The formation of patriotic entrepreneurship and the institutionalization of interaction between government and business in Russia in 1992-2022.

Barannikov Denis Igorevich ORCID: 0009-0006-8968-1173 Postgraduate student; Voronezh Branch; RANEPA 394005, Russia, Voronezh region, Voronezh, Moskovsky ave., 143, 0 denisbarannikov@list.ru

The system of interaction between government and business in post-Soviet and modern Russia (1992-2022) is not fully formed and is in the process of transformation, constant change. However, despite the lack of completeness of the development of this system, we can say that by now a number of institutions have been formed within which the relationship between the government and entrepreneurs is being built. The interaction of government and business, carried out in the process of functioning of formal and informal political institutions, is part of the country's political system. In the period 1992-2022, the Russian political system underwent a number of changes that affected the interaction of government and business, including the institutional aspect of this process. The balance of power between government and business has also changed within the framework of the Russian political system, which has led to a change in the political and economic essence of domestic entrepreneurship, the emergence of patriotic entrepreneurship.

This process can be divided into stages. A number of such periodizations are shown in the scientific literature ^{[1; 2; 3; 4]}. This is the first group of sources and scientific papers on the topic of this study. The second group includes scientific articles, monographs, dissertation research, newspaper articles, normative legal acts that explore and represent certain aspects of the interaction between government and business in 1992-2022. However, none of these works examines patriotic entrepreneurship, its formation, and its importance in the Russian political system.

The choice of the period 1992-2022 is due to the following circumstances. 1992 is the first year of the existence of the post–Soviet Russian Federation (the USSR officially collapsed on December 26, 1991). 2022 is a turning point and milestone in the history of modern Russia – the beginning of its own and the complete transformation of Russia's interaction with the international community, primarily with Western countries. During the period under review, Russia's domestic policy has also undergone significant changes – in relation to business, the implementation of social obligations of the state, and the political regime has changed significantly. That is, from 1992 to 2022, significant changes took place inside and outside Russia, which allows this period to be considered as a completely integral and, in a sense, completed historical and political era.

So, the purpose of this article is to study the formation of patriotic entrepreneurship in Russia within the framework of the process of institutionalization of interaction between government and business and to identify its role and place in the Russian political system in 1992-2022.

The following methods are used to achieve this goal. Firstly, the dialectical method, methods of institutional and event analysis allowed us to identify the peculiarities of the transformation of institutions of interaction between government and business in 1992-2022, the formation of patriotic entrepreneurship, its role and place in the domestic political system. The idea of considering the institutionalization of relations between the state and business in the context of the transformation of the political system, the institutionalization of the political order in Russia is not new ^[5]. In this paper, this idea is applied in the context of the formation of patriotic entrepreneurship. Secondly, the method of periodization, which made it possible to identify separate periods of the formation of patriotic entrepreneurship in Russia. Thirdly, the periodization justified in the article is compared with the already existing periodizations of the institutionalization of interaction between government and business in Russia (the method of comparative analysis).

Interaction between government and business in the period 1992-2003.

In the 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR, Russia was going through a difficult period of its political and economic history. The state has practically lost control over the business sector, and mafia groups have taken its place. Large entrepreneurs have tried, given the weakness of the government, to institutionalize their political representation. As researcher R.N. Bashkatov showed, this aspiration was determined by the fact that large representatives of the business elite appeared who were not connected with the bureaucracy, and the disappearance of corporatism and corporate culture led to an increase in the role of individual actions ^[6].

However, it should be noted that in the same (post-Soviet) period, the largest representatives of the business elite exerted significant influence on the government in a completely organized manner. This phenomenon was called "Semibankirism" by the media. The "seven bankers" meant a group of people who controlled more than 50% of the Russian economy ^[7].

Interestingly, it was the state that contributed to their appearance. Entrepreneurs earned part of their wealth by doing private business in the late USSR. However, they were not owners of large enterprises. In 1993-2003, privatization was carried out in three stages in Russia. Most of the country's enterprises have passed into private hands. Privatization was intended to make all citizens of the country owners, but only increased social inequality in the country. The results of privatization are still considered contradictory.

The results of privatization are perceived by the majority of the population of our country as illegitimate ^[8]. The explanation of this circumstance is the numerous violations that took place during the privatization ^[9]. Until recently, the issue of entrepreneurs paying compensation for the acquisition of enterprises at a reduced cost was discussed ^[10]. There has never been any talk about the seizure of property. Accordingly, the inconsistency of this situation determined the relationship between business and government at that time. On the one hand, the State has legally allowed the privatization of large State property and could demand compensation. On the other hand, in the conditions of the ongoing economic crisis and high inflation, the "oligarchs" were the only very rich people in the country, which naturally put them in a privileged position in relation to the authorities.

The latter circumstance seems logical and justified. In this case, there is no need to talk about the corruption component. It is enough to recall the essence of lobbying activities and the ability of the "oligarchs" to finance election campaigns of representatives of various levels of government at the expense of their significant assets. Representatives of the "oligarchy", primarily the "semibankirschina", actually selected candidates for elected positions themselves and contributed to the removal from power of those they disliked.

The end of this period is the "equidistance of the oligarchs from power" and the transition to the "dictatorship of the law." A good example is the arrest and conviction of a large businessman M.B. Khodorkovsky. Among the charges: fraud, tax evasion, forgery of documents, embezzlement or embezzlement, the problem of contract killings was also investigated ^{[10; 11; 12]}. Accordingly, in our opinion, the arrest and sentencing of M.B. Khodorovsky is the end of the first stage.

The case of M.B. Khodorkovsky is indicative in the sense of the relationship between government and business. The authorities did not try to catch the "oligarchs" for violations of the laws – before his accusation, this was considered conditionally permissible. However, the establishment of political and legal order required the enforcement of laws by this group of people. This required at least one demonstration process. A separate interest is the political motive of the case. Hypotheses are put forward according to which M.B. Khodorkovsky, in the opinion of the Russian authorities, was guilty, for example, of financing opposition parties, or lobbied to reduce the tax burden on oil companies, for which he helped "his" deputies to be elected ^[13].

Nevertheless, regardless of the presence or absence of political motives in the case of M.B. Khodorkovsky, it became clear to the "oligarchs" that they are "equidistant" from power and cannot influence political decision-making, a regime of legality has been established in the economy, and, therefore, violations by other "oligarchs" will not go unpunished, if they are admitted.

It was logical, as such, that there were no business support measures in this period of time. Large entrepreneurs had their own significant sources, small and medium-sized businesses survived as best they could, especially given the criminal situation. The sector of small and medium-sized businesses, according to S. Zemtsov and Yu. Tsareva was characterized by a high level of uncertainty ^[14]. In a good way, the main necessary measure to support business in this period of time should have been to restore legal order and curb crime.

So, the institutional practice of interaction between business and government in the period under review was reduced to the embodiment in various forms of the desire of entrepreneurs to take control of individual authorities in order to implement their own economic (if necessary – and political) agenda. The business conducted "its" candidates for government bodies, by bribes and threats sought the loyalty of government representatives elected without its participation. Business has tried to reduce political practices to serving its economic interests.

Researchers ^{[1; 2; 3; 4]} correctly note that the evolution of interaction between government and business in this period was influenced by the economic crisis of 1998, the coming to power in Russia of President V.V. Putin, the case of entrepreneur M.B. Khodorkovsky. It also seems logical in this regard that researchers N.Y. Saibel and O.O. Kashirskaya ^[4] singled out 1998-2001 as a separate period. However, we, as well as I.M. Bunin and A.V. Makarin ^[3], consider 2003 as a transitional year. 2003 is symbolic from the point of view of the "equidistance" of the oligarchs – it was then that M.B. Khodorkovsky was sentenced. We consider it methodologically more expedient not to split the period 1992-2003, because institutionally there was one process: in 1992-1997, the "oligarchs" de facto exerted a significant (if not decisive) influence on government and public policy), and in 1998-2003 there was a process that made the previous situation impossible - a change in the economic and political situation led to changing the role of the "oligarchs" in the domestic political system. That is, dialectically speaking, the power of the oligarchs in 1992-1997 seems to be a thesis, and the situation in 1998-2003 is the antithesis, respectively, their synthesis is a new thesis – "oligarchs" are "equidistant" from power, but they are able to influence the political system on economic issues, entrepreneurs and the government came to a compromise.

Thus, the period 1992-2003 is a time when the domestic "oligarchs" had significant influence on political decision–making, but due to the circumstances they lost political weight, but retained influence on the domestic economy, thereby a compromise was found between the government and the "oligarchs", the two forces came to a dynamic equilibrium.

A fundamental change in the system of interaction between government and business in the period 2003-2007.

The process of "equidistance" has not limited the change in the interaction between government and business. Tax collection increased due to the reform of the first half of the 2000s - tax rates and the number of payments were reduced, which allowed laying the foundation for long–term economic growth. It is also worth noting that the tax reform began in conditions of low oil prices ("Brent" - $ 28-29) ^[15]. This measure is economically and politically expedient. Economically, because it allows you to collect taxes without the risk of hiding them in conditions of a shortage of monetary assets from companies. It is politically expedient, because it allows you to increase tax collection without unnecessary punitive measures – mass criminal cases and convictions. It is important that enterprises work and have a reserve of material resources for economic growth.

The same logic can explain the absence of mass criminal cases against the "oligarchs". Their task was to accept the changed reality and adjust to it. It is also impractical to deprive them of economic assets – this is fraught with the fact that the market would "gloat" and lead to an economic downturn. The recession of the economy against the background of social memory of what happened in the 1990s could not be allowed. It is also worth remembering about political considerations. From the point of view of the perception of power, its image is also important. It is more expedient to implement a favorable business environment and the development of other industries without repressive policies, since such actions could cause an outflow of economically active and wealthy people abroad due to fears for their lives and property.

The new system of interaction between business and government – the "equidistance of oligarchs from power" – assumed that government and business, especially large ones, should not merge with each other. As T.A. Germash showed, in regulating the interaction between government and business, it was necessary to avoid two extremes – personalism and the chaos of pluralism ^[16]. Pluralism had to be overcome – the relationship between government and business, entrepreneurs among themselves were not sufficiently regulated. Personalism had to be avoided. It turned out to be advisable to apply the principles of corporatism – entrepreneurs, depending on the size of the business and the industry, unite into self–regulating hierarchically structured organizations - associations. The government is building a dialogue with these organizations in order to assess the situation in small, medium and large businesses, private enterprises in various sectors of the economy. Corporatism, as the dominant form of organizing relations between government and business, is quite convenient in domestic realities.

Corporatism in Russia has a number of distinctive features: 1) state centrality, 2) statist sentiments of business associations, 3) built on the principle of a vertical contract, 4) business is represented by several centers of political representation, 5) there is no solid regulatory institutional framework, but the existing system allows you to extract maximum political and economic benefits ^[16].

State centrality, statism, and vertical contract are logical from the point of view of the functioning of the domestic system of interaction between government and business during its formation. This is one of the possible ways to solve the problem of loyalty of entrepreneurs. The implementation of a patriotic policy requires unity among entrepreneurs in the face of differences in their economic interests. In addition, a number of entrepreneurs in Western countries had a significant amount of tangible assets, which complicated the problem of controlling their activities. The presence of foreign assets makes entrepreneurs dependent on foreign governments. In this regard, the requirement imposed on entrepreneurs (political loyalty in exchange for the opportunity to engage in big business) seems logical and justified.

It also seems logical that there is also a lack of a solid institutional framework for interaction between government and business during its formation. The changed situation required new institutional solutions. Business associations (OPORA and R.), economic forums, etc. have become the main platforms for interaction between government and business, coordination of their positions.

There are a large number of business associations in the Russian Federation by business size and industry. They are necessary to defend the interests of entrepreneurs of different levels (small, medium, large) and representatives of different sectors of the economy. The number of such associations is measured in the hundreds. They differ in their size and weight in the economy and their ability to influence political processes in their interests. The authors emphasize the role of business associations and industry associations in effective interaction between entrepreneurship and government, modernization of Russia and increasing the competitiveness of the Russian economy ^{[17; 18; 19]}. This is the essential role of these organizations, they were created to achieve these goals.

The practice of economic business forums is beginning to take shape. It will reach its heyday already at the next stage. For example, the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum has been held annually since 1997. In 2006, its status was upgraded – it began to be held under the patronage and with the participation of the President of the Russian Federation ^[20]. The leadership of the Russian Federation drew attention to the importance of this format of interaction. The need for this format is determined not only from the point of view of interaction between government and business, but also from the point of view of realizing the interests of businessmen themselves.

At this time, the need for government support, primarily for small and medium-sized businesses, which, as a rule, do not have significant capital resources, is gradually becoming realized. "In the 2000s in Relatively stable groups of regions have been formed in Russia in terms of the level of development of small and medium-sized businesses" ^[14]. Support can be provided by both federal and regional and municipal authorities. In 2007, the Federal Law "On the Development of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in the Russian Federation" was adopted ^[21], which, according to A. Chernoshchekin, made support for small and medium-sized businesses systemic and centralized ^[14]. These circumstances indicate that the government has begun to perceive loyal entrepreneurs as its partners in the development of the country's economy.

Taking into account the receipt of increased tax revenues in the Russian economy in the first half of the 2000s, economic growth was achieved, relations between the state and business began to institutionalize, and there was a transition to a corporate model. Thus, the content of the second stage is the stabilization of the economy and the formation of a corporate culture of interaction between the state and business.

At this time, there was an increase in Western actions directed against Russia. As an example, let's give the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine in 2004-2005. The change of power was carried out by political means, but under the pressure of protests organized by anti-Russian forces. Western countries have thus shown their willingness to act economically and politically against Russia, including on the territory of the CIS. The "Rose Revolution" of 2003 in Georgia is also indicative. Political forces have come to power in both countries, wishing to include their countries in NATO and the EU. It became clear that friendly relations with the West are not durable, and the United States and Western European countries disagree with the fact that Russia has political influence in the world.

In terms of understanding this circumstance and disagreement with the American world order, the Munich speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin on 02/10/2007 is indicative. The President pointed out the impossibility of a unipolar world and the ability and willingness of the Russian Federation to pursue an independent foreign policy. E.A. Markov characterized the reaction of Western leaders as follows: "The irritation of Western politicians with Vladimir Putin's speech can be understood. None of them thought that Russia, weakened economically and politically, following in the wake of the foreign policy pursued by the Anglo-Saxon countries and their Western European allies, would suddenly openly declare its desire to pursue an independent course and, moreover, offer the world a new concept of the world order based on building partnership, fair and mutually beneficial interstate relations, providing benefits to all and not only the most developed countries" ^[22].

The reaction to Vladimir Putin's speech clearly showed that in the future, various options for the West's actions are possible in order to "punish" Russia. A year later, another attempt was made to weaken Russia's influence in the CIS (the war in Georgia on 08.08.2008), economic sanctions were imposed. Thus, Russia began to show that it would not be allowed to pursue a sovereign foreign policy for free. In this regard, it is obvious that the West does not want to see Vladimir Putin at the head of Russia, like any other strong leader who dares to pursue an independent policy.

This situation has also raised a question for domestic entrepreneurs – they will take a patriotic position and support the government or support Western countries in order to preserve the exported capital. Accordingly, large entrepreneurs who supported the patriotic line of the Russian leadership could one day face the arrest or seizure of their assets in the West (after 2022, many of them faced this).

I.M. Bunin and A.V. Makarin ^[3] correctly note that in 2003-2014 there was an increase in the role of the state in the economy, including due to the emergence of so-called state corporations. The researchers also noted the emergence of entrepreneurs loyal to the state, who have significant economic weight, but do not have a political one, unlike the "oligarchs" of the 1990s. As shown above, the scientific literature concludes on the formation of the corporate culture of the state and business. However, researchers do not associate this process with the patriotic policy of President V.V. Putin, symbolically expressed in his Munich speech on 02/10/2007, which firmly outlined Russia's desire to become one of the poles of the emerging multipolar world. Dialectically speaking, the thesis is a dynamic balance between the economic interests of the "oligarchs" and the control of the political sphere of society by President V.V. Putin and his supporters, and the antithesis is the beginning of the expansion of the state into the economy and the formation of a trend towards the patriotic anti–Western policy of the Russian authorities. The latter circumstance emphasizes that the strengthening of the role of the state in the economy is not only and not so much a struggle for power when one political and economic force displaces another, but is an example of an ideological struggle when the winning force asserts a patriotic trend in politics and economics.

The institutional nature of the interaction between government and business is undergoing significant changes due to changes in the domestic political situation. The government takes the initiative into its own hands and strives to create platforms for contact between business and government representatives. Institutional practices are increasingly acquiring features of legislative formalization, although the role of informal contacts remains significant. It is becoming increasingly necessary for entrepreneurs to support the patriotic political course of the leadership of the Russian Federation.

So, 2003-2007 is not just a time of dynamic balance between the "oligarchs" and the government (the creation of a corporate culture of interaction between government and business as a symbol of this balance), but also the beginning of the creation of a group of entrepreneurs loyal to the government, based on which it is possible to conduct a patriotic political course (symbolic expression – the Munich speech of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin) and in the economy. In other words, the government has clearly indicated that entrepreneurs need to respect not only their private economic interests, but also the domestic and foreign policy interests of the state.

Strengthening the system of interaction between government and business in the period 2007-2014.

In the mid-2000s, an unfavorable change in the foreign policy situation began to occur for Russia. A reflection of this process was the Munich speech by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government on forcing Georgia to peace in August 2008. After that, sanctions were imposed on the Russian Federation for 1 year, which led to an economic crisis. In the economy, there was a tax amnesty under the Federal Law "On the simplified procedure for declaring income by individuals." In fact, tax arrears were subject to amnesty between January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2006 ^[23].

Obviously, the amnesty of capital is designed to solve at least three tasks. The first is to attract additional capital to the country, which should contribute to economic growth and eliminate the capital deficit. The second is a demonstration of the authorities' willingness to cooperate with business representatives who received income in violation of the law. For the sake of the interests of the country, the leadership of the Russian Federation is ready to "turn a blind eye" to violations of tax legislation by business representatives. The third is the return of capital to Russia. The sanctions policy of Western countries has shown their readiness for an economic war with Russia and supporters of a patriotic political course. The return of capital to the Russian Federation protects businessmen from the possibility of their withdrawal by the governments of unfriendly countries and forces them to build economic activities without contradicting the national interests of the Russian Federation and the patriotic policy of the Russian leadership.

In the 2010s, it was about the modernization of the economy and its innovative development. The government considered it important to upgrade the production and called for investment in the modernization of production. Now the question for business has become: innovative development or loss of a share in the economy ^[24]. The development of innovation platforms, technology parks, business incubators, and startups has begun.

The President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev called for "not to nightmare" business, which he recalled in 2022 as an unheard appeal ^[25], and in 2019 he recalled his propaganda of the need for small business development, emphasized its role in providing jobs ^[26]. 2019 and 2022 do not apply to this period. But the fact of D.A. Medvedev's constant return to ideas from his presidency speaks to the consistent nature of the state's policy towards business.

During this period, the government paid special attention to business development and sought to patronize it. The culture of interaction between government and business was developed at the previous stage, and the number of businessmen loyal to the government continued to grow. It was necessary to support the business, to give confidence in the need for business in Russia and the stability of the position of businessmen. Russian society should, firstly, accept businessmen as an organic part of itself, realizing the opportunity to earn legally, and secondly, together with businessmen, understand that there will be no return to a command-and-control economy with total state ownership, the right of private ownership is inviolable.

The practice of interaction between business and government through business associations and business forums is finally being consolidated. At the same time, as shown by I.I. Khlytchiev, various economic forums compete with each other, especially when it comes to regional forums (regions seek to attract additional investments). In addition, on forums, the necessary documents are most often simply signed, having been agreed upon in advance, and the rest of the time there is an expert exchange of opinions. At the same time, participants are ready to hear different opinions, even significantly different from their own ^[27]. In fact, it is necessary to talk about the emergence of a culture of participation in forums – free discussion, exchange of various opinions, signing of documents as an element of PR communication with society are assumed. The forum is a platform that functions virtually before and after its holding – contacts of participants are maintained outside the forum.

An additional measure of government support for business, demonstrating the importance of business for the government, was the establishment of the post of Commissioner under the President of the Russian Federation for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs on June 22, 2012. A similar position at the regional/republican level appears in a number of regions. The scientific literature shows that the status and powers of the business ombudsman are ambiguous and are not fully defined by law ^{[28; 29; 30]}. But such a position is necessary because it compensates for the inefficiency of a number of institutions, creates additional organizational and institutional opportunities to improve the efficiency of the state apparatus ^[30]. Thus, entrepreneurs receive additional guarantees from the state for the observance of their rights, a signal is given about the stability of the existence of a market economy and the confidence of the position of businessmen themselves.

Support is also provided at the regional and municipal levels. "Subsidies, tax preferences, preferential loans and leasing, grants, free training, consulting and internships, preferential purchase (lease) of premises and production sites, compensation for participation in foreign exhibitions – this list can be continued. Each Russian region has its own set of programs, while other countries do not have such a variety" ^[14]. In other words, the support is significant and comprehensive, and the diversity distinguishes Russia from other countries and makes it unique. This circumstance indicates the government's support for freedom of entrepreneurship in Russia, its desire to attract business to solve socio-economic problems (create new jobs, for example), and create the necessary institutional framework for partnership between government and business.

It is more difficult to provide support to small and medium-sized businesses at the municipal level, because the municipal authorities have very limited resources. However, even at this level, support is provided. V.V. Ladygin noted a number of areas of possible support ^{[31, p. 34]}, which are virtually identical to regional ones. However, they are more difficult to implement than at the regional level. Among the reasons, he noted the impossibility of building a long-term plan for the development of the municipality due to the lack of statistics (information is not provided to municipalities, because there is a trade secret), low economic literacy, lack of municipal business development consultants, administrative barriers, the problem of accessibility of premises and land, the problem of attracting business to a municipal order due to its small volume ^{[31, p. 49]}. However, despite this, certain support measures are being implemented, municipalities, as well as regions, strive to promote business development and cooperation with existing enterprises.

This is the same logic behind all the talk about the social responsibility of business: business must do something for the development of society. Actually, the "Social Charter of Russian Business" was adopted back in 2004, but the normality of the practice of social responsibility obviously does not immediately penetrate the mentality of businessmen. Yu. Kiriakidi identified the following areas of corporate social responsibility: "production of high-quality products and services for consumers; creating attractive jobs, paying legal salaries, investing in human development; compliance with legal requirements; effective business management focused on creating added economic value and increasing shareholder welfare; consideration of public expectations and generally accepted ethical standards in business practice; contribution to the formation of civil society through partnership programs and projects for the development of the local community" ^[32]. In other words, the social responsibility of business is the answer to the question of how a particular business pursuing and realizing its economic interests can be useful to society.

Moreover, Y.E. Blagov and E.A. Ivanova drew attention to the fact that corporate social activities, especially in the context of the 2008 crisis, had and still has innovative potential and can contribute to economic recovery. It is important that companies take a balanced approach to corporate social investments. The consequences of companies' illiterate policies in the field of social responsibility are compared by researchers with a "burst bubble" ^[33]. Accordingly, the social responsibility of a business should not be a burden for it, it is important to implement it simultaneously with the realization of its own economic interest, so that the interaction of business and society is mutually beneficial.

That is, during this period, a trend is developing aimed at coordinating the interests of society and business. At the previous stage, the interests of business and government were coordinated. Each of the forces – government, society, business – occupies its own niche of social interests, it is necessary that all forces can mutually cooperate with each other.

The institutional nature of the interaction between government and business is undergoing further change. The State, represented by the Business Ombudsman, undertakes to protect the rights of entrepreneurs. Such institutional forms as a business association and a business forum have been further developed. Now, not only legality is the cornerstone of the "rules of the game" of the institutions of interaction between business and government, but also mutual respect for rights and obligations.

Researchers ^{[1; 2; 3; 4]} correctly and confidently indicate that in this period of time the strengthening of the role of the state in the economy continued. At that time, the domestic economy gained its first experience of existence under the conditions of sanctions that were in effect after the events of August 2008. Attempts are also being made at independent innovative development, capital amnesty, and President Dmitry Medvedev has popularized technical innovations and entrepreneurial activity. All this was combined with unsuccessful attempts by the Russian authorities to find a compromise with Western countries on the issue of European and international security. In this case, there was a desire to develop entrepreneurship on their own, a patriotic line in the economic and political spheres, a willingness to fight back against the West (thesis) and a clear openness to dialogue and cooperation with the West (antithesis).

Thus, 2007-2014 was marked by an increased influence of the foreign policy agenda on the economy, its content was the desire to preserve capital in Russia and transfer the economy to modernization and innovation tracks on its own. Special attention should be paid to this circumstance. Despite the openness to interaction with the West, the general trend was to increase the group of entrepreneurs who are not just loyal to the government, but also strive for innovation and keep their capital on the territory of the Russian Federation.

The formation of patriotic entrepreneurship is consolidated as the dominant trend in the period 2014-2022.

2014 became important from the point of view of interaction between the state and business, since sanctions were imposed on the Russian Federation due to the return of Crimea to Russia. Import substitution, localization of production in the Russian Federation, replacement of products produced by Western companies on the territory of the Russian Federation, circumvention of sanctions with the help of friendly and neutral countries have become the main agenda.

The main task of the state was to develop institutional relations with business, allowing import substitution to be implemented in the interests of the country's economy, citizens and maximizing the profits of entrepreneurs. In the current situation, when Russia is cut off from Western credit money, entrepreneurs can only rely on the money of the state, large private banks and accumulated reserves of large enterprises, the state needs to motivate businesses to invest in the domestic economy.

Researcher N. Kulbaka believes that import substitution is most effective if it is applied within the framework of narrowly sectoral programs and in industries where sufficient internal potential has already been created. He also drew attention to the fact that the digital sphere, electronic industry, aircraft construction, medicine and pharmaceuticals are critically dependent on foreign technologies, but import substitution is also possible here. The result, according to the researcher, should be visible no earlier than in 1-2 years. There is already a result in agriculture. In addition, import substitution does not imply an exclusive focus on the domestic market – it is necessary to export goods to the world market. Moreover, import substitution does not involve the production of technologies from scratch, but involves their import from abroad and localization of production in the country ^[34].

Import substitution, on the one hand, is a forced, on the other hand, a necessary measure. Forced, because as a result of the sanctions policy of Western countries, many logistics chains and supply channels were disrupted. It is necessary because the ability to independently produce any goods (from the simplest to the most technologically complex), ensuring the profitability of production and the possibility of their delivery to the domestic market and the markets of friendly countries, indicates a high level of economic development. Accordingly, import substitution is the key to economic and technological sovereignty.

There is also a large-scale legalization of capital, which provides for four stages (2015-2016, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2022-2023). According to the Federal Tax Service, the amnesty of capital is successful ^[23], therefore, a significant amount of money replenishes the domestic economy. This means that additional capital ensures the economic growth of the country and business is less dependent on the governments of unfriendly countries. In other words, the storage of capital in the domestic jurisdiction is a guarantee of their safety from their possible loss as a result of the actions of unfriendly countries waging an economic war against Russia.

A lot is being done during this period both to support the business and to inform about support measures. For example, by entering a query on the Internet "State support for business 2022", you can see a link to the Moybusiness.rf website ^[35] with the title "National Moybusiness Project.The Russian Federation – Support measures" ^[35]. After opening the link, a set of support measures pops up with their description. This example is an occasion to speculate about the role of digital services (as an element of the digital economy) in communication between government and business. This is just one of the many Internet services created by the Russian government in order to simplify communication with business and government. In fact, digitalization is changing the institutional reality of interaction between government and business, reducing the need for businessmen to interact with specific officials, transferring the solution of many issues to an online format, simplifying the verification of documents for compliance and decision-making on a specific issue.

Since 2014, Western countries have taken a number of anti-Russian actions. In particular, in 2013-2014, as a result of a political action held in Ukraine, called "Euromaidan", political forces came to power, whose program is Ukraine's accession to NATO and the EU. A number of regions of the South-East expressed disagreement with this, which led to a civil war. The Minsk agreements have not changed the situation. The new Ukrainian authorities have launched active cooperation with NATO. NATO has begun supplying weapons and training the Ukrainian armed forces. The Ukrainian government began to oppress the Russian-speaking population. The Republic of Crimea also became part of the Russian Federation. Western countries have imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation, including on individual representatives of government and business.

It should be particularly noted that the Russian Federation, represented by President Vladimir Putin, invited Western countries to dialogue both in 2014 and 2021-2022. In 2014, Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the Valdai Discussion Club. In many ways, this speech was a continuation of the Munich speech of 2007. The President of the Russian Federation criticized the actions of the collective West and called for an equal dialogue, expressed readiness to continue economic cooperation and pointed out the ineffectiveness of the policy of sanctions against the Russian Federation. The Russian politician F.A. Klintsevich described V.V. Putin's speech in the following way: "I would compare Vladimir Putin's speech with Churchill's Fulton speech in terms of its impact. Only the latter launched the cold war with his speech, and Putin wants to stop it" ^[36], emphasizing the peacemaking attitude of the President.

Vladimir Putin sent a harsh call for dialogue to the West (more precisely, in this case, the United States and NATO) in December 2021. The Russian Federation demanded guarantees that Georgia and Ukraine would not join NATO, and NATO would not conduct any military activities in Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia. Consultations in various formats took place from December to February. Also in February 2022, President of Ukraine V.A. Zelensky announced Ukraine's desire to acquire tactical nuclear weapons, which, judging by Ukrainian rhetoric, should have been directed against the Russian Federation. The negotiations failed. The United States and NATO refused to give Russia any security guarantees. This made the start of the SVO in Ukraine inevitable. In response, Western countries have intensified the economic war with Russia – several packages of sanctions have been imposed, a significant number of politicians and entrepreneurs have been personally sanctioned, and many markets have been closed to domestic business. Western countries have also increased their military, economic and political support for Ukraine. We are talking about the transfer of a number of foreign assets to Russia for the military needs of Ukraine. In fact, we are talking about ignoring the right of private property of Russia and its citizens abroad.

Entrepreneurs found themselves in a new reality – loyalty to the Russian authorities and social responsibility to the people were not enough to run a full-fledged business. The economic war of Western countries against Russia has put a number of entrepreneurs in front of a choice – to support the Russian Federation and, if possible, transfer assets to the country, or to support the collective West in order to preserve assets and, probably, even try to change citizenship. As of February 2024, there were seven businessmen who refused Russian citizenship ^[37]. In fact, the situation has developed in such a way that doing business in Russia requires business representatives to become patriotic entrepreneurs, supporting the government, the people, national interests and national security of the country.

The importance of private business at this stage was recognized by the government and society. The government, the population and business found themselves in the same foreign policy realities and with similar patriotic beliefs. The need to support entrepreneurship is reflected in the amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation adopted in 2020. Paragraph e3 appeared in Article 114, which regulates the powers of the Government of the Russian Federation. It says: The Government of the Russian Federation "promotes the development of entrepreneurship and private initiative" ^[38]. This confirms the obligation of the Government of the Russian Federation to support business not in words, but in deeds. This provision is important because now the regulatory legal act of direct action designates not only the obligation of the state to ensure the possibility and not hinder the functioning of private entrepreneurship, but also to facilitate its activities by implementing support measures.

Researchers I.M. Bunin and A.V. Makarin ^[3], characterizing the significant institutional changes in the interaction between government and business that have been taking place since 2014, introduced the concepts of "nationalization of business" and "Orthodox business" ^{[3, p. 20]}, bearing in mind the changes that have occurred in the business sphere in connection with Western sanctions. Under the conditions of sanctions, such a business model becomes almost the only possible one. In other words, the West, with its sanctions, has created conditions for the formation of patriotic entrepreneurship as in fact the only possible model of domestic business. If before the sanctions, domestic businessmen, even being patriots, having significant material reserves in the Russian Federation, could keep capital in Western countries (dialectically speaking, this is a thesis), now it has become almost impossible, because many entrepreneurs were under sanctions, and their property was arrested (dialectically speaking, this is the antithesis). The synthesis is the final formation of patriotic entrepreneurship as a business model in which entrepreneurs support the patriotic policy of the government, keep capital on the territory of the Russian Federation and actually have no assets in unfriendly countries, interacting only with friendly ones.

Institutionally, the relations between government and business after 2014 are determined by the almost final formation of patriotic entrepreneurship. Patriotic entrepreneurship is formally and informally defined in the context of the interaction of business with the government and the people. The economic interest of entrepreneurs is coordinated with the political interests of the government, the social interests of the people and national and state interests. The role of entrepreneurs in society is enshrined in amendments to the Constitution, their interests are additionally protected by the business Ombudsman, there are business associations and business forums as platforms for formal and informal contacts between business and government representatives. All this is a direct consideration and protection of the interests of entrepreneurs by the state through appropriate institutional practices.

Thus, in 2014-2022, an institutional climate is being built that can attract domestic entrepreneurs to import substitution and localization of production in the territory of the Russian Federation, increase public investment in the economy, active return of capital to Russia, as well as further strengthening the influence of the foreign policy agenda on the economy. The functioning of the institute of business has become possible practically only in the format of patriotic entrepreneurship – in the conditions of sanctions, it remains to be loyal to the leadership of the country and the region, support the patriotic policy of the authorities, keep capital only on the territory of the Russian Federation and friendly countries, adhere to the policy of social responsibility. The Government of the Russian Federation is constitutionally obliged to support entrepreneurs. Thus, we can talk about an increase in government guarantees to businesses.

A review of the periodizations available in the political science literature

So, the above-mentioned features of the interaction between government and business in Russia 1992-2022 were considered. Taking into account the highlighted institutional features, we can talk about four periods of this process. The first period was 1992-2003 (institutionalization of interaction between government and business took place with the active participation of business and the passive role of the state). The second stage is 2003-2007. (stabilization of the economic situation, formation of corporatism). The third stage is 2007-2014 (the trend towards economic modernization, innovation, the emergence of technology parks and business incubators). The fourth is 2014-2022 (import substitution, localization of production, cooperation between the state and small businesses, large and small businesses, circumvention of anti–Russian sanctions, large-scale amnesty of capital). A number of authors have also created periodizations, let's compare them.

The article by A.V. Grishakov ^[1] identifies two periods – 1990-2000 and 2001-2012. (the criterion for the allocation of periods is the stage of development of the market economy). The researcher was also interested in the institutional level of interaction between government and business, but in her analysis and periodization she emphasized only the process of "equidistant oligarchs from power." In other words, only one aspect was considered that changed the parameters of institutional interaction between government and business. N.Y. Lapin in his work ^[2] also identified two periods – the 1990s and the 2000s (the boundary between them is the economic crisis of 1998, which required a complete restructuring of the interaction between government and business). The researcher also considers V.V. Putin's reforms in the economy, but considers 1998 as decisive for changing relations between government and business, but does not take into account, for example, the significance of the "semibankirism", i.e. the nuances of B.N. Yeltsin's interaction with oligarchs during his second presidential term.

The article by I.M. Bunin and A.V. Makarin ^[3] contains a detailed periodization, numbering five stages, to which the authors gave names – "business displaces the state" (1987-1996), "feast of winners" (1996-2000), "equidistance" (2000-2003), "features of state dominance" (2003-2014), "life under sanctions" (2014 onwards). The researchers conducted a qualitative institutional analysis, but this analysis does not cover events after 2014 and does not reflect the realities of 2014-2022. The same disadvantage applies to the periodization proposed in the article by N.Y. Saibel and O.O. Kashirskaya ^[4]: their analysis ends in 2016. Based on the dynamics and nuances of interaction between government and business, they identified the following periods: 1992-1997, 1998-2001, 2002-2007, 2008-2016. The analysis conducted by these researchers was limited to the study of a minimal set of facts and a superficial look at the institutional dynamics of 1992-2016.

So, the article proposed in this article is more complete, since it covers the period up to 2022. In the future, when significant institutional transformations of the interaction between government and business take place, it is possible to add stages to it.

Conclusion

Patriotic business began to take shape in 2003, i.e. with the "equidistance of oligarchs from power", the demand for political loyalty of business, and the gradual realization by the authorities of the need to return capital to Russia. A paternalistic model of institutional interaction between the state and business was built, favorable (government benefits) and forced (sanctions) conditions for domestic entrepreneurs requiring investment in the Russian Federation were created. In fact, patriotic entrepreneurship has become one of the pillars of the modern Russian political regime.

An exhaustive definition of patriotic entrepreneurship is not intentionally given in this article, because a comprehensive and systematic study of its essence requires a separate study. In this article, patriotic entrepreneurship is characterized as a business model in which entrepreneurs support the patriotic policy of the government, keep capital on the territory of the Russian Federation and actually have no assets in unfriendly countries, interacting only with friendly ones. This statement is not strict and does not imply that entrepreneurs keep all their capital in Russia. We are talking about the fact that entrepreneurs keep profits that are not invested in the development of foreign business in Russia, for example, by opening bank deposits, or investing their resources in business in the territory of the Russian Federation.