Sergeev Victor

Main Page ~ Authors ~ Sergeev Victor
  • 4, 2012


      Having thoroughly analyzed history of the emergence of the Turkish secular state and its consequent transformation, V.Sergeyev and S.Sarukhanyan draw the conclusion that it is wrong to explain success of political Islam in Turkey only by the current political conjuncture or charismatic qualities of Recep Erdogan. According to their assessment, political Islam in the country will continue to be enhanced. At the same time, the authors show that the victory over kemalist institutions is nowhere near the statement that the “Turkish model” of political Islam succeeded. In reality it is still at the stage of development and will soon face serious challenges with the main one being ideological.

      DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2012-67-4-134-151

  • 3, 2012


      The article is devoted to exploring reasons for the failure of the “White revolution” – the modernization policy conducted since the 1960-s by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi,Shah of Iran. Having thoroughly analyzed economic, political and social components of the “White revolution”, V.Sergeev and S.Sarukhanyan come to the conclusion about the total inadequacy of the approach that connects the failure of the Iranian modernization to the reactionary and conservative character of its society. The research carried out by the authors persuasively proves that the essential role in the destiny of the modernization project was played by the Shah’s inability (or unwillingness) to modernize the state government system and the model of the relationships with the society. The origins of the collapse of the Iranian monarchy and its political course, according to the authors, are hidden in the reactionary character of this monarchy which assumed monopoly over the expression of the “common wealth” denying the society the right to determine and represent its interests by itself.

      DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2012-66-3-132-145

  • 1, 2012


      The traditional political science approach does not differentiate between consolidated and “forming” states preferring to consider a state as it is and emphasizing only specific political systems. Claiming this approach principally wrong, V.Sergeyev states a hypothesis that the so called “forming states” are not a state at the full sense of the word being rather a tight clew of social networks in which structure emerging political institutions weakly shine through. On the basis of the analysis of the political development of Amalfi and Venice – two early medieval “pre-states” – he shows that in such entities politics is of the preconscious, intuitive character and develops mostly as trend.

      DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2012-64-1-132-146

  • 4, 2008

    • Typology of innovative development models

      The authors examine models of economic modernisation and the types of national innovative systems that ensure such modernisation. Basing on the analysis of the existing innovative systems, the authors distinguish three basic models of innovative development: “Euro-Atlantic”, “East-Asian” and an “alternative” one. The first model is primarily typical of the countries of the Euro-Atlantic region and implies the full innovative cycle – from the inventive conception to the mass production. The innovation cycle of the second type lacks the stage of conceiving the fundamental ideas. Being oriented at exporting high-tech products, such countries usually adopt these technologies from the outer world. Finally, the third model not only skips the stage of fundamental science and applied research, but simply ignores the high-tech component as such. The innovative development of this type comes from redirecting the innovative policy from high-tech to high-hume, which in many cases allows to achieve fast pace of economic growth.

      DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2008-51-4-6-22

      Pages: 6-22

  • 1, 2008


      The article substantiates the thesis that the appearance and adaptation of innovations cannot be considered as purely economic problems. Proceeding in his argumentation from classification of societies depending on the ways of legitimating the innovations inherent in them, V.Sergeev shows that the very fact of “adopting” the innovations has a deep social nature and is inseparably linked with the society’s general ability to change. Based on the analysis of political, economic and social aspects of the process of legitimizing the innovations, he makes a conclusion regarding unavoidably political nature of innovation activities. In his opinion, such conclusion is of a fundamental meaning for understanding social evolution, which turns the study of innovation activities into one of the central dimensions of political science.

      DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2008-48-1-114-125

  • 3, 2004

  • 4, 2000

    • Russia and the New World Order

      Under current conditions Russia’s biggest challenge Is the globalization of the world economy. In fact, the data on capital, commodity and workforce flow evidences that common understanding of globalization as a comprehensive system that more or less equally covers the planet with a communication network is far from reality. The model of «gates to the global world» seems to be more adequate. This is the system of closely associated not very big regions where financial intellectual economic and information resources are concentrated, and through which financial commodity and communication flows go. Russia’s integration into the world economic system through the creation of its own «gates to the global world» in its territory looks more preferable since it allows to create regions with high level of life and capital investments, and the main thing is to form the centers of economic processes management.

      DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2000-18-4-184-197

      Pages: 184-197

  • 1, 2000

    • Presidential Elections of 2000 and Paradigms of Russian Development (Round Table March 20, 2000)

      Proclaiming formally in 1990s the renunciation to the soviet model of state and the socialist values, the beginning of democratization, the ruling elites did not formulate the meaning of this process. The actual regime had no responses to the most of that challenges. The country wasn't stable in the political aspect. The legitimacy of this regime is very uncertain. It is still difficult to define what legal tradition the present regime inherited and whether it proceeded from the Russian empire, or the Soviet Union or the state formed in 1991. Russia didn't react to the challenges of the modernization and of the multipolar world. The actual key tasks should be the purposes determination and the restoration of the non-totalitarian statehood. The reinforcement of the civil society could lead to the broadening of the supreme power resources.

      DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2000-15-1-5-27

      Pages: 5-27