The paper contains a retrospective analysis of macroeconomic policy and macroeconomic reforms in the post-Soviet countries in 1992—2021, that is, after obtaining political and economic independence at the end of 1991. Special attention is paid to the problems of macroeconomic stabilization and economic growth. As a result of structural distortions inherited from the Soviet economy and slow pace of economic and institutional reforms, the countries of the former Soviet Union suffered from the long and deep output decline in the 1990s, and their post-transition growth recovery in the 2000s did not last long. Furthermore, they remain vulnerable to both domestic and external economic shocks. Given a limited predictability of post-COVID global economic trends, this vulnerability will continue, most likely, in the next couple of years.

The issues to be discussed at the panel included: can past experience of economy recovery following crises of 1998 and 2008 be helpful at present; what sectors were driving growth of the Russian economy in the last decade, and are they able to perform this role in the future; what growth rate is feasible in 2021; what amendments to the national projects aimed at boosting growth are likely. In addition to that the panel participants specified key factors affecting productivity and output trends in Russia, suggested ways to support economy in the course of "coronacrisis", and pointed out to economic policy measures that could accelerate economic growth.

The last decade brought increasing attention to income and wealth inequalities in advanced economies because of their increase in several countries and negative social and political implications. However, this debate is often limited to the single-country perspective, disregarding decreasing global income inequalities, i.e. inequalities between individuals in the entire world. This paper focuses mainly on the global dimension of the inequality trends but also tries to update statistics on national inequality trends which, contrary to the dominant narrative, seem to go in various directions depending on a concrete country. Finally, an attempt is made to analyze the potential interrelation and trade-off between decreasing global inequalities and increasing national inequalities and the role of globalization, in its various forms, in such a trade-off.

Central Asia, though referred to as a single region, consists of five culturally and ethnically diverse countries that have followed different political and economic transformation paths in the last 25 years since independence from the Soviet Union. After experiencing more than a decade of growth based on hydrocarbon booms, these countries are faced with increasing challenges resulting from falling commodity prices, declining trade and lower migrant remittances. The main policy challenge is to move away from commodity-based growth strategies to macro-oriented diversification and adoption of a broad spectrum of economic, institutional and political reforms. However, structural diversification is easier said than done. Our analysis suggests five key policy lessons that could serve as points of departure as these countries move ahead.

Central Asia consists of five culturally and ethnically diverse countries that have followed different paths to political and economic transformation in the past 25 years since achieving independence from the Soviet Union. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have in relative terms made strides in market reforms, while Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have not yet completed their transitions to market economies. Tajikistan represents an intermediate case. After experiencing more than a decade of growth based on hydrocarbon booms, Central Asian countries are faced with increasing challenges resulting from falling commodity prices, declining trade and lower migrant remittances. The main policy challenge is to move away from commodity-based growth strategies to market-oriented diversification and adoption of a broad spectrum of economic, institutional and political reforms. The major obstacles to political reform and structural diversification in the five Central Asian economies are internal and external geopolitical factors and deeply embedded institutional weaknesses within each country, particularly in areas where economic management interacts with authoritarian political systems and imperfect legal institutions.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, its successor states have suffered from cyclical currency crises. The most recent episode of 2014–2016 was caused by a combination of external and domestic factors. The former include tighter US monetary policy, slower global growth, and declining commodity prices, whereas the latter include the former Soviet Union (FSU) economies’ extreme macroeconomic fragility (a legacy of past crises), numerous microeconomic rigidities and structural distortions in addition to governmental deficits. In addition, the Russian–Ukraine conflict dealt a heavy blow to both economies and their neighbors. Effective anti-crisis policies must aim at eliminating all deep-rooted causes of repeated financial and macroeconomic turbulence and must involve deep structural and institutional reforms in the entire region.

This paper seeks the main factors behind inflation in Russia over the period 1996–2001. It presents a succinct description of Russian monetary policy and inflation developments. The econometric analysis establishes a long-run relationship between demand for the real money balances on the one side and the real income and short-term interest rate on the other side. It also presents several specifications of modeling shortrun dynamics of inflation. An account is made for the change in the exchange rate regime after the financial crisis of August 1998. It finds that apart from strong inertia, money expansion and exchange rate depreciation played a role in fueling the CPI. However, there were significant shifts in the underlying trends driving inflation during the studied period. Until 1999 fiscal policy posed the biggest obstacle to the disinflation process in Russia. In 2000–2001 the main responsibility for sustained inflation pressure can be attributed to monetary policy trying to target money supply and exchange rate at the same time. The way out from this policy trap leads through the adoption of one of the so-called 'corner' solutions, i.e. either a permanently fixed exchange rate, or independent monetary policy under a free float regime. Taking into consideration a historically limited credibility of macroeconomic policy and the high level of dollarization, the first variant seems to be a better solution for Russia. However, its implementation would require the accompanying fiscal, banking and other structural reforms creating a healthy policy-mix and flexible microeconomic environment.

The purpose of this study is to explain the main sources of continued inflationary pressure in Russia and propose a policy remedy to this situation. In the transition period Russia has gone through different monetary and exchange rate regimes. The disinflation process has been marked by several reversals, the most recent being the consequence of the currency and banking crisis in August 1998. Although annual inflation was brought back down to a moderate two‐digit level (around 20%) in 2001, such a level cannot be considered as satisfactory from the viewpoint of a long‐term investment and growth climate.