the WIPO constitute the statistical basis for the calculation. The place of the NIS of Russia among the national innovation systems of other countries for 2019, according to two parameters: the NIS subsystems balance and the effectiveness of NIS activities, was determined. For comparison, 16 countries, divided into four groups, were selected: innovative leaders, catching-up countries, lagging countries, and outsiders. It is established that Russia belongs to the countries of the second group. It is shown that to harmonize the NIS of Russia, to increase its efficiency and move Russia to the group of leaders, it is necessary to revise the economic policy and add to it, along with increasing the efficiency of innovative activity, another goal such as improving the balance of the quadruple helix subsystems.