The article considers the structure of the Russian economy by sectors (industry, regions and technological levels) and the dynamics of indicators characterizing the efficiency of the Russian economy. The major objective was to evaluate the way meso-level made an impact on the economic efficiency under study (labor productivity and fund flexibility). The authors have assessed the effectiveness of structural changes and the impact of particular sectors in the Russian economy, compared the actual and optimal economic structure, determined whether the actual structure of the Russian economy is approaching the optimum, defined the limitations and criteria for the optimal economic structure, clarified the existing models and built new models describing the connection between meso-level and macro-level, determining the connection between the indices of various levels and the impact of structural shifts and allowing to study the distribution of investments and other resources and develop the optimal distribution of such resources taking into account various criteria and limitations. Based on such models, the efficiency of Russian economy can be evaluated and the impact of various economy sectors, regions and technology levels on the labor efficiency and fund flexibility can be assessed. The authors have evaluated the impact of structural shifts, studied the criteria and limitations allowing the optimal structure of resource allocation correspond with the real structure. The results of analysis have showed that structural changes had a positive effect in the 90s and negative in the 2000s. In the 2000s the difference between real and optimal resource allocation dramatically increased, with the optimal allocation 100-105% more than the real one. The funds are focused in other branches of economy, such as trade. The overall structure of the Russian economy has become more distant from the optimum. In recent years, the proportion of inefficient sectors began to grow, and the efficiency of the Russian economy began to decline.
otrasl', region, tehnologicheskiy uroven', proizvoditel'nost' truda, effektivnost', proizvodstvennaya funkciya
1. Bessonov V.A. Problemy postroeniya proizvodstvennyh funkciy v rossiyskoy perehodnoy ekonomike. M., 2002.
2. Gorbunov V.K., L'vov A.G. Postroenie proizvodstvennyh funkciy po dannym ob investiciyah // Ekonomika i matematicheskie metody. 2012. № 2.
3. Druzhinin P.V. Razvitie ekonomiki prigranichnyh regionov v perehodnyy period. Petrozavodsk, 2005.
4. Druzhinin P.V. Raschet parametrov narodnohozyaystvennyh i regional'nyh agregirovannyh proizvodstvennyh funkciy // Ekonomika i matematicheskie metody. 1990. № 5.
5. Zorkal'cev V.I. Agregirovanie ekonomicheskih sub'ektov. Irkutsk, 2000.
6. Koen A., Harkurt Dzh. Sud'ba diskussii dvuh Kembridzhey o teorii kapitala // Voprosy ekonomiki. 2009. № 8.
7. Regiony Rossii. Social'no-ekonomicheskie pokazateli. T. 2. 2001: Stat. sb. / Goskomstat. M., 2001.
8. Regiony Rossii. Social'no-ekonomicheskie pokazateli. 2013: Stat. sb. / Rosstat. M., 2013.
9. Rossiyskiy statisticheskiy ezhegodnik. 2013: Stat. sb. / Rosstat. M., 2012.
10. De S. Intangible capital and growth in the «new economy»: Implications of a multi-sector endogenous growth model // Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. 2014. Vol. 28.
11. Felipe J., Fisher F. Aggregate production functions, neoclassical growth models and the aggregation problem // Estudios de Economia Aplicada. 2006. Vol. 24-1.
12. Lee S. The relationship between growth and profit: evidence from firm-level panel data // Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. 2014. Vol. 28.
13. Leontief W.W. Introduction to a Theory of the Internal Structure of Functional Relationships // Econometrica. 1947. Vol. 15 (4).
