The article considers models of modernization of the country's economy in the context of catching-up development. The greatest attention is paid to the reform of agricultural economies, and the impact of formal and informal institutions on this process is estimated. The problem of the presence and absence of free economic space when choosing a model of modernization of the economic system is raised. A scheme of typological models of modernization with a catch-up type of reforms is proposed.

Keywords: globalization, modernization models, catching-up type of development, formal and informal institutions, agricultural sector reform.

It is difficult to overestimate the interest in the problem of civilizations in the scientific world. It is particularly saturated by the fact that the modern model of globalization, which acts in the interests of a local (albeit heterogeneous) group of countries, leads to an increase in the uneven level of development of the world community [Yakovets, 2003, p. 6]. That is why the monograph "Civilizations in the XXI Century: Problems and prospects of Development" by A. V. Akimov and A. I. Yakovlev presented for the discussion is so important.

According to the authors, the "crisis of the system", and the current state of the world economy can best be described using this particular paradigm, suggests two vectors of movement - to continue developing along the inertial path or to choose the path of modernization [Akimov, Yakovlev, 2012, p. 156]. Inertial development will undoubtedly lead to a" catastrophe", which, in turn, will put a number of countries of the world community in the face of"revolutionary transformations". Modernization, considered by the authors as the main tool of "reform", will require targeted actions from the authorities to transform the economic system [Akimov, Yakovlev, 2012, p. 176]. In the context of accelerating globalization, reform should affect most countries of the world community, and the civilizational approach, which describes about ten civilizations of the modern world [Akimov, Yakovlev, 2012, p. 24-25], involves ex officio development of at least several models of modernization.

Let us focus on two key concepts from the broad set presented in the monograph and see how they are reflected in the social economic system. The first - revolution-is a radical "revolution in the socio-economic structure of society with the denial of the previous social and political system", accompanied by the dismantling of the economic system of management and carried out by force. The second-reform-is a "process of rebuilding society on a new basis", carried out by the authorities without any restrictions.

page 79
Its goal is a qualitative leap in socio-economic development, and its main tool is modernization [Akimov and Yakovlev, 2012, pp. 161-162].

To study the transformation of economic systems in the countries of the world community, I would add two more points to these main categories.

First, it is desirable to introduce more precisely the concept of two types of modernization - natural and catch-up, while the book only mentions that the Eastern countries are moving along the trajectory of "catch-up modernization of the economic system" [Akimov, Yakovlev, 2012, p. 181]. The natural type assumes that new productive forces are born in the bowels of existing ones, and institutions corresponding to new economic relations are formed gradually, within the old socio-economic systems. The catch-up type, on the other hand, is based on the fact that the transformation of the productive forces is abrupt, and new institutions are imposed from the outside, most often by the state. It is the state that is singled out in the discussed monograph as the subject of reform during modernization [Akimov, Yakovlev, 2012, p. 163].

As N. A. Simonia wrote, many countries of both the East and the West went through the path of catching up development during the formation of industrial society, and only the Netherlands, England, and France showed a "primary model" [Simonia, 2011, p.9]. A natural type of modernization was observed in a very small group of countries that later became leaders of scientific and technological progress. The catch-up type of modernization has historically manifested itself in different ways at different stages of the development of scientific and technological progress, for example, in the experience of Russia, Germany, Italy, and Japan at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, later in the experience of new industrial countries (NIS) in the second half of the twentieth century, and the BRICS countries at the turn of centuries. We emphasize once again that the catch - up type of modernization in all countries was based on reforms, they were initiated by the state, whose leading role in implementing reforms is repeatedly emphasized by the authors of the discussed monograph [Akimov and Yakovlev, 2012, pp. 167-171, 231-246].

Secondly, we would like to introduce the concept of free and occupied economic space - it is their combination that will be one of the factors determining the modernization model. Modernization under the catch-up type requires an answer to the question: is there a free economic space for the introduction of new productive forces, new economic agents and, accordingly, new institutions, or are the transformations carried out within the economic space occupied by the old institutions?

In the first case, new management systems and their corresponding new institutions will be implemented in a free space and the destruction of the old (traditional) structures will not be required. As a result, "clusters" of economic growth or "hotbeds of development" are formed, which will serve as a "role model" [Akimov, Yakovlev, 2012, p.173].

In the second case, modernization should be accompanied by the dismantling or reform of old informal institutions. The painful process of reforming or breaking down traditional institutions leads to the formation of "growth zones" in the occupied economic space (where the initial conditions can be adapted to new economic agents, and the state conducts active economic reform)., "poverty zones" (where the reform failed to fully transform traditional institutions) and "destruction zones" (i.e., fragments of the old economic system that were destroyed, but were not completely destroyed by the reform, they remained excluded from the areas of modern economic growth) (see Figure 1).

Thus, the ratio of free and occupied economic space can determine the directions of modernization and the emerging structural (including

page 80

Figure 1. Types of modernization of the economic structure

intersectoral, territorial) unevenness of the economy of the country of catching-up development. Historical experience shows that under the conditions of catch-up development in the countries of the East, as a rule, there is a dual structure in which zones of modern economic growth (called growth zones), zones of poverty and/ or zones of destruction coexist. In this regard, we can say that the authors of the monograph note the global unevenness of modernization, but they mean the asynchrony of the political, economic and social spheres [Akimov and Yakovlev, 2012, p.181].

I would also like to mention the provisions of D. North's new economic history. He explains the types of modernization by the degree of correspondence between formal and informal institutions [North, 1997, p. 17-21]. Dividing institutions into formal (laws, constitutions) and informal (traditional social norms, conventions, accepted codes of conduct), D. North structures institutional changes, highlighting discrete and incremental (gradual) changes. Discrete changes occur as a result of radical changes in formal norms and regulations and relate to changes in the institutional environment. The transformation of the economy along the trajectory of discrete changes (containing certain jumps, institutional shocks) means that the original institutions must end their existence, and other institutions will begin to perform their functions in the economy. Incremental changes are associated with changes in institutional agreements, local informal norms, and, accordingly, the trajectory formed by them implies a gradual transformation, but not the disappearance of a particular institution.

In the natural type of modernization, discrete changes in formal institutions were based on corresponding incremental changes in informal institutions. Thus, the natural trend of modernization has historically developed in those countries where the change of formal and informal institutions was simultaneous and prepared by previous development. As a result, a fairly homogeneous type of economic structure was formed.

The catch - up type of modernization shows a completely different picture : at the beginning of modernization, such societies had not yet developed the conditions and needs for changing the institutional environment. Obviously, limited transfer of new technologies

page 81
The introduction of new technologies (even unified technological chains) into an alien institutional environment does not immediately lead to accelerated economic growth and rapid progress along the path of modernization. Historically, societies in the East and, to a certain extent, in Russia have been characterized by avoiding a state of uncertainty and a low propensity for risk; deviation from established rules (informal institutions), often innovations were considered as a threat to the survival of society [Milov, 1998; Auzan, 2010, pp. 136-137]. Consequently, any change in institutions is an exogenous factor for such a society.

If the catch-up type of development allows for the existence of a free economic space, where new institutions (new technologies) and economic agents - subjects of these relations-can be implanted that are alien to a given society, then within the framework of this economic space, a rapid change in the stages of economic growth is possible. Most often, this economic space forms" clusters " of modern economic growth, which should further stimulate the entire industry. What if there is no free economic space? What should happen when the state, through discrete transformations of the institutional environment (formal institutions) in order to bring it in line with the needs of technological transformations, quickly shifts the vector of economic development? Informal institutions, which include customs, rules, norms of behavior and the very meaning of being a traditional society, i.e. relations that are not amenable to discrete transformations, should act as a factor in inhibiting economic transformations that are, as emphasized above, exogenous for this economic system. As a result, informal institutions can either collapse, showing a gradual erosion of such relations, or be reborn, remaining partially unchanged, and groups where they remain predominant will be excluded from the areas of modern economic growth. The effect of the introduced formal institutions will be extinguished by the resistance of informal ones.

Historical experience shows that most often the conflict between formal and informal institutions manifests itself in the agricultural sector, where the economic space is occupied by traditional structures and the state must exert political will to break them down or reform them, which can have serious social consequences. Here are some examples.

During the modernization of agriculture at the beginning of the XX century. Russia was embarking on a path of catch-up development, in which emerging new economic institutions collided with old traditions and rules of economic organization. And naturally, it needed a free economic space for the activities of new economic agents-carriers of the institutional relations under consideration. The south-eastern territories of the Russian Empire, and Kazakhstan in particular, became the free space where new agents could be pushed out. Large-scale resettlement of peasants was carried out, and the development of agriculture in the resettlement zones took place almost on a free institutional iol.

The situation was quite different in the livestock sector of Kazakhstan: a certain part of the economic space was occupied by a nomadic method of production, there were already established formal and informal institutions, and the introduction of new institutions from Russia gave rise to economic conflict (in particular, over land suitable for agricultural activities). The imperatives of modernization required a change in the old institutions. But at that time, the Russian authorities did not go to scrap the institutions of nomadic economy, attempts were made to reform these institutions through a policy of stimulating a sedentary lifestyle.

page 82
One example of the breakdown of informal institutions is the agricultural sector of Kazakhstan during the period of collectivization, when institutions corresponding to the traditional nomadic mode of production were destroyed. Pastoral farms were subjected to forced sedentarization (transfer to a sedentary lifestyle), there was a simultaneous (discrete) destruction of all the institutional foundations of the existence of the Kazakh pastoral economy: formal — former property relations; informal - traditions, customs, social and organizational ties of the past life. Large groups of the population have disappeared from the economic space of Kazakhstan (including as a result of migration, or flight from disaster zones). A "zone of destruction" has emerged. Later, an attempt was made to create a large collective farm based on a pasture-driven production system, which could become a "growth zone", but this attempt failed.

Collectivization in Russia at the turn of the 20-30s of the XX century marked the scrapping of all old institutions and the planting of new ones. It can be noted that agriculture, having passed through a period of destruction that lasted no less than a quarter of a century, having survived the modernization of the 1960s, began to form "growth zones". Even in this case, it is striking that the most intensive economic growth was observed in the south-eastern regions of Russia, where traditional agricultural structures were absent (it was in these areas that a new technological type of large-scale farming was created).

The agricultural sector of India shows a gradual transformation (albeit uneven) of informal institutions in the process of modernization in the 60s of the XX century. The" Green Revolution " enclaves covered various agricultural regions of India. In Punjab, where the economic conditions (size of agriculture, forms of ownership) had a high ability to absorb the technologies of the "green revolution", a new type of agricultural economy was formed, characterized by highly efficient commodity grain production - this region is a" growth zone " of modernization. In the state of Orissa, a "poverty zone" has emerged, which is characterized by the greatest naturalness of the economy, marginalization [Rastyannikov, 2010, pp. 115-127].

In retrospect, it can be stated that in most models of modernization of the agricultural sector of the catch-up type, known in the XX century, the formation of" growth zones " was observed locally, there was a point modernization. Such " growth zones "alternated with" poverty zones "and/or"destruction zones". In this regard, it should be borne in mind that the state modernization policy is likely to be implemented pointwise: through investments and subsidies to "growth zones" and through social transfers to "poverty zones", which, unfortunately, will lead to an increase in uneven economic growth in different regions or economic units.

In conclusion, I would like to quote from the monograph: "Globalization can act as a brake on reforms", which is associated with the increasing availability of imported consumer goods and the lack of incentive for the authorities to modernize. Such a situation will preserve backwardness and hinder the implementation of reforms [Akimov and Yakovlev, 2012, p. 174].

list of literature

Akimov A.V., Yakovlev A. I. Civilizatsii v XXI veke: problemy i perspektivy razvitiya [Civilizations in the XXI century: Problems and Prospects of development]. Moscow, 2012.

Auzan A. A. Modernizatsiya kak problema: v poiskakh natsional'noi formula [Modernization as a problem: in search of a national formula]. 2010, № 7.

Milov L. V. Destinies of the steam system of agriculture // The Great Russian Plowman and the peculiarities of the Russian Historical Process, Moscow, 1998.
North D. Institutes, institutional changes and functioning of the Economy, Moscow, 1997.
Rastyannikov V. G. Agrarian India: Paradoxes of economic growth. The second half of the XX century. The beginning of the XXI century. Moscow, 2010.

Simonia N. A. Catch-up development in the era of globalism // What is catching up with catching up development I Ed. by A.M. Petrov, Moscow, 2011.

Acoust V. Globalization and interaction of civilizations. M., 2003.

page 83

Permanent link to this publication: