Economic sovereignty and quality of life in modern Russia (2014–2024): Dialectics of interrelation and social effects

Aim. The work aimed to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the impact of sovereignizationpolicy on the socio-economic well-being of citizens in the period from 2014 to 2024. Objectives. The work seeks to analyze the evolution of theoretical concepts; to assess the dynamicsof the quality of life of Russians, as well as the economic sovereignty achievement level in Russia,with regards to statistics; to identify and describe the mechanisms of mutual influence; to determinethe way the directions of sovereignization policy (import substitution, fiscal incentives, monetarypolicy) affect social results such as employment, income, prices, and availability of loans. Methods. The study methodological basis is interdisciplinary and includes a synthesis of theoreticalanalysis of scientific literature and empirical analysis of quantitative data. It used a systemsapproach to identify cause-and-effect relationships between macroeconomic policy and its socialconsequences, as well as a comparative analysis to contextualize Russian indicators. Results. The study revealed a profoundly contradictory situation. On the one hand, thesovereignization policy contributed to strengthening macroeconomic stability, expressed in aslight decrease in external debt, accumulation of reserves and achievement of record-lowunemployment level, which prevented a sharp decrease in the living standards. On the otherhand, the achievements are accompanied by significant costs. The key negative consequenceswere persistently high inflation, reducing real incomes of the population, and deepening socialinequality, which is confirmed by the growth of the Gini coefficient. Conclusions. The work confirmed the hypothesis that the relationship between economic sovereigntyand quality of life in Russia represent a complicated compromise. At the present stage, Russiasuccessfully solves the “protective” tasks of sovereignty, but faces challenges in the implementationof “developmental” tasks. The growth model based on resource mobilization shows signs ofexhaustion and leads to the preservation of structural problems.