Institutional Conditions of the Russian Economy in 1999–2016 Years

The article deals with the condition of the Russian state and society in Putin's period. For the analysis, various international ratings and alternative assessments are used by the author. As an indicator of the quality of the state and publicity, their attitude toward objective information on the economic situation is suggested. According to the Russian tradition, the stateis treated as an important instrument of economic development. During the analyzed period, the role of the state has significantly increased, as a reaction to the negative consequences of its weakening in the 1990s. The nature and development of the Russian state was greatly influenced by the views and actions of V.V. Putin. The impact of Putin's life experience on his economic perspectives is analyzed. Putin’sprogram article written on the eve of the presidential elections of 2000 is considered. The author shows that the main directions of economic policy in Russia were outlined in the subsequent period. Putin's regime is characterized as a soft authoritarianism. The differences betweenthe indicators of the economic development of the Russian Federation and those of the successful countries adopted soft authoritarianism are explained. Political stability is noted among the positive consequences of soft authoritarianism in the economic field. Among the negative consequences, the lack of strategic thinking, the clan influences and the associated unsuccessful personnel policy, huge amounts of corruption are highlited. Dmitry Medvedev’s different perspectives on the economy and society are identified, as a reaction to the economic failures that emerged during the 2008 crisis. A failure in their implementation is stated. The exhaustion of the positive influence of the Russian state on the economy is noted. The legislative and judicial power of The Russian Federation are analyzed:in an authoritarian regime, they ceased to be independent and positive. The state of public institutions is considered. Their degradation is stated. It is concluded that at present Russia lives in an creativeless institutional wilderness. Unsatisfactory state of the institutions is due to the consequences of the late Soviet legacy, the mistakes of the 1990s and the demographic crisis of the XX century, the degradation of education, culture and science