|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
National Security
Reference:
Krupnov Y.A., Sil'vestrov S.N., Starovoitov V.G., Lapenkova N.V.
Competitive approach to assessing the national security of the Russian Federation
// National Security.
2023. ¹ 5.
P. 13-35.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0668.2023.5.68816 EDN: AECUMX URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=68816
Competitive approach to assessing the national security of the Russian Federation
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0668.2023.5.68816EDN: AECUMXReceived: 26-10-2023Published: 09-11-2023Abstract: The object of the study is the procedure for assessing the state of national security of the Russian Federation, which is being considered for its improvement based on the implementation of a competitive approach when conducting assessments. The authors review the current procedure for assessing national security and justify the need for its improvement. A comparative analysis of domestic and international experience in the formation of criteria, the hierarchical structure of indicators and the prioritization of threats is carried out. The necessity of forming a hierarchical structure, universalization and integration of indicators as part of the implementation of a competitive approach in assessing the state of national security is substantiated. Particular attention is paid to studying the possibility of using uniform international criteria and a system of indicators in domestic practice. Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions are presented. The state of security is not an absolute value, but is characterized by relative indicators obtained from the results of a comparative assessment of the indicators of competing countries. Security monitoring and assessment should be carried out on a cross-country rating basis, comparing different countries, including countries whose activities are the source of the main challenges and threats. The novelty lies in the substantiation of the use of a competitive approach and rating methodology, allowing governing bodies to assess the state of security taking into account domestic development dynamics and a comparative analysis of the indicators of countries that can influence the state of security in Russia. Author also presented the associative series of national interests and national security indicators of the USA and Russia. In contrast to similar studies, an original approach to the formation of a set of indicators of the state of national security is proposed. Building a hierarchical structure of indicators provides an opportunity to focus on the most important international complex and integral indicators, and increase the efficiency and reliability of assessments. The main directions for improving assessment based on the implementation of structural-hierarchical and competitive approaches have been identified. Keywords: national security, National Security Strategy, hierarchical structure of indicators, competitive approach, national security monitoring, comparative analysis method, security assessment, national interests, national security criteria, international comprehensive indicatorsThis article is automatically translated. Introduction The national security strategies of Russia and other countries contain unique formulations of national interests, for the protection of which it is envisaged to achieve goals and solve private tasks in the economic, defense, humanitarian and other spheres. The sequence, timing, tools and resources for their solution are provided for by documents of strategic planning, sustainable development, security and budgeting, including programs, plans and projects in various spheres of national and international activities. Management bodies organize systematic monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of their implementation. With all the variety of approaches to the implementation of this activity, the following basic categories are common for most countries: - strategies, plans and programs that correspond to the main challenges and threats to development and national security (hereinafter referred to as development and security); - challenges, threats and risks linked to regional and country sources of their escalation; - Strategic national priorities (hereinafter – SNP) of development and security activities; - development goals and objectives, the degree of achievement of which is assessed using a system of indicators and indicators. It is the presence of a system of indicators, the planning of their achievement, monitoring and evaluation that give the activity a substantive character. The correctness of their application depends on the ability to evaluate the results of activities, as well as ensuring the adequacy of plans and programs. The current concept of security monitoring and assessment in Russia involves the use of indicators related to the main groups of socio-economic development, as well as military and state security. The first group represents a sample from the Unified Plan for achieving the national Development Goals of the Russian Federation (According to the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated July 21, 2020 N 474 "On the national development Goals of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030" // <url> URL: https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/74304210 / (accessed: 01.01.2023)). The second group includes indicators of the state of defense and state security [1, p. 145; 2, p. 135], established in accordance with the Military Doctrine, the Fundamentals of Military-Technical Policy of the Russian Federation and other conceptual documents. All countries of the world are forming their own systems for monitoring and evaluating indicators, constantly adjusting them to the changing international and local conjuncture. Modern Russia has entered a period of escalating challenges to dynamic development and security and needs an appropriate restructuring of criteria and assessment tools. In this article, a comparative analysis of the approaches of Russia and a number of other countries is carried out and proposals are formulated to improve the assessment of the national security of the Russian Federation. Literature and research review The use of structural-hierarchical and competitive approaches to security monitoring and assessment seems to be a complex and urgent research task. There is no consensus among the Russian scientific community on ways to solve it. Almost all studies are devoted to economics [3, p. 29; 4, p. 740; 5, p. 20]. Economic security is often identified with national security, that is, it is recognized as its main component. As areas of improvement, the variants of numerical optimization of indicators and integration of their heterogeneous groups are mainly considered [6, p. 20-21; 7, p. 65]. The risk-oriented approach is dominant [8, p. 13; 9, p. 92-93], which provides for consideration of deviations of indicators from the thresholds set by experts. Sometimes it is also proposed to establish interval and reference indicators, to scale them by spheres of activity, SNP, goals and objectives of development and security [10, p. 892], as well as ranking and aggregation in order to perform operational analysis [11, p. 64-65]. It is also proposed to focus on a small number of priorities and a limited number of indicators and indicators [12, p. 25]. The evaluation methodology is characterized by an abundance of proposed approaches and methods [13, p. 43-44; 14, p. 42] with the obvious dominance of the expert evaluation method. According to a number of researchers, the most promising method is to compare the indicators of the Russian Federation and other countries, including the countries that are the sources of the main threats [15, p. 10; 16, p. 16-20; 17, p. 1698-1700]. However, in the practice of strategic planning and public administration, it has not been widely used due to the incompatibility of national systems of indicators and indicators of different countries, as well as the imperfection of domestic approaches to their assessment. This is due to the novelty and relevance of the approaches discussed in this article. Summary information on foreign approaches is contained in national security strategies and other conceptual documents of the USA, China, Germany, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Indonesia. Proposals for the use of their experience are formulated on the basis of consideration of foreign scientific literature in the field under consideration [18, pp. 193-198; 19, pp. 60-62; 20, pp. 2; 21, pp. 102; 22, pp. 465; 23, pp. 38; 24, pp. 59; 25, pp. 11-13; 26, pp. 460]. The issue of improving the assessment of national security seems to be open, and this study is an attempt to fill this gap. Materials and methods The set of safety indicators is a set of individual important indicators from various fields, evaluated taking into account specific criteria and in accordance with a special methodology. The focus of efforts on economic or defense aspects, on domestic policy or international activities depends on the content of national interests. The specificity of the approaches makes it difficult to establish an associative correspondence between the unique systems of different countries. However, individual countries declare similar interests, which makes it possible to compare the corresponding security indicators. This is due to the use of the method of comparative analysis and a competitive approach to evaluation. Indicators provide an indication of threats and risks, and also allow you to assess the effectiveness of the activities of state and corporate governance bodies to reduce them. We are talking about both individual local threats and the totality of existential risks for a country or a union of countries. Primary and generalized indicators and indicators (e.g. "economic security") are used to assess security in certain areas and spheres of activity. The assessment of the entire set of spheres of activity, challenges and threats is usually carried out using an integral indicator. This is due to the multilevel and hierarchical construction of indicators, which implies the use of a systematic structural – hierarchical approach. Research results In the Russian Federation, monitoring and evaluation of the degree of achievement of the goals and objectives of ensuring security provided for in the framework of nine priorities is carried out (According to the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 2021 No. 400 "On approval of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030 (Article 27). // <url> URL: https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/401325792 / (date addresses: 01.01.2023)) with an emphasis on defense [1, p. 147; 2, p. 136] and economic aspects [3, p. 29; 4, p. 740; 5, p. 20; 6, p. 15]. 64 private indicators are subject to monitoring and, despite the proposals of scientists to improve them [6, p. 20-21; 7, p. 65], the number and structure of indicators have remained unchanged over the past 10 years. Individual federal executive authorities, following the recommendations of scientists [13, pp. 40-42], take actions to conduct additional complex and integral assessments. For example, within the framework of the priority "sustainable development of the Russian economy on a new technological basis", 40 indicators are monitored (According to the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated May 13, 2017 No. 208 "On the Strategy of Economic Security of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030" // <url> URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_216629 / (accessed: 01.01.2023)) and the following types of integral estimates: - integral quantitative assessment of the condition; - indicative assessment of dynamics for the reporting year; - Assessment of medium-term trends in the dynamics of the state (Order No. 532 of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation dated October 03, 2018 "On the organization of monitoring and assessment of the state of economic security of the Russian Federation in the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation" // <url> URL: https://base .garant.ru/72272840 / (accessed: 01.02.2023)). Integral quantitative assessment is defined as the weighted average value of quantitative estimates of the achievement of indicators, taking into account their weight shares.
In the implementation of integral assessments, the criterion approach prevails, consisting in the correlation of planned, actual and threshold values of indicators [8, p. 13; 9, p. 91-92]. Estimated calculations allow us to qualify the condition as stable or favorable even if it was not possible to achieve the planned values. Therefore, the state of security of the domestic economy in 2018-2021 received a positive assessment, although the actual rates of economic growth, a decrease in investment activity, a drop in real incomes, and a decline in the national currency indicate the opposite. The predominance of the expert approach does not allow us to fully solve the problems of scaling the estimated threshold values of indicative indicators: by spheres of activity, SPN, goals and objectives of development and security [10, p. 892]. In addition, under some circumstances, the opinions of experts are so disparate that the results of their survey cannot be recognized as reliable. Acceleration of geo-economic and geopolitical processes involves the use of "fast" simplified algorithms for operational analysis. The current approach to evaluation does not meet this requirement due to the significant complexity of the processes. The solution to this problem lies in the way of determining a small group of indicators with a simplified methodology for their analysis. This implies the integration of heterogeneous indicators [11, pp. 64-65]. In general, the current approach [13, p. 43-44; 14, p. 42] needs to be substantially refined taking into account the following circumstances. Firstly, the monitoring and evaluation system is cumbersome and complex, which makes it difficult to use it in the practical activities of management bodies. Secondly, for some SNPs, the complexity of the analysis is not provided, which involves the formation and monitoring of consolidated complex and integral assessments. Thirdly, the state of the countries that are the sources of the main threats is mistakenly not taken into account. After all, it is there that the prerequisites for the growth or reduction of threats to Russia's security are formed [15, p. 10]. Attempts to introduce a competitive approach allowed individual scientists to form a rating table of integral security indicators. The positions of countries in the national security ranking are assessed by the authors of the study on the basis of calculated dimensionless indices using methods of multidimensional statistical analysis (see Table. 1) [16, pp. 16-20]. Table 1 - Rating of integral safety indicators
Source: [16, pp. 16-20] However, in the practice of strategic planning, this innovation has not become widespread due to the dissimilarity of national security objectives [12, p. 25], as well as indicator systems and approaches to their assessment. In general, the studied area is characterized by underestimation of the importance of structural-hierarchical and competitive approaches, which is confirmed by the imperfect structure of indicators, the complexity of tools and insufficient consideration of the state and dynamics of development of other countries. For the purposes of research, we will consider foreign experience. There is no generally accepted concept of ensuring international security within the UN [27, p. 11]. International organizations focus on the problems of human development and security (Human Security in Theory and Practice. Application of the Human Security Concept and the United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security. Human Security Unit, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. New York. 2009. URL: https://www.unocha.org/sites/dms/HSU/Publications%20and%20Products/Human%20Security%20Tools/Human%20Security%20in%20Theory%20and%20Practice%20English.pdf (date of appeal: 09/23/2022)), which is defined as the ability of the state to ensure the protection of citizens and is evaluated in seven areas: economy, food, health, ecology, quality of life, social interaction and the political sphere. Let's consider examples of international indicators and country safety ratings, the compilation of which is a tool for comparative (competitive) assessment of countries (see Table 2). Table 2 - Examples of indicators and country safety ratings
Source: compiled by the authors on the basis of materials from the UN, the Institute of Economics and Peace, ValuePenguin agency and Global Finance (Ranking of the most dangerous and safe countries in the world and crime statistics for 2018-2019. // Europortal. URL: https://evroportal.ru/immigratsiya/reyting-samyih-opasnyih-i-bezopasnyih-stran/?ysclid=l6rnwchi1b899308930 (accessed 25.09.2022). Safe countries. // ValuePenguin. 2021. URL: https://progemorroj.ru/what/v-kakih-stranah-opasno-zhit.html (accessed: 10/20/2022). The safest countries 2021. // Global Finance. 2021. URL: https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/non-economic-data/safest-countries-world (accessed: 10/20/2022)) When compiling ratings, not national, but mainly global threats are taken into account. Along with the analysis of primary indicators, group (generalized) indicators are also calculated. Assessments are made in relation to a large group of countries and are comparative, that is, competitive in nature. An index method is used to evaluate and rank countries (see Table 3). Table 3 - Example of rating of generalized indicators
Source: compiled by the authors according to Global Finance Meanwhile, another component of security is the protection of national interests. For this reason, the possibility of using the experience of the UN and its structures is assessed as limited. Modern approaches in this area are increasingly associated with the prevention of a destructive impact on the state and society, the economy or critical decision-making processes [12, p. xii]. The choice of specific indicators depends on what ideas about national interests have developed in the assessed country. For NATO countries, the main interests are to prevent external wars and conflicts, as well as internal public unrest [18, pp. 192-194]. This is reflected in national security strategies and other conceptual acts [19, p. 59-62], according to which the priority is the security of the state and its ability to protect territory and sovereignty [28, p. 268]. Considerable attention is also paid to the prevention of terrorist acts, the protection of critical infrastructure and the strengthening of the basis for ensuring long-term development [20, p. 4]. Over time, the list of the main declared interests becomes more and more concise, since the excessive expansion of the set of interests leads to the loss of the value of monitoring and assessments of their provision [21, p. 102]. The assessment of alternative risks and costs becomes more difficult the more security factors are securitized [22, p. 465]. Therefore, Governments focus on formulating a limited number of basic interests that most countries do not have the same. Thus, the national interest of the United States is to maintain leadership, and the interests of China, Russia and other countries imply the elimination of this dominance. The fundamental interests may evolve over time and be revised taking into account the "courage" of the political leadership and assessments of the realism of their implementation. It is obvious that a competitive approach to assessing different countries can be implemented only if uniform international criteria and a system of indicators are used. Let's consider the possibility of their application in domestic practice (see Table 4). Table 4 - Assessment of the possibility of applying international uniform international criteria and a system of indicators in domestic practice
Source: compiled by the authors As can be seen from table 4, the possibility of borrowing the transfer of uniform international criteria and a system of indicators in some areas is assessed as limited or non-existent. This is due to the differences in the development strategies adopted by the countries (dominance, expansion, concentration on solving internal development tasks, etc.). At the same time, in the main areas of development and security of the sphere (protection from wars, conflicts, dynamic economic development), similarity and even coincidence of strategic approaches are noted in many countries. This makes it possible to assess Russia's security in the above-mentioned areas on a competitive rating basis. To do this, based on national interests and priorities, it is necessary to identify a limited group of countries with similar prioritization and factor orientation of security (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 - Factor orientation of national security Note: Broad focus includes economic security, environment, personality, welfare, social stability....; Narrow focus: strong emphasis on defense, territorial integrity, etc. Source: National Security Strategies of countries and [12] Some countries focus on security from external threats and strengthening international influence, while others focus mainly on ensuring internal stability and development. Some take into account non-military aspects of security, including the economy, ecology and social stability. Others focus on protecting values and influence in the world. This is due to the specificity of the understanding of security in different countries (see Table 5). Table 5 - Examples of understanding the term "national security"
Source: compiled by the authors based on the national security strategies of the countries
As can be seen from Figure 1, Russia, China, France and the USA meet the requirements of similarity of priorities and factor orientation to the greatest extent. At the same time, the Chinese experience does not seem to be original enough, since it is a symbiosis of American and domestic approaches [23, pp. 38-41]. The views of most Western countries have limited value for Russia for the following reasons. Firstly, the sovereignty of Japan and European countries is limited by the hegemony of the United States. The control they exercise in the international economy affects the national security and economic well-being of the allied states, whose economy functions better when there is a dominant economic force [29, pp. 230-232]. Secondly, the provision of military security is largely delegated to the American armed forces. In many EU countries, until recently, even the training of commanders and specialists for the armed forces was not carried out [25, p. 7-10]. Thirdly, for a very large number of countries, the understanding of national security is almost synonymous with economic security, backed up by the reliable functioning of critical processes. In most of the EAEU countries, the applied set of criteria for assessing development and security is assessed as incomplete, and there is no unified system of indicators [26, p. 460]. Therefore, the USA is the most suitable for conducting a comparative analysis. Due to the non-public nature of information about the American system of indicators, the method of formalization of verbal descriptions was applied. As a source, the US National Security Strategy was adopted, declaring four national interests and 24 national goals achieved in 80 priority areas of activity. Despite the specificity of the formulations and differences in the structure of the goals, their associative correspondence with Russian analogues has been established (see Table 6). Table 6 - Associative correspondence of the national interests of the USA and the Russian Federation
Source: compiled by the authors based on the national security strategies of the countries The revealed correspondence allows for cross-country comparison of indicators. Particular attention should be paid to the indicators of the United States and other threat countries, since their advanced development is a source of growing risks. Conversely, the outpacing dynamics of domestic indicators indicates a decrease in threats. Consequently, in order to ensure a higher level of security, it is necessary to ensure advanced development in comparison with geopolitical and geostrategic competitors. Let us consider as an example the indicators of the realization of the national interest "economic security", referred to in the USA and Russia as "promoting American prosperity", and "sustainable development of the Russian economy on a new technological basis", respectively (see Table 7). Table 7 - Main indicators of the state of economic security
Source: compiled by the authors based on the national security strategies of the countries As can be seen from table 7, the American approach provides for the widespread use of composite indices that characterize not only the economy, but also related areas closely related to ensuring economic development. For example, the competitiveness index includes indicators characterizing the economy, education, healthcare, quality of public administration, etc. [30, p. 6553]. It is evaluated on the basis of the global (world) competitiveness rating by assigning a rating to the country in question in the unified system of countries of the world. For the purposes of safety assessment, its change over the estimated period should be considered, correlated with similar changes in indicators of other countries. The source of information can be the IMD World Competitiveness Rating (International Institute for Management Development (Methodology and principles of the World Competitiveness Ranking // International Institute for Management Development. World Competitiveness Center. 2022. URL: https://www.imd.org/centers/world-competitiveness-center/rankings/world-competitiveness / (accessed 24.10.2022))) and other international analytical institutes using data from three main categories: statistical, survey data and non-ranked reference data. The structural hierarchy of indicators can be demonstrated by the example of indicators for achieving the five goals provided for by the national interest "promoting American prosperity" (see Figure 2): - acceleration of the national economy; - promotion of free, fair and mutually beneficial economic relations; - leading role in the field of research, technology, inventions and innovations; - promotion and protection of the innovation base of the US national security; - strengthening dominance in the energy sector. A large group of rating (competitive) indicators characterizing the success of solving particular problems is accepted for analysis. The degree of achievement of the goal is characterized by a generalized indicator "economic growth", which is not the sum of private indicators. The connection between generalized and particular indicators is that the latter indicate problems that should be solved on the way to ensuring GDP growth. To assess growth, the criterion "ensuring economic leadership in the world" is adopted. Consequently, we are not talking about a specific and normatively established growth rate or its limits, but about ensuring such a comparative (with China) dynamics that will allow us to maintain dominance. The priority of the indicators "economic growth" and "economic strength" is legislatively fixed in the current US National Security Strategy. The countries of the collective West actively adopt this approach, agreeing that the most important factor in the development and security of the country is precisely the growth rate of gross domestic product. Similar ratings are compiled for most areas of activity that are important for the state of national security (Russia in the mirror of international ratings // Information and Reference edition. Ed. by V.I. Suslov. 2019. IEOPP SB RAS. Novosibirsk: Parallel. 171 p. URL:http://lib.ieie.su/docs/2019/Russia_v_zerkale_mezhdunar_reytingov.pdf).
Figure 2 - Hierarchical construction of US national security indicators on the example of the national interest "promoting American prosperity" Source: developed by the authors on the basis of the US National Security Strategy The integral goal is "defending the contested leadership", and the integral indicator is "military and economic strength". In general, the foreign system does not provide for an assessment of indicators as such, but an assessment of their changes, as well as changes in the country's rating in the international rating system. Thus, a generalized indicator of the state of economic security is the change in the rating of the country's economic strength. A downgrade means a decrease in economic security and vice versa. This allows us to formulate the main directions for improving the assessment of Russia's national security: - definition and use of universal international integrated indicators; - assessment of the state of national security based on the method of cross-country comparative analysis; - establishment of the criterion "ensuring development ahead of geostrategic competitors in the fields of defense, economy and human potential enhancement".
Conclusions The conducted research represents the development of scientific ideas about modern approaches to assessing the state of national security, including methods, indicators and evaluation criteria. The main directions of improving the assessment based on the implementation of structural-hierarchical and competitive approaches are identified. Building a hierarchical structure of indicators provides an opportunity to focus on the most important international complex and integral indicators, and to increase the efficiency and reliability of estimates. The implementation of this approach involves borrowing individual structural elements of foreign monitoring and evaluation systems, including a set of complex rating-type indicators. It is established that the state of security is not an absolute value, but is characterized by relative indicators obtained from the results of a comparative assessment of indicators of competing countries. Therefore, security monitoring and assessment should be carried out on an inter-country rating basis with a comparison of different countries, including countries whose activities are the source of the main challenges and threats. This is the essence of the competitive approach, the application of which will allow the governing bodies to assess the state of security, taking into account the dynamics of development and international activities of countries capable of influencing the state of security of Russia. This implies the convergence of the monitoring and evaluation systems of Russia and other countries. It has been established that the national interests of the country require to ensure development in the most important areas, including defense, economy and human potential improvement, ahead of geopolitical and geostrategic competitors. The proposed approaches are recommended for use in public administration. The practical application of the results will improve the procedures of strategic planning, as well as the development of operational and long-term solutions to fend off challenges and threats. References
1. Shtofer, L.L. (2019). Military Security at the Present Stage of Development: Ways of Transformation and Support Measures. Humanities of the South of Russia, 8(4), 145-157. doi:10.23683/2227-8656.2019.4.16
2. Shevchenko, O.M., & Shtofer, L.L. (2019). The Military Security of Modern Russia in the Context of the Spread of Hybrid Political Technologies. Humanities of the South of Russia, 8(5), 134-148. doi:10.23683/2227-8656.2019.5.11 3. Lebedeva, L.F. (2020). Approaches to Economic and Social Security in U.S. under D. Trump’s Presidency. USA & Canada; Economics, Politics, Culture, 50(2), 29-42. doi:10.31857/S268667300008239-2 4. Kazantseva, E.G. (2022). Economic security of the state as a strategic priority amidst global transformation. Economic Security, 5(3), 739–756. doi:10.18334/ecsec.5.3.114819 5. Arkhipov, E.L., Boguslav, E.N., & Klimina, K.V. (2021). Sociî-economic security as a factor in the development of the state. Economy and ecology of territorial formations, 5(1), 19–25. doi:10.23947/2413-1474-2021-5-1-19-25 6. Selivanov, A.I. (2017). Economic Security of Russia: A Renaissance of Systems Approach. Bulletin of the Financial University, 21(2), 12-22. doi:10.26794/2587-5671-2017-21-2-12-22 7. Kulik, Yu. P. (2015). Characteristic of the Condition of National Security of the Russian Federation. Social and Economic Phenomena and Processes, 10(11), 62-67. doi:10.20310/1819-8813-2015-10-11-62-67 8. Lobanov, V.I., & Karanina, E.V. (2022). Ensuring socio-economic security in the field of culture based on a risk-oriented approach. Issues of Risk Analysis, 19(2), 10-16. doi:10.32686/1812-5220-2022-19-2-10-16 9. Pobyvaev, S.A., Selivanov, A.I., & Troshin, D.V. (2018). Questions of application of the methodology of threshold values for determining the state of socio-economic systems. World of the new economy, 12(2), 90-97. doi:10.26794/2220-6469-2018-12-2-90-97 10. Krivorotov, V.V., Kalina, A.V., & Belik, I.S. (2019). Threshold Values Of Indicators for Diagnostics of Economic Security the Russian Federation at the Present Stage. Bulletin of Ural Federal University. Series Economics and Management, 18(6), 892–910. doi:10.15826/vestnik.2019.18.6.043 11. Golovanov, E.B., & Bortsova, Å.V. (2020). Methodical Approach to Integral Assessment of State Economic Security Level. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series Economics and Management, 14(2), 58–72. doi:10.14529/em200206 12. Retter, L., Frinking, E., Hoorens, S., Lynch, A., Nederveen, F. & Phillips, W. (2020). Relationships between the economy and national security Analysis and considerations for economic security policy in the Netherlands. Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK: RAND Corporation, 156 p. [DX Reader version] Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR4200/RR4287/RAND_RR4287.pdf 13. Lapin, A.V. (2019). Methodology of the Analysis of National Economic Security State Assessment. NB: Administrative Law and Practice of Administration, 3, 37-48. doi:10.7256/2306-9945.2019.3.29453 14. Kazantsev, S.V. (2021). National interests, strategic goals and long-term security of the Russian Federation. The World of New Economy, 15(1), 40-49. doi:10.26794/2220-6469-2021-15-1-40-49 15. Vlasova, M.S., & Stepchenkova, O.S. (2019). Indicators of Economic Security in the Scientific and Technological Sphere. Voprosy Statistiki, 26(10), 5-17. doi:10.34023/2313-6383-2019-26-10-5-17 16. Makarov, V.L., Bakhtizin, A.R., Il’in, N.I., & Sushko, E.D. (2020). National Security of Russia. Economic Strategies, 5, 6–23. doi:10.33917/es-5.171.2020.6-23 17. Sheveleva, O.B., Vagina, N.D., & Slesarenko, E.V. (2020). The Competitiveness of the National Economy in Terms of Economic Security. National Interests: Priorities and Security, 16(9), 1698–1710. doi:10.24891/ni.16.9.1698 18. Andžāns, M., & Sprūds, A. (2021). Securitization and Desecuritization of Russia in the national security and defence concepts of Latvia (1995-2020). Journal of International Studies, 14(1), 190-200. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2021/14-1/13 19. De Spiegeleire, S., Jans, K., Sibbel, M., Holynska, Kh., & Lassche, D. (2019). Implementing defence policy: a benchmark-“lite”. Defense & Security Analysis, 35(1), 59-81. doi:10.1080/14751798.2019.1565365 20. Caudle, Sh. (2011). Centralization and Decentralization of Policy: The National Interest of Homeland Security. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(1), 1-19. doi:10.2202/1547-7355.1941 21. Schneier, B. (2003). Beyond, Fear: Thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. doi:10.1007/0-387-21712-6_8 22. Hameiri, S, & Jones, L. (2013). The Politics and Governance of Non-traditional Security. International Studies Quarterly, 57(3), 462–473. doi:10.1111/isqu.12014 23. Goluenko, T.A., & Stepanova, O.V. (2018). Main Directions of the Concept of China National Security. Grand Altai Research & Education, 1, 38-41. doi:10.25712/ASTU.2410-485X.2018.01.07 24. Lipinskii, D., & Musatkina, A. (2019). Social and Humanistic Orientation in National Security Strategies of Russia and Germany: Comparative Political and Legal Analysis. Comparative Politics Russia, 10(3), 58-73. doi:10.24411/2221-3279-2019-10030 25. Brožič, L. (2019). Military Knowledge in a Contemporary Security Setting. In: R. Glavaš (Ed). Contemporary Military Challenges (pp. 11-14). Ljubljana: General Staff of the Slovenian Armed Forces. doi:10.33179/BSV.99.SVI.11.CMC.21.1.0 26. Pak, Kh.S., Ushakova, E.V., & Borisova, T.A. (2020). EAEU Countries: Assessment of Economic Security. Economics and Management, 26(5), 455-463. doi:10.35854/1998-1627-2020-5-455-463 27. Lev, M.Yu., & Leschenko, Yu.G. (2022). Analysis of the United Nations security concept amidst global integration. Economic Security, 5(1), 11–44. doi:10.18334/ecsec.5.1.113726 28. Friedberg, A. (1991). The Changing Relationship Between Economics and National Security. Political Science Quarterly, 106(2), 265-276. [DX Reader version] Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2152229 29. Gilpin, R. (2019). The Economic Dimension of International Security. In: H. Bienen (Ed). Power, Economics, and Security (pp. 224-242). New York: Asian Studies. doi:10.4324/9780429302831 30. Djumanov, S., Sholdorov, D., Khudayberdiev, O., Obidov, R., & Razzokov, Kh. (2020). Increasing the Competitiveness of the Economy is a Factor in Ensuring Economic Security. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(5), 6552–6558. doi:10.37200/ijpr/v24i5/pr2020642
First Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
Second Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
Third Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
– integral quantitative assessment;
– assessment of the level of achievement of goals in points according to the nth indicator;
– weight coefficients of indicators.
