The work is devoted to the concept of “intellectual capital” and its correlation with closely related concepts (human capital, social capital, intangible resources, etc.). The study is based on a critical analysis of the literature and uses the method of statistical-semasiological analysis of a sample of definitions. Intellectual capital is a set of intangible objects, properties and relations of socio-economic system, evaluated by the subjects of management as a source of value creation through participation in the processes of social reproduction at different levels of organization of national economy. The proposed definition is based on a critical quantitative analysis of the results of previous studies and reflects the relationship of the concepts denoting intangible factors of development. At the same time, the question of the source of value creation in the generation of intellectual capital is emphasized.

The article proposes a new structure of organization management that combines the principles of hierarchical management and social leadership. The practicality of splitting the power of the organization head in four directions that reflect the organization’s system structure is shown. A system of social leadership should support the management of such a structure to develop and effectively use the hidden strengths of the organization: intellectual, mental, cultural, and influence (inspiration). This system prevents stratification and fragmentation of its internal space. It provides movement towards inclusive management of the organization, preserving its integrity and increasing the sustainability of its functioning. The concept of inclusive management proposed in the article reflects the progress in developing the theory of the firm, Adizes methodology, and the system economic theory. The concept can be applied both with organizations and their divisions and systems of meso- and macroeconomic levels.

The article criticizes the stereotypes about the current state of institutional economics and the logic of its development. These stereotypes are based on underestimating the growth of its internal diversity, blurring the methodological boundaries of new and original institutional economics (NIE and OIE), the emergence of numerous alternative institutionalisms. The history of OIE and NIE shows that their competition has been replaced by methodological exchange, and research programs are becoming more heterogeneous and eclectic. Alternative institutionalisms — interdisciplinary movements focused on new trends in the analysis of institutions — are of growing importance. The paper proposes to move from the narrative about the struggle between NIE and OIE to rethinking institutional economics as a continuum of co-evolving and complementary schools and approaches. The article makes the case for creating an institutional theory based on epistemological pluralism, a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, and the transition to postdisciplinarity. A pluralistic paradigm can be an adequate response to the challenge of increasing institutional complexity in modern economies.

The Second Russian Revolution, an event that took place between 1989 and 1992 and led to a radical transformation of social and economic relations and the political system in Russia, the separation of the Union republics, is compared to four major revolutions of the past: the American, French, Chinese, and First Russian revolutions. Particular attention is paid to two concepts of modern political economy: first, binding commitments, the impossibility of which in the context of power struggles explains why attempts to reform the political system on the eve of revolutions were unsuccessful; second, coordinated action by large numbers of individuals in the absence of common interests or any organizing structure. This helps to understand the mechanism of the events of 1989—1992, which is poorly described in the logic of group interests, and even less so in terms of class interests.

Key topics in scholarly publications of Soviet and Russian economists in the 1950—1980s, during the periods of Perestroika, radical economic reforms of the 1990s, the economic growth of the 2000s, the 2009 global crisis and economic stagnation of the second half of the 2010s are identified and compared by content analyzing full texts of books and journal articles. Namely, all articles published in Voprosy Ekonomiki from 1989 to 2021 are analyzed. It is shown that the departure from the paradigm of Marxian political economy leaves the question about a new paradigm open. Using the Google Books corpus, the everyday economic discourse in Russian is compared with that in English and French. It appears that the Russian everyday discourse is relatively less adapted to discussion of economic issues.

The purpose of the study is to identify institutional and regulatory restrictions and the possibilities of using instruments of tax policy in Russia to stimulate innovative activity of enterprises. The article examines the importance of institutional constraints and factors of innovative development. The factor of international tax competition in the sphere of innovation is investigated, and the data of international trade in innovative services are analyzed. Based on the data of tax and statistical reports in Russia and data from the financial statements of the largest Russian companies, the analysis of the actual demand for key instruments of tax regulation of R&D in Russia has been carried out. It is concluded that there are shortcomings that do not allow to fully use the potential of existing measures on income tax to stimulate innovative activity. Among the main shortcomings we identify: the lack of focus, complex regulation and administration, a limited scope of the applied incentives to R&D on corporate income tax. This makes the current tax incentives inaccessible to a wide range of taxpayers and leads to an outflow of resources from Russia to foreign countries with better regulatory conditions.

The article is aimed at ordering, in the first approximation, the subject field of the study, namely, structural alternatives for the reaction of Russian public authorities to the decision of foreign companies to withdraw their business from Russia. Approaches of the new institutional economics are used (especially in terms of comparative analysis of discrete structural alternatives), as well as elements of regulatory impact assessment to explain, first of all, the consequences of forced nationalization and the introduction of external administration. The conclusion is made about the limited possibilities of Russian manufacturers in a number of industries to replace the products of foreign companies leaving the market, which is associated with insufficient implementation of the import substitution strategy. The necessity of a differentiated approach to the choice of a regulatory response is explained, including various models of market participants behavior.

The article discusses the key ideas of the new book by the respected Russian scholar Vladislav Inozemtsev “Economy without dogmas: How the United States creates a new economic order”. In this book, the author reveals the most important features of the modern financial system, which have become especially prominent during the COVID-19 pandemic. The overriding message of this book is the idea that in the coronavirus era the leading developed economies have finally moved into a new financial reality. According to Inozemtsev, its main characteristics include the following: surging money supply, public debt growth, and negative interest rates. Inozemtsev considers them to be indicators of profound changes in the structure of the Western economies which mark the inconsistency of statements about the imminent end of the Western hegemony in the global economy. We think that the most interesting point in the “Economy without dogmas” is the author’s attempt to link changes in the financial sector with technological and economic shifts. The debatable nature and abundance of original ideas contained in this book open up excellent opportunities for further discussion of urgent socio-economic issues.