106
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.67.07.10
How to Cite:
Zverev, A., Kuznetsova, O., Mishina, M., Rebrina, T., & Aleshin, E. (2023). Methodological approaches to assessing economic
security in foreign trade. Amazonia Investiga, 12(67), 106-114. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.67.07.10
Methodological approaches to assessing economic security in foreign
trade
Методические подходы к оценке экономической безопасности в сфере внешней
торговли
Received: June 9, 2023 Accepted: July 11, 2023
Written by:
Alexey Zverev1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2434-6252
Olga Kuznetsova2
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1572-4082
Maria Mishina3
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9265-3081
Tatiana Rebrina4
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7715-4794
Evgeny Aleshin5
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0023-1576
Abstract
Economic security of foreign trade can be
measured through a set of different special
indicators with no standardised composition and
regulations. The purpose of the study is to
analyse the existing methods for assessing the
level of economic security in the sphere of
foreign trade and to develop an optimal system
of indicators for its identification. The research
involved scientific publications by national and
foreign scholars, official statistical data in the
field of Russian export and import as well as the
following methods – monography, observation,
comparison, economic analysis, analogue and
hypothetical modelling. The article assesses
various indicators for assessing economic
security in foreign trade, applied in Russia and
abroad. The authors identified the most
informative indicators, proposed a number of
threshold requirements for them; included two
additional indicators (increment rate of
counterfeit goods, share of counterfeit goods in
imports), developed a rating-based approach to
identify high, average, low, critical and
catastrophic levels of economic security in the
sphere of export/import operations. Foreign trade
1 PhD in Economics, Bryansk State Academician I.G. Petrovski University, Russia. WoS Researcher ID: АДГ-8419-2022.
2 PhD in Economics, Bryansk State Academician I.G. Petrovski University, Russia. WoS Researcher ID: IQS-5562-2023
3 PhD in Economics, Bryansk State Academician I.G. Petrovski University, Russia. WoS Researcher ID: IQS-2405-2023
4 Ph.D. in Pedagogy, Bryansk State Academician I.G. Petrovski University, Russia. WoS Researcher ID: IQT-8815-2023
5 Krasnodar University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, Russia. WoS Researcher ID: IQT-8939-2023
Zverev, A., Kuznetsova, O., Mishina, M., Rebrina, T., Aleshin, E. / Volume 12 - Issue 67: 106-114 / July, 2023
Volume 12 - Issue 67
/ July 2023
107
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
is an important activity for any state; however, it
involves a number of risks and threats to be
carefully assessed and minimised. Therefore, it is
necessary to select efficient ways of assessing
economic security in foreign trade transactions.
Keywords: foreign trade balance, import,
economic security indicators in foreign trade,
threats, economic security in foreign trade,
export.
Introduction
Economic security in the sphere of foreign trade
is an important component in the national
security system of any state and one of the factors
of sustainable economic growth (Nusratullin et
al., 2020). Therefore, it is extremely important to
assess the level of economic security of foreign
trade operations in due time, using a set of certain
indicators in order to promptly identify any
threats and develop efficient measures to
neutralise them.
However, the composition of indicators to be
used for identifying the state of economic
security in foreign trade is not unified. In
addition, no unified standards have been
developed for possible indicators that would
define a threshold for identifying threats.
Consequently, it is extremely important to
monitor expert opinions on the given issue in
order to develop an optimal system for assessing
economic security of foreign trade operations. At
the same time, it should be taken into account that
ensuring economic security in foreign trade
operations and achieving maximum effect from
foreign trade activities may run into collision and
mitigate the effects of each other (Ezdina &
Dotsenko, 2022).
It should be remembered that foreign trade has a
positive effect on economies of states, regions
and economic entities:
− facilitates the increment in gross domestic
product (GDP) (at the national level), gross
regional product (GRP) (at the regional
level), revenues and profits (at the level of
economic entities involved in foreign trade
activities);
− improves the investment climate in the
country;
− allows access to international technologies;
− develops competition, encouraging the
national producers to extend the range and
quality of products (work, services)
(Meliksetyan & Nusratullin, 2017).
At the same time, foreign trade poses the
following key threats:
− toughened competition (its globalisation);
− increased market fluctuation in global
commodity and financial markets;
− exacerbation of commodity and energy
problems due to changes in the structure of
global energy demand and consumption
patterns for the reason of development of
energy-saving technologies, introduction of
“green technologies” (Tenyakov et al.,
2022), etc.
The aim of the research is to analyse the existing
methodologies for assessing the level of
economic security in the sphere of foreign trade
and to develop an optimal system of indicators
for identifying it.
Research objectives:
− to systematise Russian and foreign
methodologies for assessing the economic
security of foreign trade operations;
− to compile a list of most informative
indicators reflecting the level of economic
security in foreign trade;
− to propose due standards for assessing the
state of economic security of foreign trade
activities.
108
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Literature Review
In Russia, the following indicators are identified
by major economic experts for assessing the level
of economic security in foreign trade:
− scope and growth/increment rate of exports
and imports (Larionova & Shelepov, 2021);
− amount and growth/increment rate of
foreign trade balance (Matveeva, 2020);
− foreign trade balance to GDP ratio (GRP for
regional foreign trade) (Vartanova, 2021).
This calculation is traditionally used worldwide
(Bokeriya, 2019).
The listed indicators in fact allow for prompt
assessment of the state of economic security of
foreign trade activities. However, they do not
provide for ascertainment of a detailed list of
threats to foreign trade. Besides, there are no
fixed standards for such indicators. For instance,
Table 1 reflects the relevant information on
Russia’s foreign trade operations.
Table 1.
Express assessment of economic security in Russian foreign trade, 2021
Indicators
Periods of 2021
1st quarter
2nd quarter
3rd quarter
4th quarter
Source data
Exports, mln USD
93,682.4
115,329.3
131,847.6
151,455.0
Imports, mln USD
62,390.2
74,059.8
75,140.4
81,911.2
Foreign trade balance, mln USD
+31,292.2
+41,269.5
+56,707.1
+69,543.7
GDP, billion roubles
131,015.0
Average exchange rate of 1 USD,
roubles
73.6824
Calculated data
Export growth rate, %
-
+23.1
+14.3
+14.9
Import growth rate, %
-
+18.7
+1.5
+9.0
Foreign trade balance growth rate, %
-
+31.9
+37.4
+22.6
Foreign trade balance, billion
roubles
14,649.0
Ratio of foreign trade balance to
GDP, %
+11.2
Source: Federal Customs Service of Russia, 2022
Even despite the absence of any unified norms
for the given indicators, it is possible to draw a
prompt conclusion fixing a number of positive
trends in Russia’s foreign trade in 2021:
− exports dominated over imports in absolute
and relative terms;
− the export growth rate was higher than that
of imports (by a significant margin, starting
from the 3rd quarter);
− this resulted in foreign trade surplus with a
significant growth rate within the year;
− the ratio of foreign trade balance to GDP
accordingly proved to be a significant
positive value of 11.2 %.
The negative features in Russia’s foreign trade
operations in 2021 included:
− reduction of export growth rate starting from
the 3rd quarter (by more than 8%);
− reduction of foreign trade balance growth
rate, starting from the 4th quarter (by almost
15%).
The authors believe that relative indicators with
the following threshold values are most
informative:
− the exports growth rate and the foreign trade
balance values should be not below the
annual national price growth rate;
− the imports growth rate should be at least 1%
below the exports growth rate;
− the foreign trade balance to GDP ratio
should be at least +10%.
Methodology
The issues of measuring the level of economic
security in foreign trade have been investigated
by a number of national and foreign learned
economists. For instance, the following Russian
scholars have proposed a certain set of indicators
to assess economic security of export/import
operations: Balatsky, E.V., Bokeriya, S.A.,
Vartanova, M.L., Ezdina, V.I.,
Dotsenko, E.Yu, Ivanova, A.K., Matveeva,
E.E., etc. Among the foreign experts are:
Greminger, T., Maitah, K., Rausser, G.,
Volume 12 - Issue 67
/ July 2023
109
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Rovny, P., Smutka, L., Washington, R. and
others.
In the course of the research, a number of papers
by the mentioned and other experts were
explored and a number of regulatory documents
were studied. They formed a basis for the
authors’ own scientific judgments on feasibility
of proposing some specific indicators assessing
the state of economic security in foreign trade. At
the same time, a logical model for construction
of optimal economic relations in this area was
developed (including those based on analogies).
The study involved an analysis of certain
statistical data on Russian export and import
operations (in the first place, the figures
published on the official website of the Russian
Federal Customs Service).
As a result, the authors applied the following
research methods: monography, observation,
comparison, economic analysis, analogue and
hypothetical modelling.
The research involved the following stages:
1. Analysis of Russian methods for assessing
the state of economic security in foreign
trade activities.
2. Analysis of foreign methods for assessing
the state of economic security in foreign
trade activities.
3. Development of unique methodology for
assessing the state of economic security in
the sphere of foreign trade operations.
Results and Discussion
It is a well-known fact that Russia’s foreign trade
is based on the raw-material export model of
economic development, which poses many
threats to economic security; they are listed in the
national Economic Security Strategy until 2030
(Kusurgasheva & Muromtseva, 2020). These
threats include:
− depletion of the fuel- and raw-material
industries’ resource base to the extent the
existing deposits are exhausted;
− the absence of Russian non-resource-based
companies among the global leaders of the
world economy;
− limited scale of Russian non-resource
exports due to their low competitiveness,
underdeveloped market infrastructure and
weak involvement in the global value-added
chains, etc. (Grinberg & Pylin, 2020).
Therefore, a number of other complementary
indicators should be used for the analysis of
economic security of foreign trade transactions.
Some economic experts (including foreign
specialists) propose to assess the level of
economic security in foreign trade by means of
specific indicators:
− export multiplier – the ratio of the national
income increment (achieved due to export)
to the growth of export as such (Leontyev,
2020);
− kilogram-based price of export – showing
foreign exchange earnings per 1 kg of
exported finished product weight (this
indicator should be used when assessing raw
material exports, since the increased raw
material export, in terms of economic
security perspective, reflects the dependence
of the state on the world market situation)
(Petrov, 2022).
The export multiplier represents an investment
multiplier, since any additional export growth
achieved due to the development of foreign
demand, other things being equal, systematically
leads to increase in production, which generates
additional income which, through consumption
and investment expenditure, also has an impact
on productivity progress. It is useful for assessing
the state of the national economy and foreign
trade in general. Changes in export multiplier
values do not reveal additional threats that can be
established after calculating the increment rate of
exports, imports, foreign trade balance and its
ratio to GDP/GRP. Therefore, it may be
neglected in assessing the economic security in
the sphere of foreign trade.
The kilogram-based export price actually reflects
the quality level of exports: the higher it is the
more significant and sophisticated types of
finished products (including technologies) are
exported by the country (such trade items are
more expensive). This has a positive effect on the
level of economic security in the sphere of
foreign trade. However, this indicator is quite
difficult to calculate as it is necessary to have
information not only on the value but also on
quantitative indicators of export transactions. At
the same time, quantitative indicators for
different commodity items are not comparable
values.
The following three indicators can be used as an
identical alternative to the kilogram-based price
of export:
110
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
− the share of export/import of medium- and
high-tech products in the commodity
structure of exports/imports (Balatsky,
2019; Kuznetsova, 2017);
− the share of conventional/traditional goods
in the structure of exports and imports of
goods and services (Kharlamov et al., 2022);
− the share of commercial services in export
and import (Rausser et al., 2021).
The above three (structural) indicators mean to
reveal the actual existing threats to Russia’s
foreign trade which cannot be identified by
purely calculating the growth rates of export,
import, foreign trade balance and the ratio of
trade balance to GDP/GRP.
Tables 2 – 3 demonstrate the relevant
information on export operations.
Table 2.
Consolidated exports structure in the Russian Federation, 2021
Goods
USD million
Share, %
Medium- and high-tech products
34 385.20
7.0
Conventional/traditional goods (including semi-finished goods)
103 015.4
20.9
Commercial services
0.0
0.0
Unprocessed raw materials
345 774.9
70.2
Non-overt section
13 138.8
2.67
Total
492 314.3
100.0
Source: Federal Customs Service of Russia, 2022
But irrespective of this division of Russian export
into aggregated groups, the indicators reflecting
the share of the most important commodity items
fall short of the necessary norms, which confirms
the existence of a threat to economic security in
the sphere of foreign trade, manifested in the
form of heavy bias towards raw-materials-
associated aspect of export operations (Table 3).
Table 3.
Structural indicators of Russian Federation exports, 2021
Goods
Share, %
Digression (+/-
), %
standard
fact
Share of medium- and high-tech exports in the
merchandise experts mix
>= 10
7.0
-3.0
Share of conventional/traditional exports (including
semi-finished goods) in the merchandise exports mix
>= 50
20.9
-29.1
Share of commercial services export in the merchandise
exports mix
>= 10
0.0
-10.0
Number of indicators within the norm
0
Number of indicators not matching the standard
3
Source: authors’ calculations based on Table 2
Tables 4-5 provide relevant information on imports.
Table 4.
Consolidated imports structure in the Russian Federation, 2021
Goods
USD million
Share, %
Medium- and high-tech products
233 951.6
79.7
Conventional/traditional goods (including semi-finished
goods)
48103.5
16.4
Commercial services
3 522.0
1.2
Unprocessed raw materials
7 924.5
2.7
Total
293 501.6
100.0
Source: Federal Customs Service of Russia, 2022
Volume 12 - Issue 67
/ July 2023
111
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Consequently, the analysis of the Russian
imports structure points to a threat to the
economic security in the sphere of foreign trade
in the form of high level of dependence on
imported medium- and high-tech products (Table
7).
Table 5.
Structural indicators of Russian Federation imports, 2021
Goods
Share, %
Digression (+/-),
%
norm
fact
Share of medium- and high-tech imports in the merchandise
imports mix
<= 10
79.7
-69.7
Share of conventional/traditional imports (including semi-
finished goods) in the merchandise imports mix
<= 30
16.4
+13.6
Share of commercial services import in the merchandise
imports mix
<=10
1.2
+8.8
Number of indicators within the norm
2
Number of indicators not matching the standard
1
Source: authors’ calculations based on Table 4
Another group of indicators for assessing the
state of economic security in foreign trade
operations are the indicators that show
participation of a number of economic agents in
foreign trade:
− share of national foreign investment
enterprises (FIE) in export/import (Minakov
and Lapina, 2021);
− share of small enterprises in export/import
(Ivanova, 2021; Toomsalu et al., 2019).
The authors believe that these indicators are
indeed important in terms of assessing the
development level of foreign trade and the
national economy as a whole. The higher the
share of FIE and small businesses in this area:
− the more favourable is the investment
climate in the country;
− the higher is the competitiveness of exported
products.
As for the foreign methodologies for assessing
economic security in foreign trade, economic
experts suggest the following calculations in
addition to the above-discussed indicators:
− the country’s forex/gold holdings and
external debt (Smutka et al., 2021);
− external debt to GDP ratio (Shcherbak,
2021);
− external debt to exports ratio (Greminger &
Washington, 2022);
− external debt service to exports ratio
(Greminger & Washington, 2022);
− the country’s official reserves to imports
ratio (Grygorieva et al., 2019).
Table 6 presents their original interpretation.
Table 6.
Summary of selected indicators for assessing the level of economic security in foreign trade, as suggested
by foreign economic experts
Indicators
Relevance for assessing economic
security in foreign trade
Possible threshold value
orex/gold holdings and The country’s f
external debt, USD billion, %
It is feasible to calculate some
relative indicators:
- forex/gold holdings increment
rate;
not below the annual
inflation rate;
- external debt increment rate
<= 10 %
External debt to GDP ratio, %
High relevance
<= 50 %
External debt to exports ratio, %
High relevance
<= 100 %
, %External debt service to exports ratio
High relevance
no more than the country’s
base rate level
The country’s official reserves to imports
, %ratio
High relevance
>= 120 %
Source: original development
112
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
In addition, the list of indicators for assessing the
state of economic security in the sphere of foreign
trade should be supplemented by two more
indicators:
− scope and increment rate of counterfeit goods
(growth rate standard: 0 %);
− share of counterfeit goods in imports (standard:
<= 10 %).
Ideally, counterfeit goods should exclusively have
a negative trend and tend towards zero.
The undertaken research showed that:
1. There exists a basic list of indicators for
assessing the level of economic security in
foreign trade, recommended for calculation by
both Russian and foreign economic experts.
These indicators include: scope and
growth/increment rate of exports and imports;
volume and growth/increment rate of foreign
trade balance; foreign trade balance to GDP
ratio (for regional foreign trade – to GRP). The
authors believe that only relative indicators are
appropriate for practical usage.
2. Some indicators for assessing the state of
economic security in foreign trade operations
are too ponderous and inconvenient, as
concerns the calculation algorithm, and their
values are not uniquely informative (other,
more appropriate indicators can be used
instead). The authors believe that it is
appropriate to assess: the share of
export/import of medium- and high-tech
products in the commodity structure of
export/import; the share of
conventional/traditional goods in the export
and import structure of goods and services; the
share of commercial services in export/import.
Most of the indicators proposed by the Russian and
foreign experts do not have threshold values
(standards).
The authors of the present paper have attempted to
propose them.
3. In the authors’ opinion, the list of the explored
indicators assessing the level of economic
security in the sphere of foreign trade should
be supplemented with two more indicators
characterising the level of economic crime in
foreign trade: the volume and increment rate of
counterfeit goods; the share of counterfeit
goods in imports.
4. In order to form a holistic view of the state of
economic security in the sphere of foreign
trade operations, as viewed by the authors, it is
necessary to apply a rating score based on
significance of particular indicators for
assessment (Table 7).
Table 7.
Proposed rating score for assessing the level of economic security in foreign trade
Indicators
Score assigned when the
standard is met
Rating interpretation
Exports growth rate, %
5
Score from 80 to 100:
high level
Score from 60 to 80:
medium level
Score from 50 to 60:
low level
Score from 30 to 50:
critical level
Score below 30:
catastrophic level
Imports growth rate, %
5
Foreign trade balance increment rate, %
5
Foreign trade balance to GDP ratio, %
5
Share of medium- and high-tech exports in the
merchandise experts mix, %
10
Share of conventional/traditional exports (including
semi-finished goods) in the merchandise exports mix, %
8
Share of commercial services exports in the merchandise
experts mix, %
3
Share of medium- and high-tech imports in the
merchandise imports mix, %
10
Share of conventional/traditional imports (including
semi-finished goods) in the merchandise imports mix, %
7
Share of commercial services import in the merchandise
imports mix, %
2
Forex/gold holdings increment rate, %
5
External debt increment rate, %
5
External debt to GDP ratio, %
5
External debt to exports ratio, %
5
External debt service to exports ratio, %
5
, %The country’s official reserves to imports ratio
5
Counterfeit goods increment rate, %
5
Counterfeit goods share in imports, %
5
Total
100
Source: original development.
Volume 12 - Issue 67
/ July 2023
113
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Conclusions
The proposed rating score will allow for rapid
identification of threats to economic security in
foreign trade and for proper comparative analysis
for different states.
It should be borne in mind that the presented
indicator threshold values and rating scores were
obtained by expert judgment within the
framework of analogue and hypothetical
modelling. In particular, the authors believe that
the main driving force increasing the level of
economic security in the sphere of foreign trade
is the growing exportation of medium- and high-
tech goods as well as conventional/traditional
goods, with a corresponding decrease in
importation of the above commodity items. It is
this trend that will automatically ensure a
positive foreign trade balance and its sustainable
increment. Therefore, the greatest score is
assigned to the below indicators meeting the
proper standards:
− the share of medium- and high-tech exports
in the merchandise experts mix;
− the share of conventional/traditional exports
(including semi-finished goods) in the
merchandise exports mix;
− the share of medium- and high-tech imports
in the merchandise imports mix;
− the share of conventional/traditional imports
(including semi-finished goods) in the
merchandise imports mix.
Most of the other indicators are of equal major
importance; therefore, they are assigned an equal
score upon meeting the relevant standards.
Assessment of the economic security level of
foreign trade activities needs a most informative
approach with observance of the following
conditions:
− the due set of indicators makes it possible to
identify all negative trends and dangers in a
prompt manner;
− there exist well-defined standards (threshold
values) for each indicator;
− there is a due possibility to draw a
comprehensive conclusion on the state of
economic security in foreign trade.
The set goal was achieved in the course of the
research through solving the outlined objectives.
The authors, assessing the state of economic
security in the sphere of export/import
operations, proposed an optimal set of indicators
with threshold standard values as well as a
relevant rating-based approach.
Bibliographic references
Balatsky, E.V. (2019). Global challenges of the
fourth industrial revolution. Terra
Economicus, 17(2), 6-22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.23683/2073-6606-2019-
17-2-6-22
Bokeriya, S.A. (2019). The interconnection of
global and regional security systems: the case
of The United Nations, The Collective
Security Treaty Organization and The
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
International organisations research journal,
14(1), 21-38. http://doi.org/10.17323/1996-
7845-2019-01-02
Ezdina, V.I., & Dotsenko, E.Yu. (2022). The
problem of ensuring economic security in the
sphere of foreign trade of Russia and ways to
solve it. Economics and Innovation
Management, 2, 61-76.
http://doi.org/10.26730/2587-5574-2022-2-
61-76 (in Russian)
Federal Customs Service of Russia (2022).
Foreign trade results with all countries.
Official website of the Federal Customs
Service of Russia.
https://customs.gov.ru/statistic/vneshn-
torg/vneshn-torg-countries (in Russian)
Greminger, T., & Washington, R. (2022).
Reinvigorating cooperative security in a
polarised world. Modern Europe, 3, 5‒17.
https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=485918
53
Grygorieva, E.A., Gubaidullina, T.N., &
Polovkina, E.A. (2019). National Concepts of
Economic Security in Modern Conditions.
Journal of Environmental Treatment
Techniques, (7), 1074-1077.
https://acortar.link/1xpPTC
Grinberg, R.S., & Pylin, A.G. (2020). Eurasian
Economic Union: Main Development Trends
amid Global Uncertainty. Economy of the
region, 16(2), 340-351.
http://doi.org/10.17059/2020-2-1 (in
Russian)
Ivanova, A.K. (2021). Internationalization of
SMEs: Analyzing institutional support in
Germany. Terra Economicus, 19(3), 78–92.
https://doi.org/10.18522/2073-6606-2021-
19-3-78-92
Kharlamov, A.V., Kharlamova, T.L., &
Ponyaeva, I. (2022). State administration of
innovative development using import
substitution opportunities. News from St.
Petersburg State University of Economics,
114
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
4(136), 69-75. https://acortar.link/cMlwFy
(in Russian)
Kusurgasheva, L.V., & Muromtseva, A.K.
(2020). Transformation neccesity of rental
and raw materials russian economy model.
Herald of the Altai Academy of Economics
and Law, 5, 115-121.
https://doi.org/10.17513/vaael.1118 (in
Russian)
Kuznetsova, O.N. (2017). Stimulation of
innovative activities of economic actors.
Finance: theory and practice, 21(1), 28-34.
https://financetp.fa.ru/jour/article/view/323
(in Russian)
Larionova, M., & Shelepov, A. (2021). Emerging
regulation for the digital economy:
challenges and opportunities for multilateral
global governance. International
Organisations Research Journal, 16 (1),
29-63. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-
2021-01-02
Leontyev, S.V. (2020). Foreign practice of
ensuring economic security of foreign trade
activity and the possibility of its use in
Russia. Herald of the Altai Academy of
Economics and Law, 2, 70-78.
https://acortar.link/TUU6S2 (in Russian)
Matveeva, E.E. (2020). Economic security in the
sphere of foreign economic activity. Herald
of The University of The Russian Academy
of Education, 1, 12-26.
https://doi.org/10.24411/2072-5833-2020-
10002 (in Russian)
Meliksetyan, S.N., & Nusratullin, I.V. (2017).
Influence of international sanctions on
investment activity in Russia. Proceedings of
the 17th International Scientific Conference
Globalization and Its Socio-Economic
Consequences, University of Zilina, The
Faculty of Operation and Economics of
Transport and Communications, Department
of Economics (4th – 5th October 2017). Part
3. Pp. 1549-1556. https://acortar.link/dbFb5L
Minakov, A.V., & Lapina, S.B. (2021). Financial
monitoring in the system of ensuring the
economic security of the state. Vestnik of
economic security, 3, 276-281.
https://doi.org/10.24412/2414-3995-2021-3-
276-281 (in Russian)
Nusratullin, I., Kuznetsova, S., Gazizyanova, Y.,
Kutsenko, E., & Berezhnaya, L. (2020).
Socio-economic development of Russia in
terms of the BRICS countries’ development.
Amazonia Investiga, 9(27), 52-61.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2020.27.03.6
Petrov, P.V. (2022). Assessment of the
Economic Security of Russia in the Foreign
Economic Sphere on the Basis of the Non-
parametric Method. MIR (Modernization.
Innovation. Research), 13(1), 27-41.
https://doi.org/10.18184/2079-
4665.2022.13.1.27-41 (in Russian)
Rausser G., Strielkowski W., Korneeva E.
(2021). Sustainable tourism in the digital age:
Institutional and economic implications.
Terra Economicus, 19(4), 141-159.
https://doi.org/10.18522/20736606-2021-19-
4-141-159
Shcherbak, I.N. (2021). EU’s Crisis Response
Strategy in Light of Global Challenges.
Modern Europe, 4, 151-160.
https://doi.org/10.15211/soveurope42021151
160 (in Russian)
Smutka L., Rovny P., Maitah K., & Kotyza P.
(2021). International finance and economic
institutions: Can Russian Ruble become the
world's leading currency? Terra Economicus,
19(3), 93-104.
https://doi.org/10.18522/2073-6606-2021-
19-3-93-104
Tenyakov, I.M., Khubiev, K.A., Epstein, D.B., &
Zazdravnykh, A.V. (2022). Stagnation in
Russia in geopolitical and economic contexts:
New alternatives. Terra Economicus, 20(2),
40–58. https://doi.org/10.18522/2073-6606-
2022-20-2-40-58 (in Russian)
Toomsalu, L., Tolmacheva, S., Vlasov, A., &
Chemova, V. (2019). Determinants of
innovations in small and medium enterprises:
a european and international experience.
Terra Economicus, 17(2), 112-123.
https://doi.org/10.23683/2073-6606-2019-
17-2-112-123
Vartanova, M. L. (2021). The need to ensure
Russia's financial and economic security
within the framework of The EAEU in the
context of global instability. Natural-
Humanitarian Studies, 3, 86-93.
http://doi.org/10.24412/2309-4788-2021-
11129 (in Russian)