Subject. I herein focus on the capitalism in Russia today. Objectives. The study is an attempt to determine what distinguishes the financial and economic substance of the Russian capitalism today. Methods. The study relies upon the systems approach and methods of statistical, neural network and cluster analysis. Results. The article reveals the difference of trends in general indicators of financial and business activities in capitalist Russia, socialist China and the imperialist USA. I discover development distinctions of the Russian economy, such as high growth rates of money supply, considerable simultaneous drop in foreign exchange rates, moderate debts of the Russian households and minimum wages, low unemployment rate, low growth rate of the current account balance to GDP as compared with the devaluation rate of the national currency. Having conducted the neural network analysis of growth rates of the money supply, solvency ratios and profitability of entities, financial results of the Russian credit institutions, I found median values of growth rates. Negative values were captured for the return on assets, return on sale of goods, products, work, services, and the equity-to-total assets ratio. Positive ones were found for total profit derived by operational credit institutions, losses and the percentage of unprofitable credit institutions. As the cluster analysis of growth rates of households’ consumption spending shows, there is a palpable correlation between food products and alcohol-free beverages, alcohol beverages, tobacco, clothes, shoes, communications. Conclusions and Relevance. The financial and economic substance of the contemporary Russian capitalism helps financial institutions and legislature consistently set up the concept and principles for retaining capitalism in Russia, considering the marginal proportions of the money supply growth to the unemployment rate, minimal wages, debt and consumption spending of households, which are adjusted within the possible divergence of the foreign exchange rate and current account balance to GDP. The findings constitute the necessary scope of governmental authorities’ competence to make managerial decisions for keeping the capitalist vector of the Russian society and economy.
Boubakri N., Ghoul S.E., Guedhami O., Hossain M. Post-Privatization State Ownership and Bank Risk-Taking: Cross-Country Evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2020, vol. 64. Article 101625. URL: Link
Bolgorian M., Mayeli A. Banks' Characteristics, State Ownership and Vulnerability to Sanctions: Evidences from Iran. Borsa Istanbul Review, 2019, vol. 19, iss. 3, pp. 264–272. URL: Link
Yeddou N., Pourroy M. Bank Liquidity Creation: Does Ownership Structure Matter? The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. In press, corrected proof. Available online 22 January 2020. URL: Link
Alexakis P.D., Samantas I.G. Foreign Ownership and Market Power: The Special Case of European Banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 2020, vol. 118. Article 105857. URL: Link
Li S., Fu H., Wen J., Chang C.-P. Separation of Ownership and Control for Chinese Listed Firms: Effect on the Cost of Debt and the Moderating Role of Bank Competition. Journal of Asian Economics, 2020, vol. 67. Article 101179. URL: Link
Kubo K., Phan H.V. State Ownership, Sovereign Wealth Fund and Their Effects on Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from Vietnam. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 2019, vol. 58. Article 101220. URL: Link
Yi J., Hong J., Hsu W.C., Wang C. Reprint of "The Role of State Ownership and Institutions in the Innovation Performance of Emerging Market Enterprises: Evidence from China". Technovation, 2020, vol. 94–95. Article 102095. URL: Link
Cao X., Cumming D., Zhou S. State Ownership and Corporate Innovative Efficiency. Emerging Markets Review, 2020, vol. 44. Article 100699. URL: Link
Zhang X., Yu M., Chen G. Does Mixed-Ownership Reform Improve SOEs' Innovation? Evidence from State Ownership. China Economic Review, 2020, vol. 61. Article 101450. URL: Link
Ge Y., Liu Y., Qiao Z., Shen Z. State Ownership and the Cost of Debt: Evidence from Corporate Bond Issuances in China. Research in International Business and Finance, 2020, vol. 52. Article 101164. URL: Link
Vo X.V. Do firms with State Ownership in Transitional Economies Take More Risk? Evidence from Vietnam. Research in International Business and Finance, 2018, vol. 46, pp. 251–256. URL: Link
Li H. Residual State Ownership and Stock Market Integration: Evidence from Chinese Partly-Privatised Firms. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 2018, vol. 67, pp. 100–112. URL: Link
Huang Y., Xie E., Li Y., Reddy K.S. Does State Ownership Facilitate Outward FDI of Chinese SOEs? Institutional Development, Market Competition, and the Logic of Interdependence between Governments and SOEs. International Business Review, 2017, vol. 26, iss. 1, pp. 176–188. URL: Link
Chang S.-C., Boontham W. Post-Privatization Speed of State Ownership Relinquishment: Determinants and Influence on Firm Performance. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 2017, vol. 41, pp. 82–96. URL: Link
Li L., McMurray A., Sy M., Xue J. Corporate Ownership, Efficiency and Performance under State Capitalism: Evidence from China. Journal of Policy Modeling, 2018, vol. 40, iss. 4, pp. 747–766. URL: Link
