Auction theory is the core of modern economic theory, and standard auctions are the basic elements of many models in microeconomics, public economics, and finance. Theoretical studies of auctions have shaped the modern understanding of the economic role of information in competitive market, and of price theory. Applied analysis of auctions has underpinned important practical mechanisms — for example, mechanisms of privatization and re-privatization of electromagnetic spectrum and public procurement. The 2020 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Robert Wilson and Paul Milgrom both for their contributions to the foundations of auction theory and for the development of largescale practical applications.

In recent years, some papers were published with the aim to integrate the original institutional economics and new institutional economics. This paper considers the possibility to solve this problem. To do this, it has analyzed four tasks: firstly, how do the original institutionalists characterize their scientific program specificity; secondly, how do the original institutionalists criticize new institutional economics; thirdly, what do they mean by the integration of original institutional economics and new institutional economics, that they have been observing since the 1990s and fourthly, what do they propose as a integration program. The analysis showed that the explicit methodology of original institutionalism, in fact, attributes to it characteristics, which are very close to the properties of “folk theory”. New institutional economics’ criticism is often based on the distorted interpretations of this scientific research program. The authors typically understand as the institutionalisms’ similarity the facts of the new institutionalism development by Douglass North, who used the data of the empirical behavioral research, but not the claims of original institutionalism. The method of integration proposed in the literature presupposes the adoption of the old institutionalism methodology by the new institutionalism, which could drastically reduce the quality of its research. The paper concludes that under present-day conditions, it is practically impossible to create a unified institutional economics.

The article examines the crisis of modern Western democracy. It is noted that the important causes of the crisis are slowing down of economic growth and deepening inequality in developed countries. It is shown that inter-party competition inevitably generates a mechanism of degradation of moral norms in the political sphere and reduction of the political system efficiency. These processes have intensified dramatically as a result of the spread of the Internet. They contributed to the reduction of citizens’ participation in political life and at the same time to the ochlocratization of the political system. It is shown as well that a number of transformations taking place in the Western countries are aimed at improvement of interaction mechanisms between the state and society and contribute to overcoming the crisis. These include expanding the role of parliamentary committees, increasing the number of parties, largescale reforms of public sector governance basing on collaboration. In this context, the experience of e-platforms and the possibilities of institutional collaborative platforms are analyzed. The concept of collaborative democracy is proposed, based on the analysis of the trends studied. The mechanism for collaborative democracy should ensure greater choice and broader direct participation of citizens in decision-making, control the costs of political competition and maintain ethical standards, prevent ochlocratization and improve governance. Contours of this mechanism are outlined. It is based on the use of a proportional electoral system of a special type, a system of expert councils and collaborative platforms for public decision-making, as well as on the implementation of decision-making rules close to consensus. The significance of these conclusions for Russia is discussed.

This paper presents the main provisions of the intelligence-based theory of the firm, which is a new direction in studying microeconomic entities. The objects of the theory are firms, whose activities to a decisive extent depend on the capacity and efficiency of using the firm’s intellectual abilities. These abilities allow analyzing the structure and characteristics of the firm’s internal and external social and economic environment in space and time. Intelligence features as a leading factor of production in interaction with the firm’s mental abilities and material resources are investigated. The requirements for models reflecting the influence of intelligence on the firm’s performance in strategic and tactical aspects are determined. The types of intelligence are classified depending on its participation in the formulation and solution of the firm’s tasks. Perspective directions of development and application of the intelligence-based theory of the firm are outlined.

Dramas of a unique pandemic of COVID-19, an unparalleled sharp recession and critically important presidential elections have put the difficult choices for the American society in 2020. Socio-economic development of the U.S. in XXI century has come through the series of crises, which had major impacts on the global development. The country has retained the leadership in the developed world by general economic might, innovations and dynamics of upturns. In the last three decades the demographics of the U.S. population have experienced the substantial changes, notably the number of citizens of Asian origin and Hispanic group have increased. The latter has surpassed the Afro-American group by a number of families and by an average income per family. Overall growth of income in the country has not eliminated large income disparities among social strata. Statistics of tax declarations indicate the inequality by social groups and by race. These disparities have probably played an important role in 2020 recession and pandemic development. As far as electoral behavior is concerned, the inequality factor is even more visible.

The paper provides quantitative estimates of national heterogeneity in the Russian regions, using indices of fractionalization and polarization, taking into account the linguistic distance between groups. The results showed that national heterogeneity in the period between the last population censuses in Russia as a whole did not increase, but there was a different and active dynamics in the regions. The content of the national structure in the country changed in the direction of bigger cultural distances between ethnic groups. Regression analysis of the relationship between national heterogeneity and output, budget expenditures, and crime rates showed more significant positive dependencies on the fractionalization index compared to negative correlations with the polarization index. In the situation of a relatively stable institutional environment in the country, national heterogeneity showed more active positive effects, while the potential for negative effects inherent in a polarized society did not find a sufficient basis to be realized.

The ratio of the total volume of taxes coming from the territory to the budget system of the country and the expenses of the territorial budget illustrates the fundamental possibility or impossibility of forming intergovernmental relations in the spirit of fiscal federalism. The article tests its initial message: tax and non-tax revenues produced by the territory (given the administrative-territorial division of the country) should be, at minimum, sufficient to balance the budget and solve regional budget problems. It is shown that at present in 40% of Russian regions total revenues are enough to ensure budget surplus, the participation of these regions in solving national problems. In the remaining 60% of the regions, all revenues from the territory to the budget system are not able to balance budget revenues and expenses. The picture of intergovernmental relations was fundamentally changed, because in most regions that had deficit budgets in 2015, revenues in 2018 began to exceed expenses. The paper considers the opportunities to qualitatively change the state of regional budgets.