The Impact of the Unification of the Policies of the EAEU Countries and Their Allies on Long-Term Socio-Economic Processes within the Eurasian Union

In the context of the development of a new round of the global economic crisis, the growth of regional and global instability, the factor of importance of improving the tools for the integration development of the Eurasian Economic Union is extremely acute. Strategic planning is one of the most important mechanisms for improving integration processes. It is the long-term development documents that are able to foresee and successfully coordinate the problems of wealth inequality, the quality of living standards, the access of various social strata of society to financial services, etc. However, such program documents are doomed to failure without the presence of reasonable priorities, focused mainly on the implementation of structural changes in the economies of the EAEU and its potential new members, as well as today’s observers of the Eurasian Economic Union.
Aim. The purpose of the study is to analyze the current state of long-term socio-economic planning and forecasting within the boundaries of the EAEU. A mechanism of “transinstitutional cooperation” is proposed, focused on strengthening integration ties through institutional transformations. The macro-regional approach is considered as an effective model of cooperation between states within the framework of various socio-economic tools.
Task. Thus, the objectives of the study were: to demonstrate the tools for the development of “transinstitutional interaction” within the boundaries of the Eurasian Economic Union, to give examples of such cooperation based on the possible cooperation of the EAEU countries with potential members of the union (Uzbekistan), as well as to analyze the legislative framework and the accumulated experience of “strategizing” in borders of the Eurasian economic integration.
Methods. The research methods are comparative analysis when comparing the standard and interregional approaches of “transinstitutional interaction” for the development of the EAEU states, the method of expert assessments — when developing recommendations for improving the mechanisms of strategic planning in the Russian Federation, methods of structural and logical analysis — when determining the priority tools in the development of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Results. As a result, the main challenges of the EAEU in terms of improving the strategic planning tool were identified. A mechanism of “transinstitutional cooperation” is proposed, focused on strengthening integration ties through institutional transformations. The macro-regional approach is considered as an effective model of cooperation between states within the framework of various socio-economic tools. The prospects for integration ties between the EAEU countries and the Republic of Uzbekistan are analyzed in order to analyze the possibilities of unifying strategic planning mechanisms within the framework of “transinstitutional cooperation”. Recommendations are given for improving the strategic planning of the Russian Federation as a locomotive state in the development of strategic planning in the EAEU.
Conclusion. As the data presented in the paper show, the member states of the EAEU+ (Eurasian integration countries + observer countries + potential members of the union — Uzbekistan) face similar problems with regard to the strategic development of their territories. The “transinstitutional approach” presented by the authors will allow the members of the Eurasian Economic Union to unite in solving socio-economic challenges, to systematize efforts towards improving the mechanisms of socioeconomic development, significantly saving on the “scale effect” in the search for new socio-economic tools, testing its effectiveness and process control of achieved indicators.

1. Abzalbek G. A. Problems of financing investment programs in the conditions of uneven development of the regions of Kazakhstan. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Economics and Management [Vestnik YuUrGU. Seriya: Ekonomika i menedzhment]. 2021. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 7–14. (In Rus.)

2. Bobylev S. N. Indicators of sustainable development for Russia. Socio-ecological technologies: Bulletin of the Sholokhov Moscow State University for the Humanities [Sotsial’no-ekologicheskie tekhnologii: vestnik MGGU im. M. A. Sholokhova]. 2012. No. 1. P. 8–18. (In Rus.)

3. Vasilchenko E. E. Formation of the Eurasian innovation system as a condition for creating a new innovative model of economic development within the framework of the integration processes of the EAEU. Bulletin of the St. Petersburg State University of Economics [Izvestiya Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta]. 2021. P. 162–167. (In Rus.)

4. Voronina N. A. Intellectual migration: foreign and Russian experience of regulation. Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences [Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava Rossiiskoi akademii nauk]. 2018. Vol. 13. No. 6. P. 158–183. (In Rus.)

5. Glazyev S. Yu. Economy of the future. Does Russia have a chance? Moscow : Knizhny Mir, 2016. (In Rus.)

6. Maga A. A. Analysis of the scale of the shadow economy in the Republic of Uzbekistan. Shadow economy [Tenevaya ekonomika]. 2019. Vol. 3. No. 2. P. 115–126. (In Rus.)

7. Mirziyoeva S. Sh. Analysis of the experience of Uzbekistan in developing strategies for the development of the country and regions. Management Consulting [Upravlencheskoe konsul’tirovanie]. 2019. No. 3. P. 49–61. (In Rus.)

8. Osadchaya G. I. Eurasian Economic Union: development potential, cooperation format. Moscow : EconInform, 2021. (In Rus.)

9. Rumyantsev V. A., Goncharik N. V. On the issue of strategic planning within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. Greater Eurasia: development, security, cooperation [Bol’shaya Evraziya: razvitie, bezopasnost’, sotrudnichestvo]. 2020. P. 96–99. (In Rus.)

10. Tikhomirov B. I, Frenkel A. A. On a single socio-economic policy and strategic planning. Economic policy [Ekonomicheskaya politika]. 2017. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 82–117. (In Rus.)

11. Turdikulova G. O., Sattorkulov O. T., Rakhmatov K. U. The relevance of the transition of the economy of Uzbekistan to the principles and methods of strategic planning. Young scientist [Molodoi uchenyi]. 2019. No. 7. P. 57–59. (In Rus.)

12. Chepel S. V. Problems of monitoring strategic planning: the experience of Russia and Uzbekistan. Russia: trends and development prospects [Rossiya: tendentsii i perspektivy razvitiya]. 2021. P. 141–143. (In Rus.)

13. Chernyshov M. M. Strategic management of the spatial development of macroregions in the framework of the development and expansion of the EAEU. Regional problems of transformation of the economy [Regional’nye problemy preobrazovaniya ekonomiki]. 2019. No. 11. P. 163–171. (In Rus.)

14. Yakovleva S. I. Strategic planning and monitoring of sustainable development: the experience of Russia and Belarus. Big Eurasia: development, security, cooperation [Bol’shaya Evraziya: razvitie, bezopasnost’, sotrudnichestvo]. 2019. P. 183–191. (In Rus.)

15. Golam M., Monowar M. Eurasian Economic Union: Evolution, challenges and possible future directions. Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2018. Vol. 9. Iss. 2.

16. Yilmaz S. Eurasian Economic Union: A Regional Economic Hegemony Initiative. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research. 2017. Vol. 4. No. 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15549/jeecar.v4i2.166