Moscow University Public Administration Bulletin. 2026. 2.

Cross-border corruption is no longer a marginal irritant — it has grown into a systemic risk that chips away at governance quality, corrodes public confidence, and warps competitive dynamics across the Eurasian landmass. China and Russia both launched sweeping overhauls of their domestic anti-corruption machinery after 2012, yet surprisingly little scholarly work has tackled the bilateral cooperation angle head-on. This study digs into the institutional scaffolding that holds Chinese — Russian anti-corruption engagement together, tracking its evolution fr om sporadic mutual legal assistance exchanges to a layered framework woven into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), BRICS, and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The research aim is to pin down wh ere the two countries’ anti-corruption regimes genuinely complement each other — and where they grind against one another — and then to gauge whether joint strategic instruments are realistic. Relying on comparative institutional analysis, the study works through bilateral treaties, multilateral declarations, regulatory texts, and enforcement figures for 2013–2025. It is worth flagging that China’s creation of the National Supervisory Commission (NSC) in 2018 marked a decisive turn from campaign-style enforcement toward institutionalized oversight, while Russia’s UNCAC-era reforms broadened the legal scaffolding for cross-border judicial collaboration. Four distinct cooperation tiers emerged from the analysis: treaty-based mutual legal assistance, multilateral platform coordination, sector-targeted compliance mechanisms, and still-embryonic digital governance tools — each at a different stage of maturity and running into different operational walls. Asymmetries in institutional architecture, evidentiary thresholds, and asset recovery procedures stand out as the main drag on deeper integration. The article feeds into the growing literature on South-South anti-corruption governance by proposing a typology of cooperation modalities and sketching a phased bilateral strategy anchored in SCO and BRICS normative frameworks.

This article investigates the potential of using aggregated accounting and tax reporting data, specifically revenue indicators, to profile business models and enhance regulatory policy in Russia. The study addresses a fundamental contradiction: while financial and tax filings contain invaluable information for macroeconomic analysis and state regulation, their utilization is severely restricted by the legal regime of tax secrecy.

The research demonstrates a practical methodology for profiling enterprises by analyzing the structure of their revenue as reported in corporate income tax returns. This approach enables the classification of companies into three distinct business models: product-based (revenue predominantly from own production), distribution-based (revenue mainly from resale), and hybrid. For each profile, the article identifies key economic characteristics, including value creation sources, margin stability, supply chain dependencies, and investment patterns.

A key finding is that data aggregation at the industry or regional level does not violate the provisions of Article 102 of the Russian Tax Code on tax secrecy, as it prevents the identification of individual taxpayers. The authors argue that leveraging such aggregated data can form the basis for targeted state support measures and a more flexible, evidence-based regulatory policy. The article concludes by advocating for the development of voluntary disclosure mechanisms, which would balance confidentiality with increased economic transparency, thereby improving the efficacy of public administration and fostering sustainable economic development.

The digital transformation of higher education has given rise to a new landscape of reputational threats. Traditional classifications, rooted in the pre-digital paradigm, are insufficient for its analysis. This study aims to bridge this methodological gap by developing a novel analytical model for reputational risks, specifically tailored to the multi-layered digital ecosystem of the modern university. The research employs an integrated theoretical and methodological framework, synthesizing management-communication, economic-financial, and socio-cultural approaches to reputational risk. Methods of systems analysis, conceptual modeling, comparative and factor analysis were applied. The empirical base comprises scholarly publications, data on real-world university reputational crises, and an analysis of their digital footprints.

A two-tiered model for classifying reputational risks is proposed. The first level identifies three segments of the university's media environment, each with a distinct threat potential: the institutional-formal environment (catastrophic potential); the social-network discourse environment (critical potential); and the private-hybrid ecosystem environment (strategically high potential). For each segment, typical risk vectors are detailed, and at the second level, key determining factors (technological, communicational, cultural-behavioral) are specified. The research demonstrates that reputational risk in the digital environment is not merely a consequence of an external event, but rather the result of a synergy between a university's internal vulnerabilities. The private-hybrid environment is identified as posing the greatest strategic danger, serving as a primary source of destructive narratives.

The practical significance of this work lies in providing universities with a concrete toolkit for proactive vulnerability auditing and risk management, shifting the focus from crisis response to strengthening digital infrastructure and organizational culture.

The article examines the problem of assessing the operating environment of industrial parks as a factor determining the effectiveness of their development. It demonstrates that existing approaches to the analysis of industrial parks are primarily focused on infrastructural and economic indicators, whereas the connectivity parameters of the environment that enable interaction between resident firms remain insufficiently explored. The purpose of the study is to develop a methodological toolkit for assessing the process connectivity of an industrial park’s environment. The paper proposes an integral index of process connectivity of the industrial park environment (IPSP), which allows for a quantitative assessment of the degree of integration of infrastructural, logistics, informational, and institutional elements of an industrial site. The index is tested on a sample of Russian industrial parks, and a typology of industrial sites is proposed according to the level of process connectivity of their environment. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the conceptualisation of the category of process connectivity of the industrial park environment and in the development of an integral tool for its quantitative assessment.

This article examines the problem of defining state priorities for university-business cooperation in contemporary Russia. The analysis of key federal strategic documents revealed that there is no legally established government priority for developing university-business cooperation in Russia. These issues are addressed only indirectly, through objectives set to achieve development goals within the framework of national and industry priorities. These documents consider university-business cooperation merely as a prerequisite for success or one possible mechanism for achieving these goals.

At the same time, the experience of developing a technology transfer system in our country convincingly demonstrates that establishing specific areas and mechanisms for industry development in key strategic documents plays a key role in activating state support and is an important condition for intensifying the development of a specific sector. Therefore, including the development of university-business cooperation among state priorities at the federal and industry levels is a necessary step in building an effective national innovation system.

Public administration priorities in the area of​​university-business cooperation are proposed to be understood as the most important areas, tools, and mechanisms for ensuring effective, mutually beneficial cooperation between higher education institutions and commercial companies in the fields of education and scientific and technological development to achieve the country's national development goals.

The article presents a study of the role of the press as the primary tool for organizational development and ideological consolidation of the Action Party (Partito d’Azione, PdA) in Italy during its formative period (1942–1944).

In the second part, the focus shifts to the evolution of the party press from a single central organ to an extensive network of regional, local, and partisan publications (from September 1943 to the summer of 1944). The article describes how the PD scaled up the successful experience of "L’Italia Libera" by establishing daily and weekly newspapers in major cities, as well as numerous local leaflets, bulletins, and thematic journals "Quaderni" (for example, "Quaderni dell’Italia Libera," "Quaderni del Partito d’Azione," "Nuovi quaderni di Giustizia e Libertà"). The diversity of themes and regional specificity of the publications are analyzed: agrarian, industrial-plant, youth, women’s, and partisan publications, reflecting the particularities of local conditions and target audiences. The authors demonstrate how decentralized methods of underground publishing (different printing houses, safe houses, a network of correspondents) maintained flexibility and effectiveness under wartime conditions, allowing the press to fulfill functions of informational counteraction, mobilization, and ideological consolidation at all organizational levels. Finally, the article explores the influence of this multi-level press system on strengthening party connections, expanding its membership base, and preparing the PD for its role as one of the main political actors in the anti-fascist movement and in Italy's post-war democratic project.

The article examines the parliamentary debates held in Greece in August 1982, which preceded the adoption of Law No. 1285 “On the Recognition of the National Resistance of the Greek People against the Armed Occupation of 1941–1944.” Drawing on parliamentary transcripts, memoirs, and legislative documents, the study explores the process of historical and political rehabilitation of leftist forces—primarily the communist-led organizations EAM–ELAS — whose contribution to the struggle against Nazi occupation had been officially denied following their defeat in the Greek Civil War (1946–1949). Particular attention is paid to the positions of the ruling PASOK party and the opposition New Democracy, as well as to the role of Andreas Papandreou in advancing the idea of national reconciliation. The analysis demonstrates that the law represented not only an act of historical justice but also a crucial step toward healing a deep societal rift, legitimizing the participation of all anti-fascist forces in the narrative of the Resistance and laying the foundations for a new state policy of memory and education.

The policy of "canceling" any state, political, or military figure is one of the mechanisms of "symbolic politics" aimed at consolidating the results of the intra-elite power struggle in the public consciousness. During the Soviet era, the country's military elite was repeatedly subjected to repressive measures, accompanied by the use of "canceling" tools in symbolic politics. The objectives of this article are to identify the mechanisms of "canceling" applied to renowned military leaders who, for various reasons, lost their place in the country's military elite at different stages of the USSR's existence. To address these issues, a case study method was used, selected from three significant periods of the USSR's existence. Institutional, semantic, and semiotic analysis were employed to identify and describe the "canceling mechanisms." The authors' analysis revealed that the policy of "canceling" was used as an accompanying mechanism for the application of repression against those military figures who were perceived as a threat to the existing political regime. The degree and forms of physical violence used during repression varied, but the "cancellation" mechanism, established by the early 1920s, remained unchanged in its core elements. This mechanism included three key elements: a) "silencing"; b) transferring achievements to another historical figure; c) direct or indirect accusations of errors or crimes against the "cancelled" person before the Soviet government. The results of the "cancellation" mechanism were temporary and could subsequently be revised.