Nowadays the unpredictability and nonlinearity of macroeconomic processes are growing, due to the technological changes, the increasing economic complexity, and the environmental risks. The development of small and medium‑sized enterprises (SMEs) is considered as one of the tools for adapting to these processes. The decline in entrepreneurial activity can finally lead to long-term consequences. Thus, many countries introduce the entrepreneurial support policy. Our review shows that in the face of weak development of public control institutions, direct financial measures can lead to new institutional traps. This forms a need for new and alternative approaches to entrepreneurship policy. The purpose of the paper is to justify and describe an alternative entrepreneurial policy for developing countries, based on the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The goals and principles of the ecosystem approach are formulated in the article. They have been used to identify new directions and evaluate existing measures of Russian entrepreneurship policy: local authorities and business agents are poorly motivated, local characteristics are not always taken into account, there is a distrust between contractors, support institutions are not open enough, direct support is mainly provided. As a result, the role of the sector in the economy is consistently low and declining. The new approach can become the basis for post-crisis policy in the context of reducing natural resource rent.

Technological startups help to adapt to the global risks and allow one to track future trends. This paper identifies the main trends and birth factors of new high-tech companies in the Russian regions during 2013-2020. In 2020, fewer than 10,000 startups were created, this number has been steadily declining (by 40% since 2015), especially during the pandemic (-21%). Most of the startups are concentrated in Moscow, the Moscow region, St Petersburg, and the largest metropolitan areas. The share of the Leningrad, Belgorod, Kaliningrad, Lipetsk, Ulyanovsk, and Kaluga regions is growing due to the proactive policies of local authorities. Most startups are associated with knowledge-intensive services for business (B2B) and digital technologies. In 2020, their number increased in pharmaceuticals (about 100%) and in the production of medical devices (by about 30%).Based on the results of econometric analysis, start-up activity in Russia, analogous to countries with an established market economy, depends upon human capital concentration, market access, and a favorable business climate. Universities, through attracting students, especially those in STEM specialties, stimulate startup creation; although the share of university startups does not exceed one third of a percent. Budgetary and university expenditures on R&D are ineffective in terms of creating new companies. The influence of development institutions on start-up activity was not found, while clusters and technology parks have a weak effect. The growth of startups is lower in regions with a predominance of large organizations, as well as in resource centers. The latter may be one of the manifestations of the “resource curse”. Startup activity is stable over time and depends on the situation in neighboring regions, which limits the chances to change the situation by means of entrepreneurship support policy. During the pandemic, start-up activity decreased minimally in regions with large metropolitan areas and a high level of education. Recommendations include tools for establishing a more balanced cross-regional situation by implementing the model of an entrepreneurial university, an expansion of start-ups’ access to capital and markets, and the regionalization of entrepreneurship policies.

The paper analyses the problems of contemporary entrepreneurship theory which scientists are confronting in recent years. There are arguments given in favour of a broad definition of entrepreneurship as ‘emergence of new economic activity’. The starting point of research on entrepreneurship research is the question, ‘how, why, and when do entrepreneurial firms explore and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities?’ According to the author of this paper, it thus becomes possible to redefine the subject of the discipline, which in turn enables a sustainable development of the theory, and a refocusing on new areas such as social and institutional entrepreneurship. The paper forecasts a shift in research on entrepreneurship beyond Western societies to encompass the so-called transitional economies and emerging markets. These countries have some important contextual differences which affect the practices of entrepreneurship and these are discussed here. Contextual differences justify the importance of investigating new institutions and actors which might become challenging subjects of entrepreneurship theory in future.The paper also discusses the agenda of entrepreneurship research in Russia, explains the reasons for the relatively weak development of Russian entrepreneurship theory, and suggests policies to improve this situation. The author stresses the changes in methods and research design and the new possibilities and empirical data sources resulting from the latest advancements in IT and big data. In particular, more intensive research and demand for this research will likely emerge because of the increasing availability of techniques for collecting and analysing big data. The author anticipates the increasing importance of international comparative studies conducted by large project teams, and of longitudinal projects to elaborate realistic recommendations for civil society, national governments, and international organizations.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to deal with informal entrepreneurial activity of micro and small family businesses in the specific transitional environment. Design/methodology/approach: The paper uses two cases – an informal micro business (“marginal” family business), and a formal retail small firm (“simpleton” family firm), respectively, of a panel conducted in 2013–2015 in Moscow. Findings: First, the real distribution of responsibilities between family members is informal; it relies more on interpersonal trust and “common law.” Second, exactly the ease of governing such trust-based businesses for the founders’ generation sets limits of succession of small-scale family businesses. Third, as trust in the state is very low, the policy of Russian authorities to quickly force informal entrepreneurs to become legalized is substantially wrong; the results would be either a transformation of “simpleton” into “marginal” businesses or quitting business. Research limitations/implications: Research limitations of the study are the number of observations and the localization of the panel only in the capital of Russia. Practical implications: The fundamental failure of Russian State policy toward small-scale family businesses is its attempt to convince “marginal” to formalize and to oppress “simpleton” family businesses pushing them into informality. In fact, it should be designed vice versa: tolerate “marginal” businesses and let them to “live and die” while shaping a friendly environment for “simpleton” family firms. Originality/value: The paper argues that the most important facet of informality in small family entrepreneurship is the informal property rights and governance duties’ distribution among the family members.

Рассмотрены методологические подходы к описанию результатов образования при реализации ФГОС ВО на примере направления подготовки «Социология». В основе предложенной методики формирования компетенций – определение индикаторов достижения каждой компетенции и распределение всех индикаторов по элементам образовательной программы. Предложены перечни индикаторов универсальных и общепрофессиональных компетенций бакалавра и магистра; рассмотрены примеры предметных, конкретных признаков обучения – дескрипторов. Показаны возможности проверочных схем для корректировки индикаторов универсальных компетенций и их оценки.