Dynamics of the RF presidents' activities approval by the region's population
Автор: Ilyin Vladimir Aleksandrovich
Журнал: Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast @volnc-esc-en
Рубрика: From the chief editor
Статья в выпуске: 4 (22) т.5, 2012 года.
Бесплатный доступ
ID: 147223372 Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/147223372
Текст ред. заметки Dynamics of the RF presidents' activities approval by the region's population
Dynamics of the RF President’s activities approval by the region’s population
August 14, 2012 marked the first one hundred days of the third Vladimir Putin’s presidency in Russia. Hundred days report has become a tradition in the world as a landmark date when some results of top-ranking politician’s activity are summed up.
Most experts are of a unanimous opinion that “the third advent” of Putin took place in the conditions when domestic and foreign-policy situation in Russia cardinally differed from its position during two previous terms of Putin’s presidency1. He faces a range of new challenges, the main of which is a need to change and select a new scenario of our country’s development.
The first hundred days of the third Vladimir Putin’s presidency are characterized, on the one hand, by the clear priorities of medium-term national development perspective, and, on the other hand, by the increased reliance on the national-oriented elite (D.O. Rogozin was appointed to the post of Vice-Premier in charge of military-industrial complex; S.Yu. Glazyev was appointed to the post of Presidential Adviser responsible for coordinating work on developing Eurasian integration; V.V. Medinskiy was nominated as the Minister of Culture and I.R. Kholmanskikh became the Presidential Envoy in the Urals Federal District).
There is a rule in the expert and the scientific community around the world to assess the efficiency of government activity, including the authorities of higher rank, through sociological measurements that allow experts to identify the share of people who approve (or do not approve) the authorities’ work. In this case, as a rule, data collection is carried out simultaneously by some factors which are the main powers that influence the results of measurements.
ISEDT RAS has been using these basic approaches for assessing presidential activity in opinion polls since 19962. The Institute has accumulated the comprehensive materials covering the period from 1996 till 2012. The database accumulated over 16 years is actually unique: as far as we know, other academic institutions in the regions of the country do not have the similar system databases.
The figures attached present graphs that show the degree of the RF President’s activity approval by the Vologda Oblast’s population in 1996 – 2012.
Figure 1 shows that the degree of approval of the President B.N. Yeltsin’s activity dropped multiply below the figures that were permissible for the Head of the state by the end of 1999. Therefore, his voluntary resignation and entrusting the duties of the President, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin were immediately approved by the majority of population. In March 2000, most people, who took part in the Presidential election, voted for Vladimir V. Putin as the President of the Russian Federation.
Social tension reduced in Russian society during the first term of V.V. Putin’s presidency (from early 2000 to April, 2004). There was a negative mean power correlation dependence3 between the level of approval and the share of people with low “patience reserves”. The share of positive characteristics of the RF President’s activity increased significantly in the category of 20% the most prosperous people in the Oblast (by 13 percentage points, up to 82%, fig. 3.), as well as among young people (aged from 18 to 30) and middle-aged population (30 - 55 years) (by 11 percentage points, fig. 4).
In general, the population made special mention of Putin’s successful work in solving key problems of the country against the background of the previous Head of the state Boris Yeltsin’s failed results.
The second presidential term of Vladimir V. Putin was marked by the increase in support for his work. The share of positive assessments increased from 67 to 82% in April 2008 as compared with June 2004.
The share of people, who identified themselves with the “poor” and “extremely poor”, reduced from 53 down to 43%; the share of people with low “patience reserves” decreased (from 19 down to 14%). The average income was higher than the cost of living by more than a third.
Social tension continued to reduce in the society in that period (fig. 2.1 – 2.3) . And besides, the decline in the share of people with low “patience reserves” and the share of the “poor” and “extremely poor” was directly related to the increase in the level of the RF President approval (there was a strong negative correlation dependence, R = –0,7).
The level of approval increased significantly in the category of 20% poorest people in the Oblast (by 23 percentage points, up to 80%), it became closer to the indicators for the groups of well-off people and people with middle-sized incomes (by 83%, see fig. 3 ). The positive assessments of the President’s activity continued to increase among middle-aged and elderly persons and people with low “patience reserves” (fig. 4, 5) .
In general, the share of people, who assessed V. Putin’s work as positive, increased during two terms of his presidency (from 63 up to 82%, or 1.3-fold). Population assessments became more correlated with the real activity of the RF President and his domestic and foreign policies. His international activity was recognized as successful.
The degree of the President’s activity approval reduced in the period of Dmitriy A. Medvedev’s presidency (May 2008 – April 2012): the share of people who approved it decreased from 71 to 50%.
In the period from June 2008 to April 2012 there was a decline in the share of people who recognized D. Medvedev’s activity as successful in such important areas as: foreign policy (from 55 down to 43%); establishment of order in the country (from 50 down to 35%); defense of democracy and citizen rights protection (from 40 down to 27%); economic development and improvement of population’s financial condition (from 40 down to 29%, fig. 6 – 9).
Thus, a significant decrease in Dmitriy Medvedev’s popularity in his presidential term was caused by not only the consequences of the global economic crisis, but the growth of unresolved economic and political problems in the country.
Vladimir V. Putin’s authority, political experience and his practical actions during the first hundred days in the third presidency has already led to positive changes in population’s assessments.
According to the recent ISEDT RAS sociological measuring ( table 1 – 3 ) in June 2012,
Table 1. Estimation of power activity (How do you assess the current activity of..?)
|
Vertical power structure |
Approval in % to the total number of respondents |
Dynamics indices, Aug. 2012 to 8 months 2008 |
Dynamics indices, Aug. 2012 to June 2012 |
||||||||||
|
8 mnth. 2008 |
Aug. 2011 |
Oct. 2011 |
Dec. 2011 |
Feb. 2012 |
Apr. 2012 |
June 2012 |
Aug. 2012 |
||||||
|
The President of the RF |
75.0 |
62.1 |
56.6 |
51.7 |
47.3 |
50.3 |
54.5* |
53.7* |
0.72 |
0 |
.99 |
||
|
The Chairman of the Government of the RF |
76.4 |
60.4 |
59.1 |
52.9 |
52.6 |
51.7 |
49.5** |
48.5** |
0.63 |
0 |
.98 |
||
|
The Governor of the Vologda Oblast |
57.8 |
49.5 |
47.7 |
41.9*** |
37.7*** |
37.7*** |
44.7*** |
45.3*** |
0.78 |
1.01 |
|||
|
Vertical power structure |
Disapproval in % to the total number of respondents |
Dynamics indices, Aug. 2012 to 8 months 2008 |
Dynamics indices, Aug. 2012 to June 2012 |
|||||||||
|
8 mnth. 2008 |
Aug. 2011 |
Oct. 2011 |
Dec. 2011 |
Feb. 2012 |
Apr. 2012 |
June 2012 |
Aug. 2012 |
|||||
|
The President of the RF |
9.3 |
19.7 |
29.0 |
35.7 |
35.7 |
33.3 |
28.9* |
31.1* |
3.34 |
1.08 |
||
|
The Chairman of the Government of the RF |
10.4 |
21.4 |
24.7 |
32.7 |
32.0 |
33.1 |
31.5** |
34.5** |
3.32 |
1.10 |
||
|
The Governor of the Vologda Oblast |
19.9 |
24.4 |
32.1 |
36.1 *** |
33.8 *** |
32.6 *** |
31.8 *** |
32.7 *** |
1,64 |
1,03 |
||
|
* Data for June - August 2012 - the beginning of V.V. Putin’s presidency ** Data for June - August 2012 – D.A. Medvedev’s activity as the Prime Minister of Russia *** Data from December 2011 relate to the activities of the Vologda Oblast Governor O. A. Kuvshinnikov |
||||||||||||
Table 2. What party expresses your interests?
|
Party |
In % to the total number of respondents |
Dynamics indices, Aug. 2012 to 8 months 2008 |
Dynamics indices, Aug. 2012 to June 2012 |
|||||||
|
8 mnth. 2008 |
Aug. 2011 |
Oct. 2011 |
Dec. 2011 |
Feb. 2012 |
Apr. 2012 |
June 2012 |
Aug. 2012 |
|||
|
United Russia |
40.5 |
33.7 |
29.8 |
26.1 |
26.0 |
28.3 |
31.9 |
31.4 |
0.78 |
1 0.98 |
|
KPRF |
6.8 |
10.0 |
12.1 |
13.4 |
10.1 |
11.4 |
10.0 |
9.5 |
1.40 |
0.95 |
|
LDPR |
7.7 |
7.5 |
9.1 |
9.2 |
9.1 |
9.5 |
7.7 |
6.7 |
0.87 |
0.87 |
|
A Just Russia |
5.0 |
2.7 |
5.6 |
13.9 |
10.2 |
8.2 |
4.6 |
5.6 |
1.18 |
1.22 |
|
Other |
1.4 |
2.4 |
3.1 |
4.6 |
3.1 |
3.2 |
2.8 |
2.3 |
1.36 |
0.82 |
|
No party |
20.1 |
28.9 |
28.1 |
23.9 |
25.7 |
28.6 |
31.5 |
33.2 |
1.65 |
1.05 |
|
It’s difficult to answer |
13.7 |
14.8 |
12.2 |
9.0 |
15.8 |
10.8 |
11.6 |
11.1 |
0.81 |
0.96 |
Table 3. Estimation of social condition
It appears that one of the significant factors decreasing the values of a number of indicators on the August survey is a fact that during his first hundred days of presidency Vladimir V. Putin did not clearly define the structure of promised real steps to change the current system of social injustice that had formed in the country over the past 20 years (side effect of the 1990s privatization, flat rate of taxes, inadequate luxury tax, declaring of state officials’ incomes and other acute problems). The priorities of oligarchic clans, corrupt elites and bureaucracy still remain the basis of this system.
People expect Vladimir Putin’s real actions to bring the current economic and political systems to the requirements of the social state, whose policy is aimed at creating conditions for worthy life and free development of an individual, in accordance with Art. 7 of the RF Constitution.
The problems of forming the basic conditions for the transition of RF governmental system to the standards of social state that are settled in the leading European countries were considered in a number of works4.
There were informative publications on this subject in our Journal5. These articles deal with the real actions that are recommended by national-oriented experts to the President of the RF to ensure the stable and sustainable development of our country.
This issue contains the text of academic report by Academician S.Yu. Glazyev and Professor V.V. Lokosov at the meeting of RAS Presidium that deals with the assessment of the critical threshold values of the indicators of the state of Russian society and their use in the socio-economic development management.
The authors, carrying out a more detailed analysis of the situation, based on the system of indicators reflecting the fundamental social and economic processes, proves that Russian society and economy are on the verge of breakdown.
In scientists’ opinion, “ wide-scale export of capital, having reached for the 2 decades the astronomical value of $ 1 trillion; brain drain that is also devastating for the economy and society; the loss of the most part of scientific, industrial and human potential are the consequences of unsatisfactory performance of market selforganization mechanisms and state regulation institutions. Actual self-estrangement of the ruling elite from the society and depriving the overwhelming majority of citizens of exercisable rights to participate in management processes impede the feedbacks between the society and the state. The latter conforms to the oligarchic interests and becomes a tool of receiving the administrative markup by a corrupt bureaucracy, protected from liability to the society thanks to the existing political system” 6.
Dynamics of the RF President’s activity approval by the region’s population
Е
|
с Ё s :i "■§ § 7 S g °" g S |
|||||||
|
ео г- |
|||||||
|
ri 8# • in |
5 „ > — 65 : гюгво g H 1 гюг90 2 ziorzo g I П0Г01 5 s ; 1102'90 Я 5 1102'20 I OlOZOT ■У 5 S I 0102'90 : oiorzo 6002'01 6002'90 и й й ё ; боогго 8002'01 GO 8002'90 Л Л "2 : sooz'zo ОО - : 2002'01 2002'90 Ф Ф .Й □_ Е ; доогго ^/ . ^z . 9002'01 о г g 9002'90 900FZ0 । ; 500Г01 Э 5 ° " 500Г90 ” >Е - : soorzo S я 5 : <7002'01 "о ‘о 'и I <7002'90 ф ф ; tOOZ'ZO I £002'01 I £002'90 I £002'20 5 5 ° : 2002'01 я я 2 К _ Z00Z'90 = = я § - 8 2002'20 2 S 3 = 7 й ; 1002'01 ; 1002'90 s 1002'20 ^ |= g ; ооог'01 0002'90 I 0002'20 |
2102'80 2102'90 2102'20 1102'01 1102'90 1102'20 0102'01 0102'90 0102'20 "м 6002'01 ■5 600Г90 = 600Z'Z0 я 800Г01 ф 800Г90 у л SOOZ'ZO 1 ф £00Z'0l g 2002'90 2002'20 I 9002'01 9002'90 ^ 900Z-Z0 § £002'01 £002'90 с £002'20 <7002'01 а <7002'90 5 SOOZ'ZO о C00Z0I о. £00Z'90 я £00Z'Z0 ZOOZ'Ol 1 м 2002'90 ■о ZOOZ'ZO 1002'01 2 1002'90 1002'20 0002'01 0002'90 0002'20 |
|||||
|
И СО g СС н = | 7 сс ° S |
1 00 1 IT in 1 ri ) Os у |
SY £ ч у / \ I / 00 / ^ |
2 |
( i к / OS |
1 \ ( ) > \ 1 \ >_ Os |
||
|
00 о ^Wv ^ |
|||||||
|
I|| ^ я 8 |
6661 : 8661 Е •= СП . ’Е - £661 ш “ ^ I 9661 g |
» т 1 |
6661 8661 2661 9661 |
||||
|
Н СС я 8 |
|||||||
Fig. 2. 1. Dynamics of the level of the RF President’s activity approval and theshare ofthe Vologda Oblast’s population with low patience reserves (in % to the total number of respondents)
Е
о ж S ? м °
гтогво 210Г90 гюгго 110Г01 110Г90 погго
010Г01 010Г90 оюгго воогот 6002'90 боогго 8002'01 8002'90 8002'20 доогот £002'90 доогго 9002'01 9002'90 9002'20 SOOZ'OT £002'90 soorzo 17002'01 17002'90 17002'20 £002'01 £002'90 £002'20 2002'01 2002'90 2002'20 1002'01 1002'90 1002'20 0002'01 0002'90 0002'20 6661
8661 £661
'З S
eq eq
м
2102'80
IT),
<пе
|
и II сс н = ^ ё н сс 5 "5 „ £ = Е > S
Е £ 1 1 Is Hi
5 о о i |
ГП Л |
; 2102'20 : H02 0I ; 1102'90 ; 1102'20 ; 0102'01 ; 0102'90 ; 0102'20 ; 6002'01 : 6002'90 ; 6002'20 ; 8002'01 ; 8002'90 ; 8002'20 ; £002'01 ; £002'90 ; £002'20 ; 9002'01 ; 9002'90 ; 9002'20 ; £002'01 ; £002'90 ; £002'20 ; 17002'01 ; 17002'90 ; 17002'20 ; £002'01 ; £002'90 ; £002'20 ; 2002'01 ; 2002'90 ; 2002'20 : 1002'01 ; 1002'90 1002'20 : 0002'01 ; 0002'90 ; 0002'20 |
|
|
^2 ОО |
1 1 sO in ГЧ |
||
|
§ = $ S ^ ^ ^ |
об | гч 1 |
/оо гч eq |
; eeel ; seer ; £66i 9661 |
Е = Е Е
Е
с
£
св
=
Е
=
* 5
V ©
св
се
=
Ь£
С
Св
св
fc
Fig. 2.3. Dynamics of the level of the RF President’s activity approval (in % tothe total number of respondents) and the shareof people in the region whose incomes are below the subsistence minimum (according to the data of State Statistics; in % to the total population)
о ос чо -г rq
гЮГ80 гтогэо гюгго П0Г01 П0Г90 погго 0ЮГ01 0ЮГ90 отогго 600Г01 600Г90 еоогго 800Г01 800Г90 800Гг0 /.00Г01 /.00Г90 /.оогго 900Г01 9002’90 900Гг0 sooroi 500Г90 soorzo М0Г01 М0Г90 юогго Е00Г01 Е00Г90 еоогго гоогот гоогэо гоогго 100Г01 Ю0Г90 юогго 000Г01 000Г90 ооогго 6661 8661 £.661 9661
|
с Б Е |
||
|
i б ” |
||
|
£ Ё Йо 00 1> ^ |
; гюгво ; гюгэо ; гюгго ; noroi ; негде ; пог го ; oioroi ; 010Г90 о. ; oiorzo !л 600Г01 5 ; 600Г90 1 ; боогго ; 800Г01 ос - < 8001'90 । |
|
|
II ОС Ч н у р К 2 £ |
||
|
3 in й сс £ С Е / / | Е £ । 1 I 8 Pi £ о о ^ ^ о ° й |
11 оо г- Ч оо m |
; воогго ; гоогот ; Д00Г90 ; гоогго ; 900Г01 О ; 900Г90 !л ; ооогго 8 о ; sooroi ; 500Г90 S ; soorzo ьх ; sooroi ; М0Г90 ; могго : Е00Г01 ; Е00Г90 ; соогго : zooroi S ; Z00C90 ■в . гоогго < ; tooroi ; Ю0Г90 1 ; юогго ; 000Г01 : 000Г90 : ооогго |
|
S = S S |
00 Г; ГО Ж о\ об t^ У go о^ оо |
; 6661 : 8661 : £661 9661 |
|
^ “ 5 000 ^ O'S 00 Г- |
§ ^ ^ S Й S С |
|
Е
ZIOZ'SO 210Г90 ZIOZ'ZO IIOZOI 110Г90 погго OlOZOl 010Г90 отог'го 600Z01 600Z90 боогго 800Г01 800Г90 800ZT0 /.ooroi £00Г90 /.OOZ'ZO 900Z01 900Z90 900ZT0 sooroi 500Г90 soorzo tooroi toorgo toorzo EOOZ'OI Е00Г90 соогго гоогот 200Г90 гоогго IOOZOI 100Г90 тоогго ОООГО1 000Г90 ооогго 6661 8661 Z.66I 9661
: 210Г80 210Г90
I гтогго
I ПОГО! I 110Г90®
: погго5
#g
- О1ОГО1к
: 010Г90о
I оюггоо
: 6ooroi
600 Г 90
I боогго
I 800Г01 У : 800 Г 90 .
I 800 г го
: гоогот
: £00Г90
: гоогго
: 900Г01
: 900 Г 90
: 900 г-го
I sooroi в : £00 Г 90“
: soo г-гоС tooroi <700Г90 х
I too г-го 5 : £00Г01°
u
: £00 Г 90о
: coo г гоа
I гоогот2г
_ гоогмv е _ гооггом
: тоог отС
Г Ю0Г90
’ юоггоУ
: 000Г01 : ооог-90 ооогго
I 666Г01 : 666Г90 666 г го
Fig. 6. Dynamics of the level of the RF President’s activity approval and positive assessments of his work inestablishing order in the countryby the Vologda Oblast’s population (in % to the total number of respondents)
Е
|
-ё |
||||||
|
|1|7 |
; 2102'80 2102'90 |
= 8 2° .у 8 8 -S о “ а "О О О о -У о й z у S -О © ^ а о ОХ СГ 5 .5 S ^ s ° Й s а $ -2 •i 2 а р: ■О я о 1« ее ^ -в "° $ >- ^ Л а ^ В 5 я 1 S а 2 в S -У 1 ^ 5 ох Е | л ? = Е ох |
||||
|
|| сс н |
о * Т* eq# тН • |
об * eq ' О , |
; 2102'20 ; 1102'01 ; 1102'90 ; 1102'20 ; 0102'01 ; 0102'90 ; 0102'20 ; 6002'01 ; 6002'90 ; 6002'20 ; 8002'01 8002'90 |
£ а © а = .У 5 © ЬХ ф S © = © 2 |
||
|
11 Ш S Н |
04 |
; 8002'20 ; 2002'01 ; 2002'90 ; 2002'20 ; 9002'01 ; 9002'90 ; 9002'20 |
||||
|
£002'01 |
св S 3 £ 5 © а св 3 = ЬХ -о = св ^* 3 h |
|||||
|
; £002'90 ; £002'20 ; мог о! 17002'90 |
||||||
|
сс ■Е - 2 I f S HI 2 о о 5 о ° 3 |
со/ |
Хаг' |
17002'20 ; £002'01 ; £002'90 ; £002'20 ; 2002'01 ; 2002'90 ; 2002'20 ; 1002'01 ; 1002'90 |
|||
|
об 1 eq? |
1002'20 ; 0002'01 |
|||||
|
eq\ co# 40 • |
; 0002'90 " 0002'20 |
1 |
||||
|
S = S 2 Г ^ ~ S |
; 666Г01 ; 666Г90 |
|||||
|
6661'20 |
||||||
|
§ § Е § й |
о о о о с |
|||||
Е
|
"ё |
c^J "Е р^7 |
|||||
|
СО |
со со |
|||||
|
г |
2102'80 |
|||||
|
2102'90 |
||||||
|
ГП о |
• |
■40 ,eq |
||||
|
2102'20 |
||||||
|
• |
1102'01 |
|||||
|
СО g СС Н |
1102'90 1102'20 0102'01 ; 0102'90 |
= ,N ■о = св >. св © Ё ■о 3 5 5 |
||||
|
i |
; 0102'20 ; 6002'01 |
|||||
|
х |
6002'90 |
|||||
|
6002'20 |
||||||
|
eq# |
О |
8002'01 8002'90 |
||||
|
00 1 |
; 8002'20 |
|||||
|
2002'01 |
||||||
|
1 3 11 |
2002'90 2002'20 |
|||||
|
9002'01 9002'90 |
1 |
|||||
|
; 9002'20 ; £002'01 |
||||||
|
£002'90 |
тМ св |
|||||
|
eq\ |
\ ^ Jco |
; £002'20 17002'01 |
||||
|
; 17002'90 |
= 3 £ 5 3 © а а св 3 = ьх -о = св ^* 3 h |
|||||
|
>777-5 .Е £ । I Is Hi 2 о о 3 5° ° 3 |
С* С* |
17002'20 ; £002'01 |
||||
|
£002'90 |
||||||
|
; £002'20 ; 2002'01 2002'90 |
||||||
|
; 2002'20 1002'01 |
||||||
|
1002'90 |
||||||
|
т-i j К)/ eq [ |
1002'20 |
|||||
|
чо % |
; 0002'01 ; 0002'90 |
|||||
|
0002'20 |
||||||
|
5 .Е от — с< ^ я 8 |
40 * |
; 6661'01 ; 666Г90 |
||||
|
6661'20 |
||||||
|
^ § ^ § |
||||||
Fig. 8. Dynamics of the level of the RF President’s activity approval and positive assessments of his work in defending democracy and citizen liberties by the Vologda Oblast’s population (in % to the total number of respondents; the question has been asked since 2000)
гюгко ZT0Z90 гюгго П0Г01
П0Г90 попо О1ОГО1 010Г90 отогго 600Г01 600Г90 боогго 800Г01
800Г90 800ZT0 /.ООГО! £00Г90 доогго
900Г01 900Z90
900ZT0 £ООГОТ 500Г90 SOOZTO МОГО!
Ю0Г90 юогго соогот Е00Г90 соогго гоогот 200Г90 гоогго
1ООГО1 100Г90 тоогго
ОООГО1 000Г90 ооогго
666Г01 6661'90 бббгго
■S
а
МЛ"
-о с^
о<
•У
Е
The first ten articles according to the frequency of their viewing for the recent 12 months (September 2011 — August 2012)
|
5 |
< о |
11 5 = |
< < |
i 111 1 11 < s- > С ^ С С ГО г- ГО "го го Р У ™ 5 > г5 |
8 о =5 ^ ГО гм |
§ го го |
Е о со |
о о га О > ■о о >^ ГО ^ < > Я го § S ° = о |
аз > СО |
О 8 о .В го Е1 ^ го ^ ^ го > "го |
|
й я 03 Го аз тз СС |
Е 2 о см а |
Е ° СМ СО |
f ° |
Е ° СМ СО |
Е ° см СО |
Е о см а |
||||
|
го |
со 6 |
6 ^ |
СМ |
6 |
6 |
6 |
ОО ^ |
|||
|
1^1 = го "В В с о Я О у С о — Е 5 я " |
СП |
СП см |
ОО |
го |
го |
см |
||||
|
- б « = S Е |
СМ |
со |
ио |
со |
со |
см |
||||
|
- го " S S g S Е Е го ст 2 о — см о |
СП |
СП |
см |
со |
го |
см |
го со |
см |
||
|
03 a CD 03 "О ■= £ £ о ° 1№ |
СП |
со |
см |
со го |
со |
го |
го |
ОО |
см |
|
|
cd а о Р С 03 "^ ^ Ш " — го = го аз о аз ° ° Iе |
S |
со ио см |
СП см |
ОО СП см |
см со см |
S |
го со |
О |
S |
|
|
= с о сл Е с Я Я Я Я Е .Е S ст ^ ~ Е |
S |
СП |
СП см |
5 |
ио со |
го |
S |
S |
||
|
о - о сл | СС Г- го Ъ > о о £5 •— | _Е | о аз Q о о |
Е о Е ° го 8 | О) S го о го |
Е = го 8 го £ я |
о о О ГО ~ О О -Е "8 ГО |
Е го Е Я ° .92 § го о ° Осо о о — о ^ S S го а. |
’о 9 "с ГО ГО О Е со а Ъ |
го ° |
Е сл го Е И > го |
го ^ Е Е го У ■СТ § Е го Е го -9 |
||
|
Вицец |
1- |
см |
ю |
<о |
▻- |
ОО |
о |
о |
Account of the site’s viewing has been carried out since 2009, December, 12.
Список литературы Dynamics of the RF presidents' activities approval by the region's population
- Glazyev S., Ivanter V. Makarov V., Nekipelov A., Tatarkin A., Greenberg, R., Fetisov G., Tsvetkov V., Batchikov S., Ershov M., Mityayev D., Petrov Yu. On the strategy of Russia's economic development. Economics of contemporary Russia. 2011. No. 3.
- Glazyev S.Yu., Lokosov V.V. Assessment of the critical threshold values of the indicators of the state of Russian society and their use in the socio-economic development management. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2012. Vol. 82. No. 7. P. 600
- Makarov V.L. Historical examples of various methods for recovery from crisis. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2011. No. 1 (13)
- Greenberg R.S. The contours of the global world: denoting future. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2011. No. 1 (13)
- Ivanter V.V. On the problems of Russia's way out of the economic crisis. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2011. No. 1 (13)
- Petrakov N.Ya. Forword to the monograph “Problems of Market Economy Development”. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2011. No. 2 (14)
- Ilyin V.A. The influence of the metallurgical corporation owners' interests on the national and regional development. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2011. No.3 (15). P. 14 -38
- Povarova A.I. The influence of the metallurgical corporation owners' interests on the financial performance of the head enterprise (the case of OJSC Severstal). Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2011. No.5 (17). P. 36 -51
- Tatarkin A.I., Lavrikova Yu.G. Programmed project modernization of the federative structure in Russia. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2011. № 6 (19).
- Glazyev S.Yu. Why is Putin. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2012. No. 2 (20)
- Yakunin V.I. Post-industrialism: the experience of critical analysis. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2012. No. 2 (20)
- Collapse of the global pyramid. Interview with RAS Academician S.Yu. Glazyev. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2012. No. 3 (21)
- Tatarkin A.I. Development of the economic space of Russia's regions on the basis of cluster principals. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2012. No. 3 (21)
- Gubanov S. System choice of Russia and living standards. Economist. 2011. No. 11
- Ivanova L. On the strategy of neo-industrial modernization. Economist. 2012. No. 2
- Mikulskiy K. Modernization of the Russian economy: the need and the opportunity. Society and Economy. 2011. No. 11 -12
- Senchagov V. Objectives, priorities and risks of financial system modernization in Russia. Federalism. 2012. No. 2
