Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions

Research interests: e-commerce, Internet, pricing, innovation, innovative marketing, Internet marketing.

Participation in conferences:

- International Scientific Conference Lomonosov Readings - 2019 " Economic relations in the context of digital transformation"

IX International Scientific and Practical Conference "Modern Economy: Concepts and Models of Innovative Development", Russian University of Economics. G.V. Plekhanov, February 2018

- International scientific conference Lomonosov readings - 2016 "Economics and the development of university scientific schools (on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov)"

Seventeenth All-Russian Symposium " Strategic planning and development of enterprises” (April 2016, CEMI RAS).

VIII International Scientific and Practical Conference "Modern Economy: Concepts and Models of Innovative Development" (February 2016, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics).

II International Scientific and Practical Conference "Economics and Management: Problems, Trends, Development Prospects" (Cheboksary, February 2016).

VII International Scientific and Practical Conference "Actual Directions scientific research: from theory to practice” (Cheboksary, February 2016).​

All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference "Intelligent Systems in Information Confrontation" (December 2015, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics).

P panel discussion “Prospects for the transformation of the global financial system with the formation of currency zones, in particular, the zone of China and Southeast Asia with the yuan and the Eurasian zone with the ruble” (December 2015, President Hotel).

II Interfaculty Ultet scientific-practical conference of young scientists: "Prospects for the development e-business and ecommerce"​​ (November 25, 2015, Lomonosov Moscow State University).

Seventh International Scientific Conference » Innovative development Russian Economy: Interdisciplinary Interaction” (April 2014, Lomonosov Moscow State University).

Sixth International Scientific Conference "Innovative Development of the Russian Economy: Regional Diversity" (April 2013, Lomonosov Moscow State University).​

XXV and XXVII International Scientific and Practical Conferences "Plekhanov Readings" (February 2011, February 2013, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics).

Scientific and Practical Conference "Applied Analysis of the Problems of Post-Crisis Development of the World Economy" (November 2011, MGIMO).

Third international scientific conference "Innovative development of the Russian economy: the role of universities" (April 2010, Lomonosov Moscow State University).​

Additional Information

Contacts

To narrow the search results, you can refine the query by specifying the fields to search on. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search across multiple fields at the same time:

logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all the elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the way in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search with morphology, without morphology, prefix search, phrase search.
By default, the search is based on morphology.
To search without morphology, it is enough to put the "dollar" sign before the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, put a hash mark " # " before a word or before an expression in brackets.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthesized expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one was found.
Not compatible with no-morphology, prefix, or phrase searches.

# study

grouping

Parentheses are used to group search phrases. This allows you to control the boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For an approximate search, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word in a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

The search will find words such as "bromine", "rum", "prom", etc.
You can optionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1, or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

The default is 2 edits.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Expression relevance

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the sign " ^ " at the end of the expression, and then indicate the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the given expression.
For example, in this expression, the word "research" is four times more relevant than the word "development":

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values ​​are a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To specify the interval in which the value of some field should be, you should specify the boundary values ​​in brackets, separated by the operator TO.
A lexicographic sort will be performed.

Such a query will return results with the author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in an interval, use square brackets. Use curly braces to escape a value.

Bulletin of Chelyabinsk state university. 2017. No. 10 (406). Economic sciences. Issue. 58. S. 15-25.

UDC 330.111.6 BBK U011.2

DIGITAL REVOLUTION AND FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN ECONOMIC RELATIONS1

E. V. Ustyuzhanina, A. V. Sigarev, R. A. Shein

Russian Economic University. G. V. Plekhanov, Moscow, Russia

Despite a significant number of works devoted to the discussion of the phenomenon of "digital economy", there is still no clear understanding of what the digital economy is as a socio-economic system. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the hypothesis that the transition to a digital economy is not another change in the technological order (the fourth industrial revolution is an option), but is a paradigm shift economic development, entailing changes in the nature of the division of labor, the way of interaction between economic entities and the basis of economic power. The change in the nature of the division of labor is expressed in the separation of intellectual and organizational centers from production and service units. The change in the leading mode of inter-firm interaction is manifested in the gradual displacement of the free market by value networks. Property ceases to be the main basis of economic power, its place is taken by a position in the hierarchy of the field of interaction (firm, market or network).

Keywords Keywords: digital economy, digital revolution, economic development paradigm, division of labor, economic power.

Recently, the phrase "digital economy" has become one of the most mentioned both in the press and in numerous economic forums. This is largely due to the obvious interest in this topic of V.V. Putin, who has repeatedly publicly voiced the need for our country to move in the appropriate direction. In our opinion, we are not talking about another fashionable slogan such as "modernization", "reindustrialization", "innovative orientation", declaring " right direction» development of the domestic economy, but about an objectively determined process that is unfolding before our eyes and affecting, to one degree or another, the economies of almost all developed and developing countries. Information and communication technologies today penetrate into almost all spheres of human life, cyber-physical systems capable of autonomous exchange of information, independent initiation of actions and independent control of operations are becoming more widespread. According to the President of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Klaus Schwab, "the nature of the ongoing changes is so fundamental that world history has not yet known such an era - a time of both great opportunities and potential dangers" .

1 This work was supported by the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Russian University of Economics. G. V. Plekhanov.

The realization of the radical nature of the upcoming changes has led many states to develop "road maps", or state strategies for the development of the digital economy. Examples include Digital Economy (USA), Internet Economy (China), Industrie 4.0 (Germany), Technet (Russia). The government of the Russian Federation, together with the presidential administration, was instructed to develop and approve the Digital Economy program.

However, until now, most researchers do not have a clear understanding of what the digital economy is as a social system, what socio-economic consequences of the ever-deepening technological changes taking place before our eyes can lead to. It is precisely these questions that the present work is devoted to.

What is the digital economy

From a technological point of view, the digital economy is the result of the mutual superposition of fundamental breakthroughs in the development of many branches of intellectual activity, including: the creation of cyber-physical and cyber-biological systems, fundamentally new materials, new means of production, information technologies, genetic engineering, renewable energy sources, etc. The transition to a digital economy is characterized by technological explosions, under which

is understood as a combination of technologies that makes it possible to create new products and services that, on the one hand, create and form new areas of activity, and on the other hand, destroy or radically change existing sectors of the economy.

Technical development is exponential: every year new science-intensive technologies become more and more perfect, and their physical embodiment is getting better (material storage media become smaller and cheaper, and their capacity and speed of information processing increase many times). With regard to the information accumulated in the world, the situation is even more explosive: the time intervals required for a twofold increase in information are constantly decreasing. The active development of information and communication technologies (ICT), coupled with the spread of the Internet, led to the emergence of a new concept - Big data (a set of approaches, methods and tools for analyzing huge amounts of structured and unstructured data).

Revolutionary changes in many traditional industries and the simultaneous emergence of new areas and opportunities for the development of human activity make it unrealistic to accurately predict the future, which depends not only on the level of radical technological changes, the speed of their improvement and spread, but also on the institutional support of these processes. At the same time, some significant characteristics of the digital economy can already be identified:

Turning ICT into technologies of wide application. Broad application technology (GPT) is a technology that allows for many improvements, has various use cases, is applicable in many sectors National economy and can be combined with other technologies, significantly increasing their efficiency.

Perfection information support decision-making process through remote access to information in real time and the creation of systems for processing large amounts of data. This changes the logic of the organization of the management process both at the business level and at the state level.

Increasingly active transition of the population and business to online interaction and online service.

Replacing human labor with robotic labor. Transfer of a significant part of production to a digital format.

Replacement of a significant part of machine tools with 3D printers for various purposes - for home, industrial, medical, construction and other uses. Computer production of new types of goods, including human organs.

Reducing the role of office, production and retail space, territorial dispersal of participants in economic interaction, ranging from online transactions to intra-company remote interaction.

Reducing the asymmetry of information by increasing the possibilities of access to it and advanced technologies for its processing.

The emergence of Internet things - objects with built-in electronic devices that exchange information about the state of the object of the outside world or the consumer itself without human intervention.

The emergence of fundamentally new products on the market (unmanned vehicles, energy storage devices, etc.).

Emergence of new, electronic types of money.

The growing role of sharing goods (consumers acquire not the goods themselves, but the rights of access to the goods and the rights to use them).

Strengthening the role of digital platforms in the economy connecting suppliers (sellers) and consumers (buyers).

Gradual displacement of hydrocarbons by renewable energy sources, development of energy-saving technologies.

The embodiment of the idea of ​​a “digital city” is the integrated informatization of transport, housing and communal services, etc.

Development of innovative biotechnologies and pharmaceuticals that provide effective rejuvenation and treatment of the body.

Reducing transaction costs by replacing intermediaries with automatic network services.

Implementation of the e-government concept.

Real globalization of social ties.

emergence new form interactions between companies and end users through the creation of a personal

fitted production chains, which is sometimes referred to as an "economy on demand".

Of course, the listed characteristics are not exhaustive and do not provide an accurate definition of the concept of "digital economy". The pace of change is so great that it is very difficult to make predictions and try to predict exactly which path technology will take.

The most famous examples of change in recent years are: digital cameras have destroyed film cameras; Smartphones have almost replaced push-buttons mobile phones; The taxi market has undergone a "ruber revolution" - the digital platform has not destroyed the traditional taxi services, but has radically changed the architecture of the market, sharply increasing competition.

At the moment, many innovations have been developed, the mass distribution of which should lead to radical changes in the markets. However, for these inventions to become widely applicable technologies, it takes time to reduce the cost of their production and realize a two-way network effect - at the same time significantly reducing costs for producers and increasing value for consumers.

The name matters

The transformation of socio-economic relations associated with the widespread dissemination of information and communication technologies is interpreted differently by different scientific schools. The most common is the technical and technological approach, which explains what is happening as another technological revolution. At the same time, the designations of the stage of technological development may differ: a new (sixth) technological order, a new (fourth) industrial revolution, a new industrialization, etc.

The technical and technological approach is based on the idea that ICT marks the next stage in the development of the production method, the foundations of which were laid during the Great Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution itself usually dates from the second half of the 18th century. The symbolic countdown is from the opening in 1771 of Arkwright's textile factory in Cromford. The factory is considered the first example of an industrial - compound in single system machine production and water energy, which made it possible to move from a single handmade to the mass machine.

According to the concept of uneven development of scientific and technological progress, the period that can be called the era of industry (originating from the time of the Great Industrial Revolution and continuing to this day) is characterized by a regular change in technological structures, which are based on technological revolutions that radically change the structure social production. At the same time, fundamentally new technologies become widely used technologies not immediately after their appearance, but with some delay.

Adherents of the theory of technological patterns currently distinguish six patterns - "industrial eras". The first begins, in their opinion, along with the industrial revolution in the 1760s and 70s. This is the era of the use of water energy and the first machines that replaced manual labor. The second way is positioned as the era of steam and railways. Its symbolic beginning is usually dated to 1829 - the testing of the Rocket steam locomotive for the Manchester - Liverpool railway. The era of electricity, steel and heavy engineering is the third technological order. Its beginning is timed to coincide with the opening in 1875 of the Carnegie steel plant in Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania). The symbolic beginning of the fourth technological order (the era of oil and automobiles) is considered to be the launch in 1908 of the production of a cheap Model-T car (Ford) with an engine internal combustion(Daimler & Benz) - the transfer of the automotive industry to mass production. Finally, the fifth technological order is called the era of microelectronics and computer science and its beginning is associated with the advent of a computer on microcircuits (1971 - Intel). There has not yet been a consensus on the main content and starting point of the sixth technological mode. Some researchers focus on NBIC technologies (Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information, Cognitive Science), others talk about robotics and new energy.

The developers of the concept of technological structures believe that in different countries at the same time, technologies inherent in different technological paradigms can dominate. Moreover, it is possible to simultaneously combine different technological structures in different fields of activity in one country. At the same time, countries lagging behind in terms of technological development have a chance to get ahead when changing technological patterns .

Somewhat different in terms of periodization, but not very different in essence, point of view

adheres to the German technological school, which believes that we are talking about the beginning of the fourth industrial revolution. According to the German tradition, a sequence of industrial revolutions that began in the second half of the 18th century stands out. . According to this approach, “the first industrial revolution lasted from the 1760s to the 1840s. Its trigger was the construction of railways and the invention of the steam engine, which contributed to the development of mechanical production. The second industrial revolution, which began at the end of the 19th century and lasted until the beginning of the 20th century, led to the emergence of mass production thanks to the spread of electricity and the introduction of the assembly line. The third industrial revolution began in the 1960s. It is commonly referred to as the computer or digital revolution because it was catalyzed by the development of semiconductors, the use of mainframe computers in the 1960s, personal computers in the 70s and 80s, and the Internet in the 1990s.

According to Klaus Schwab, the fourth industrial revolution is characterized by the widespread mobile Internet, smaller and cheaper means of production, artificial intelligence and learning machines, and the synthesis of physical, digital and biological innovations.

Obviously, here, as in the case of the last and penultimate technological modes, there is a certain intersection of the basic technologies of the third and fourth stages. We are talking about the very information and communication technologies that are the object of study of this article.

A different, alternative technological approach can be called a structural-sectoral one. These are numerous concepts for the end of industrial society, ranging from Bell's post-industrial society to Toffler's third wave. According to the structural approach, the basis for the classification various types society, such a criterion is taken as the field of activity with the largest share of employees. Accordingly, agrarian, industrial and post- or super-industrial society are distinguished, feature which is the transfer of most of the activity to the service sector and intellectual (innovative) activity, the transformation of scientific knowledge into an independent factor of production.

1 This is the terminology adopted by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation.

Today this point of view is actively criticized. Proponents of the idea of ​​a "new industrial society" pay attention to the fact that the concept of denying the leading role of material production is not confirmed by practice. material production has not disappeared anywhere - it has simply moved to other countries. Moreover, a powerful wave of industrialization unfolded in the world South and East, which led to a sharp increase in the share industrial production in the respective regions and, as a result, to an increase in the share of workers and engineers employed in a purely industrial sphere in the world “total worker”. However, the proportion of people employed in one or another type of activity, as well as the type of engine (water, steam, internal combustion, or electric) can hardly be a weighty argument in a dispute about the nature of ongoing processes. Just as the industrial revolution did not eliminate the agricultural sector, but simply significantly reduced its scale in the national economies of the countries leading industrialization, so new wave or a new economic revolution (if it takes place) implies not the withering away of the industrial sector, but a decrease in its role in social production, in particular, a decrease in the share of value added created in this sector.

Another thing is that in itself the transfer of industrial production to the periphery of the world economic system is an extremely significant phenomenon. But the answer to the question is important: is territorial expansion and the accompanying change in price proportions a natural way for the development of the existing world economic system or a manifestation of some new deep processes that change the very paradigm of economic development?

Economic revolution

We believe that this is not about a change in the technological order and/or another technological (industrial) revolution, the consequences of which are major structural shifts in the economy, changes in price proportions and the emergence of new markets, but about a change in the paradigm of economic development - an economic revolution comparable in terms of significance from the Neolithic (transition from an appropriating to a reproductive type of management) and industrial (transition from a predominantly agricultural economy to factory production) revolutions.

The use of the term "economic revolution" does not mean a spasmodic

changes (which in all three cases are of the accumulative nature of a gradual transition from quantity to quality), but about their radical nature - the formation of a new model of the economic structure of society. In this sense, economic revolutions differ significantly from political revolutions, during which first there is a sharp change in the conditions of life (the social paradigm of development), and then a partial restoration of the past begins.

To substantiate the thesis about the formation of a new paradigm of economic development, we need to explore the fundamental changes associated with economic revolutions, which include: a change in the nature of the division of labor, a change in the way economic entities interact, and a change in the basis of economic power.

Changing the nature of the division of labor. The change in the paradigm of economic development is characterized primarily by a change in the nature of the division of labor. So, the first (Neolithic) economic revolution is associated with the formation of stable areas of division of labor - the division of the community into those who are constantly engaged in valiant activities (cattle breeding, hunting, war), and those who are engaged in low-prestige work in the household, including agriculture. .

The second (industrial) revolution is characterized not only by the transition from manual labor to machine labor, the formation of industry as an independent sphere of production and the redistribution of most of the created social wealth into it. Simultaneously, there is a massive separation of production (enterprises) from households. A predominantly subsistence economy, in which the economy includes the institution of exchange (market), but most of the production is produced to satisfy one's own needs (including the need for luxury), gives way market economy where goods are produced primarily for exchange, and the target function of economic organizations is to make a profit.

Finally, the third (digital) revolution marks the separation of organizational and intellectual centers from production and service units, the localization of individual components production process in various parts light - another great division (great unbundling).

The change in the nature of the division of labor that is taking place before our eyes is distinguished by such features as:

Redistribution of most of the created social wealth in the sphere of intellectual and organizational activities (generation and commercialization of ideas, control over value chains);

Expanding the scale of remote interaction, which allows not only coordination and cooperation of geographically distributed participants, but also remote control of robotic systems;

Customization and return of the production of a significant part of consumer goods and services to the household through the improvement of household appliances; in the future, this trend is likely to increase: 3D printers will allow households to produce many goods on their own;

Gradual replacement by computers and robots of specialists in many professions, including those requiring high qualifications: education, health diagnostics, surgical operations, control of complex technical devices, etc.; as a consequence, increased differentiation of the nature of labor;

The displacement of human labor by robots due to computerization and automation of the vast majority of operations, including those related to decision-making. As a result, if the institutional conditions of employment do not change, there may be an increase in unemployment and the problem of “surplus population”.

Changing the way of economic interaction - forms of building relationships between economic entities and ways of coordinating their activities.

The industrial revolution, as noted above, was accompanied by a transition to the market as the main way of coordinating economic (intercompany) interaction. K. Polanyi believed that the pre-industrial economy included the institution of market exchange, but was not controlled by the market. To describe the pre-industrial economy, he introduces such types of transactions as transactions of reciprocity (reciprocity), redistribution, housekeeping and exchange.

The market way of coordinating economic activity assumes that the interaction of economic agents is regulated by the mechanism of free pricing - the balance of supply and demand based on the competition of independent sellers and buyers seeking to

to maximize their own benefit (in this sense, it is more correct to use the term "price method of coordination"). However, even in economies market type price regulation is by no means the only way to coordinate economic interaction. Almost always and everywhere it is supplemented by standardization (in the form of both formal norms and routines and traditions), administrative regulation (in particular, in the form of redistribution transactions) and mutual agreement (for example, in the form of reciprocity transactions).

If we talk about economies of the pre-industrial type, we also find a combination of several ways of coordinating economic interaction. At the same time, in communal-type economies, transactions of reciprocity and their inherent mechanism of mutual agreement (consultative coordination) prevail, and in hierarchical-type economies, which include not only feudal, but also planned economy, redistribution transactions and the administrative method of coordination.

The question arises: if the transition from the agrarian type of economy to the industrial one was accompanied by the transition to the market as the leading way of coordinating economic interaction, then what way of coordinating economic interaction can claim to be the leading one in the digital economy?

Apparently, we are talking about network forms of economic interaction, which are based on the formation of stable ties between economic entities based on the constant exchange of information and building relationships of trust. Just as the market is born in the depths of pre-industrial economies, network forms of economic interaction are born in the depths of the industrial economy. According to S. I. Parinov, we are talking about a return to a communal form of government based on expanding the possibilities of information exchange. “It is logical to assume that market and hierarchical forms arose in response to the inability of the communal form of government to provide an effective service to the system of division of labor when it began to go beyond the community. The reason is the limited capabilities of the means of communication and information exchange systems of that time, which did not provide a wider range of people with the level of information exchange that is necessary for the normal operation of the community economy.

In other words, the development of ICT allows solving the problem of direct exchange of information,

and, consequently, the establishment of direct links and relationships of trust between a very wide range of people. Before our eyes, the market as a universal way of intercompany interaction between independent producers is being gradually replaced by network forms of cooperation, within which the leading method of coordination is mutual agreement. I would like to emphasize that network forms replace predominantly market rather than intra-company interaction, since the weakening of the problem of information asymmetry gives rise to opportunities not only for the formation of stable inter-company relations, but also for the consolidation of corporations, as well as strengthening the intra-corporate vertical of power.

Changing the basis of economic power. Usually, when analyzing various socio-economic formations (modes of production), researchers focus on what is for them the main factor of production (the main object of ownership). According to popular belief, under feudalism (agrarian economy) such a factor is the land ( Natural resources), under capitalism (industrial economy) - the means of production (capital), and in the new economy - knowledge (information)1.

It seems to us that this approach somewhat simplifies the problem of economic power, reducing it to the problem of property. This formulation of the problem seems to be explained by the temptation to study past and future institutions on the basis of today's analogies. This is most clearly manifested in relation to the broad interpretation of the concept of "property". So, many researchers, describing the feudal system, attach decisive importance to the relations of ownership of land. Meanwhile, as Veblen notes, “in the Middle Ages, the direct source of rights, powers and privileges was customary power. The clear notion prevailed that a person's rights to property were established in so far as the transfer of that property was authorized by the ruler, and any claim not based on such an express or implied sanction was perceived as unfounded. In other words, in the constantly recurring dilemma "power - property" the advantage was on

1 Speaking specifically about the theory of socio-economic formations, its supporters believe that in a slave-owning society, people (slaves) are the main object of property.

side of power. Moreover, this power was based not only on coercion, but also on a hierarchically built system of legitimization, leading from God himself1.

In this situation, land ownership was only a concomitant condition for a person's position in the social hierarchy. Its role in redistribution was secondary, since the seizure of a part of the product of a serf (dependent) peasant was based primarily on the so-called feudal contract - the restriction of rights and freedoms in exchange for protection2. The power of the feudal lord consisted of three components: landlord (land ownership), economic (servage) and political, including judicial, power. Therefore, in particular, the identification of corvée or quitrent with land rent is hardly justified. The corresponding duties were a kind of intermediate link between communal forms of collective protection, tribute to the enslaver, and only last but not least, rent. Another question is that lease relations represent the direction in which over time, as the transition from the serfdom of villans to copyholders, the feudal contract is transformed.

Describing modern economy, we also expand the understanding of the category of "property", identifying it, in fact, with the possibility of restricting the rights of other persons. Thus, the concept of "intellectual property" stands for Civil Code Russian Federation (CC) as “protected results of intellectual activity and means of individualization equated to them” (Articles 128 and 1225), and the content of exclusive rights to an object of intellectual property is interpreted as the right “at one’s own discretion to allow or prohibit other persons from using the result of intellectual activity or means of individualization” (Article 1229).

Meanwhile, in today's economy, power relations are far from always based on property relations. Even if we are talking about the power to dispose of resources or the power of re-

1 According to A. Bard, J. Zoderqvist, the concept of God acted as the central link in the paradigm of medieval society (the supposed constant of being), while for an industrial society such a constant is the value of individual freedom.

2 Protection was expressed both in the performance by the feudal lord of the function of a "sedentary bandit", and in the provision of an insurance function - in the years of crop failure, the food and seed reserves of the feudal lord were used to support his subjects.

regulation of access to a resource, including electronic (Skype, Torrent, etc.), we are faced with complex phenomena, for the study of which it is necessary to distinguish between operational rules and collective choice rules, and also take into account the possibility of dispersal of individual ownership rights. But the most important thing is that the power to dispose of resources, which is usually called power-property, is far from the only basis of economic power. As we have already said, no less important is the power of status, which can be based on class privileges, official position, clan (family) hierarchy, tradition, etc.

Another basis of economic power is monopoly. “Power-monopoly is based on the inequality of the bargaining power of the parties due to the limited space of choice... This provision can be conditioned both by control over a unique resource, including intellectual property, infrastructure facilities (pipeline, the only road); access to the market, etc., as well as a unique place in a particular value chain” . In other words, a monopoly can be conditioned both by the possibility of regulating access to a resource, including an intangible one (and in this case, some analogy with the rights and rules characteristic of property relations is appropriate), and by locking the counterparty in a certain system of relations. The best illustration of the second type of monopoly is a fundamental transformation, when the bargaining power of the parties changes as a result of one of the counterparties investing in specific assets, and power is transferred not to the owner of these assets, but to his counterparty.

The next important source of power can be called economic coercion - power-temptation. It is beneficial for suppliers to cooperate with large retailers, since such cooperation enables them to realize economies of scale and drastically reduce transaction costs. True, you have to pay for this by agreeing to dictate the terms of interaction on the part of the counterparty (prices, delivery times, product quality, packaging, etc.). Taxi drivers with platforms like Uber, space owners with Airbnb, or industrial companies that supply components to Boeing are in a similar position. In all the cases we have described,

about the inequality of bargaining power, based not on the monopoly of one of the parties to the transaction, but on its position in the hierarchy of its market field. In other words, if power-monopoly is based on the limitation of the space of the current choice, then power-temptation is based on the current profitability of cooperation. Satellite companies focused on maximizing current benefits (minimizing current losses) voluntarily agree to a dependent position in the value chain, exchanging their freedom not only for today's subordinate position, but also for limiting the space of future choice1.

It should be noted that in real life the power of one subject over others is almost always based on several grounds. However, we can also talk about the dominant basis or basis of economic power, characteristic of each paradigm of economic development. In our opinion, in an agrarian society, economic power was based mainly on status (position in the class hierarchy), in industrial society - on property (in its classical sense), and in digital society - on economic coercion (position in the hierarchy of the market field and / or the network of creation cost).

1 There is a direct analogy here with a free employee who voluntarily agrees to exchange his economic freedom for a guaranteed salary.

Conclusion

Our analysis indicates the inevitability of the digital transformation of social production and, as a result, a fundamental change in socio-economic relations. This is not just about another industrial or technological revolution (a change in the technological order), but about a change in the paradigm of economic development, comparable in importance to the Neolithic and industrial revolutions.

The change in the paradigm of economic development is most clearly manifested in three areas: a change in the nature of the division of labor, a change in the leading mode of interaction between economic entities, and a change in the basis of economic power. The change in the nature of the division of labor is expressed primarily in the separation of intellectual and organizational centers from production and service units. Gradually, an increasing part of the social wealth created will move into the sphere of innovation. The free market as the leading mode of inter-firm interaction is likely to be replaced by relatively stable value networks, both in terms of the composition of participants and the internal structure. Finally, property in its classical sense will cease to be the main basis of economic power. Its place will be taken by a position in the hierarchy of the field of interaction (firm, market, network), which makes it possible to establish rules for interaction and distribution of added value.

Bibliography

1. Schwab, K. The fourth industrial revolution / K. Schwab. - M. : Eksmo, 2016.

2. Comparative Analysis of Pricing Policies in the Market for Network Goods / S. Evsukov, A. Sigarev, E. Ustyuzhanina, E. Zaytseva // J. of Internet Banking and Commerce. - 2016.

3. Lvov, D. S. Theoretical and applied aspects of the management of scientific and technical progress / D. S. Lvov, S. Yu. Glazyev // Economics and Math. methods. - 1986. - No. 5. - S. 793-804.

4. Perez, K. Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and periods of prosperity / K. Perez. - M. : Delo, 2011.

5. Dementiev, V. E. Variability of long waves of economic development / V. E. Dementiev // Problems of theory and practice upr. - 2016. - No. 6. - S. 41-46.

6. Glazyev, S. Yu. Theory of long-term technical and economic development / S. Yu. Glazyev. - M. : VlaDar, 1993.

7. Zapariy, V. V. History of science and technology / V. V. Zapariy, S. A. Nefedov. - Yekaterinburg: Publishing house of UMTs UPI, 2003.

8. Bell, D. The Coming Post-Industrial Society / D. Bell. - M.: Academy, 1999.

9. Tofler, E. The third wave / E. Tofler. - M. : AST, 1980.

10. Bodrunov, S. D. Coming. New industrial society: reboot / S. D. Bodrunov. - M.: Culture. revolution, 2016.

11. Wallerstein, I. Analysis of world systems and the situation in modern world/ I. Wallerstein. - St. Petersburg. : University. book, 2001.

12. Veblen, T. The Theory of the Leisure Class / T. Veblen. - M. : Progress, 1984.

13. Sombart, W. Bourgeois. Etudes on the history of the spiritual development of modern economic man / V. Sombart. - M. : Iris-Press, 2004.

14. Baldwin, R. Trade and industrialization after globalization's 2nd unbundling: how building and joining a supply chain are different and why it matters / R. Baldwin // Working paper 17716, NBER Working Paper Series. - 2011.

15. Polanyi, K. Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economics: Essays of Karl Polanyi / K. Polanyi ; ed. by G. Dalton. - N. Y., 1968.

16. Parinov, S. I. To the theory of network economy / S. I. Parinov. - Novosibirsk: IEOPP SO RAN, 2002.

17. Dementiev, V. E., Evsyukov, S. G., Ustyuzhanina, E. V. Hybrid forms of business organization: to the question of the analysis of intercompany interactions, Ros. magazine management. - 2017. - V. 15, No. 1. - S. 89-122.

18. Ostrom, E. Managing the general. Evolution of institutions of collective activity / E. Ostrom. - M. : IRISEN: Thought, 2010.

19. Kapelyushnikov, R. I. Theory of property rights (methodology, basic concepts, range of problems) / R. I. Kapelyushnikov. - M. : INFRA-M, 1991.

20. Dementiev V. E. The problem of power from the point of view of the institutional approach / V. E. Dementiev, E. V. Ustyuzhanina // Zhurn. institutional. research. - 2016. - V. 8, No. 3. - S. 91-101.

21. Williamson, O. Economic institutions of capitalism. Firms, markets, "relational" contracting / O. Williamson. - St. Petersburg. : Lenizdat, 1996.

22. Fligstin, N. Market Architecture: Economic Sociology of Capitalist Societies of the 21st Century / N. Fligstin. - M.: Publishing house. house of the Supreme school Economics, 2013.

23. Bard, A. No. Shkratia. New ruling elite and life after capitalism / A. Bard, J. Zoderk-vist. - St. Petersburg. : Stockholm. school economy in St. Petersburg, 2004.

24. Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension / M. Polanyi. - Garden City; New York: Doubleday, 1966.

25. Scientific school as a structural unit scientific activity/ E. V. Ustyuzhanina, S. G. Evsyukov, A. G. Petrov, R. V. Kazankin, M. V. Dmitrieva. - M. : CEMI RAN, 2012.

26. Olson, M. The logic of collective action. Public goods and group theory / M. Olson. - M.: Fund ekon. initiatives, 1995.

Elena Vladimirovna Ustyuzhanina - Doctor of Economics, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Economic Theory, Russian University of Economics. G. V. Plekhanov. Moscow, Russia. [email protected]

Alexander Viktorovich Sigarev - Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Economic Theory, Russian University of Economics. G. V. Plekhanov. Moscow, Russia. [email protected] mail.ru

Ruslan Alexandrovich Shein - Postgraduate Student, Department of Economic Theory, Russian University of Economics. G. V. Plekhanov. Moscow, Russia. [email protected]

E. B. ycmm^aHUHa, A. B. C^apeB, P. A. Noem

Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University.

2017. No. 10 (406). Economic Sciences. Iss. 58.Pp. 15-25.

DIGITAL REVOLUTION AND FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES OF ECONOMIC RELATION1

Ye. V Ustyuzhanina

Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow, Russia. [email protected]

Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow, Russia. [email protected] en

Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow, Russia. [email protected]

Despite a large number of scientific works dedicated to the digital economy, most researchers still fail to have a clear understanding of what it really is as a socio-economic system. The aim of the article is to explain that the transition to the digital economy brings about a transformation in the paradigm of economic development rather than just another technological revolution. This transformation is characterized by changes in labor division, changes in interaction between economic agents and changes in economic power foundations. Intellectual and organizational centers are being separated from production and service units. Free market is being replaced by value networks. Property ceases to be the basis of economic power - position in the interaction field hierarchy comes to the fore.

Keywords: digital economy, digital revolution, paradigm of economic development, labor division, economic power.

1. Shvab K. Chetvertayapromyshlennaya revolyutsiya. Moscow, Eksmo Publ., 2016. (In Russ.).

2. Evsukov S., Sigarev A., Ustyuzhanina E., Zaytseva E. Comparative Analysis of Pricing Policies in the Market for Network Goods. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 2016.

3. L"vov D.S., Glaz"yev S.Yu. Teoreticheskiye i prikladnye aspekty upravleniya NTP. Ekonomika i matematicheskiye metody, 1986, no. 5, pp. 793-804. (In Russ.).

4. Peres K. Tekhnologicheskiye revolyutsii i finansovyy kapital: Dinamika puzyrey i periodovprotsvetaniya. Moscow, Delo Publ., 2011. (In Russ.).

5. Dement "yev V.Ye. Izmenchivost" dlinnykh voln ekonomicheskogo razvitiya. Problemy theory ipraktiki upravleniya, 2016, no. 6, pp. 41-46. (In Russ.).

6. Glaz "yev S. Yu. Teoriya dolgosrochnogo tekhniko-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya. Moscow, VlaDar Publ., 1993. (In Russ.).

7. Zapariy V.V., Nefedov S.A. Istoriya nauki i tekhniki. Yekaterinburg, 2003. (In Russ.).

8. Bell D. Gryadushcheyepostindustrial "noye obshchestvo. Moscow, Akademiya Publ., 1999. (In Russ.).

9. Tofler E. Tret "ya volna. Moscow, AST Publ., 1980. (In Russ.).

10. Bodrunov S.D. Gryadushcheye. Novoye industrial "noye obshchestvo: perezagruzka. Moscow, Kul" turnaya revolyutsiya Publ., 2016. (In Russ.).

11. Vallerstayn I. Analiz mirovykh sistem i situatsiya v sovremennom mire. St. Petersburg, 2001. (In Russ.).

12. Veblen T. Teoriyaprazdnogo classa. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1984. (In Russ.).

1 The article was supported by Plekhanov Russian University of Economics.

13. Zombart V. Burzha. Etyudypo istorii dukhovnogo razvitiya sovremennogo ekonomicheskogo cheloveka. Moscow, Ayris-Press Publ., 2004. (In Russ.).

14. Baldwin R. Trade and industrialization after globalization "s 2nd unbundling: how building and joining a supply chain are different and why it matters. Working paper 17716, NBER Working Paper Series, 2011.

15. Polanyi K., Dalton G. (ed.). Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economics: Essays of Karl Polanyi. N.Y., 1968.

16. Parinov S.I. K theorii setevoy ekonomiki. Novosibirsk, 2002. (In Russ.).

17. Dement "yev V.Ye., Yevsyukov S.G., Ustyuzhanina Ye.V. Gibridnye formy organizatsii biznesa: k vo-prosu ob analize mezhfirmennykh vzaimodeystviy. Rossiyskiy zhurnal menedzhmenta, 2017, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 89- 122. (In Russ.).

18. Ostrom E. Upravlyaya obshchim. Evolyutsiya institutov kollektivnoy deyatel "nosti. Moscow, IRISEN Publ., Mysl" Publ., 2010. (In Russ.).

19. Kapelyushnikov R.I. Teoriya prav sobstvennosti (metodologiya, osnovnye ponyatiya, krug problem) . Moscow, INFRA-M Publ., 1991. (In Russ.).

20. Dement "yev V.Ye., Ustyuzhanina Ye.V. Problema vlasti s tochki zreniya institutsional" nogo pod-khoda. Journal of Institutional Studies, 2016, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 91-101. (In Russ.).

21. Uil "yamson O. Ekonomicheskiye instituty kapitalizma. Firmy, rynki, "otnoshencheskaya" kontraktatsiya. St. Petersburg, Lenizdat Publ., 1996. (In Russ.).

22. Fligstin N. Arkhitektura rynkov: ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya kapitalisticheskikh obshchestvXXI century. Moscow, 2013. (In Russ.).

23. Bard A., Zoderkvist Ya. Netokratiya. Novayapravyashchaya elita i zhizn "after kapitalizma. St. Petersburg, 2004. (In Russ.).

24. Polanyi M. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1966.

25. Ustyuzhanina Ye.V., Yevsyukov S.G., Petrov A.G., Kazankin R.V., Dmitrieva M.V. Nauchnaya shkola kak strukturnaya yedinitsa nauchnoy deyatel "nosti. Moscow, 2012. (In Russ.).

26. Olson M. Logika kollektivnyhh deystviy. Obshchestvennye blaga i teoriya grupp. Moscow, 1995. (In Russ.).