Fishing and the market: checking for compatibility
https://doi.org/10.36038/0131-6184-2025-1-28-35
EDN: WZTVAM
Abstract
Since the beginning of the restructuring of the economy and its transition to market conditions, Russian politicians have demonstrated amazing lack of freedom and independence in making fateful decisions for the country. This style was also inherent in fisheries policy, where the opposing parties had “what to do” (to charge for aquatic biological resources, distribute quotas at fish auctions, provide fishermen with tax benefits and government subsidies, etc.) or “what not to do” (not to take, not to distribute, not to deliver) As a rule, there was foreign experience. At the same time, the experience was taken in the form of a statement of fact itself, without a proper critical assessment of how borrowing someone else’s, often already dying, would affect the fate of domestic fisheries, the well-being of the country’s inhabitants, the economy as a whole and, most importantly, the health of aquatic ecosystems.
About the Authors
A. N. Kolmakov
State Science Center of the Russian Federation Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography (VNIRO)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexey N. Kolmakov – Doctor of Economics, Professor, Director of the Center for Economic Research
105187, Moscow, Okruzhny proezd, 19
G. D. Titova
State Science Center of the Russian Federation Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography (VNIRO)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Galina D. Titova – Doctor of Economics, Professor, Chief Researcher at the Center for Economic Research
105187, Moscow, Okruzhny proezd, 19
References
1. UNEP. Challenges to International Waters. – Nairobi. Kenya. 2006. 120 p.
2. UNEP. Lääne A., Kraav E. and G. Titova. (2005). Global International Waters Assessment. Baltic Sea, GIWA Regional assessment 17. – University of Kalmar. Sweden. ISSN 1651-940X. 88 p.
3. UNEP. Matishov, Titova, G., and D. Daler. (2004). Global International Waters Assessment. Barents Sea, GIWA Regional assessment 11. – University of Kalmar. Sweden. ISSN 1651-940X. 118 p.
4. Titova G.D. (2006). Bioeconomical problems of fishing in zones of national jurisdiction. – St. Petersburg: VVM. 368 p. (In Russ.).
5. Kolonchin K.V., Betin O.I., Titova G.D. (2022). Consequences of trade in quotas of bioresources in developed countries: lessons for Russia / Proceedings of VNIRO. Vol. 190. Рp. 125-134. (In Russ.).
6. Titova G.D. (2003). The crisis of world fisheries: economic and legal problems. – St. Petersburg. 73 р. (In Russ.).
7. Mill J. Stuart. (1981). Fundamentals of political economy. Translated from English. – M.: Progress. 447 p. (In Russ.)
8. Gaffney M., Harrison F., Titova G. (2000). «Behind the scenes of Economic Theories. – St. Petersburg: VVM. 310 p. (In Russ.)
9. Stiglitz J. (1997). The economics of the public sector. – M.: Infra-M. 720 p. (In Russ.).
10. Blaug M. (1994). Economic thought in retrospect. – Moscow: Delo. 687 p. (In Russ.).
11. Pigou A. (1985). Economic theory of welfare. Vol. 1. – M.: Progress. 512 p. (In Russ.).
12. Bobylev S.N. (2021). Economics of sustainable development: textbook. – M.: KNORUS. 672 р. (In Russ.)
13. Kolonchin K.V., Betin O.I., Titova G.D. (2023). Aquatic biological resources as natural capital // Proceedings of VNIRO. Vol. 123. (In Russ.).
14. Titova G.D. (2014). The concept of «Natural capital», the development of methodology and methods of its assessment // Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. Series 7, issue I. Рp. 114-124. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Kolmakov A.N., Titova G.D. Fishing and the market: checking for compatibility. Fisheries. 2025;1(1):28-35. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36038/0131-6184-2025-1-28-35. EDN: WZTVAM
Views:
31
Email this article 