Changes in the human resources market as a key factor of political decisions
https://doi.org/10.26425/2309-3633-2023-11-4-129-137
Abstract
The human resources market is a derivative of the key market for goods and services, the growth of which ensures economic growth in the country. However, it is efficient human resources that enable rational use of natural potential, ensure capital reproduction and new technologies creation. Changes in the labor market can fundamentally transform socio-economic ecosystem and affect the level of political stability in the country. For example, in the 2010s, imbalance in the United Kingdom human resources market provoked political instability that forced the government to withdraw from the European Union. The purpose of the research is to identify impact of the labor market on political decisions on the example of the United Kingdom, to determine causes of disequilibrium in the human resources market, to highlight stages of the European Union and stages of Great Britain’s exit from it, and to present the results of Brexit at the level of the economy and the labor market. The article relies on historical-logical and comparative methods of research, comparison of macroeconomic indicators dynamics on the basis of a systematic approach. Statistical data of the World Bank and the Office for National Statistics allow us to confirm mutual influence of the labor market and the policy of the country’s government.
About the Author
G. N. Ryazanova
State University of Management; Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Galina N. Ryazanova - Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Assoc. Prof. at the Institutional Economics Department, State University of Management; Assoc. Prof. at the Economic Theory Department, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
99, Ryazansky prospekt, Moscow 109542
49/2, Leningradsky prospekt, Moscow 125167
References
1. Abrams D., Eller A. A temporally integrated model of intergroup contact and threat (TIMICAT). In: Vezzali L., Stathi S. (eds.). Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions. Abingdon, UK: Routledge; 2016. Pp. 72–91.
2. Abrams D., Travaglino G.A. Immigration, political trust, and Brexit – Testing an aversion amplification hypothesis. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2018;2(57):310–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12233
3. Akguç M., Liu X., Tani M., Zimmermann K.M. Risk attitudes and migration. China Economic Review. 2015;3(37):166–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2015.12.004
4. Archick K. The European Union (EU): Current Challenges and Future Prospects in Brief. Congressional Research Service; 2015. 15 p.
5. Bashir U., Zebende G.F., Yu Y., Hussain M., Ali A., Abbas G. Differential market reactions to pre and post Brexit referendum. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2019;515:151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.09.182
6. Beetham D., Lord C. Legitimacy and the European Union. London: Routledge; 1998. 152 p.
7. Bennett S. ‘Crisis’ as a discursive strategy in Brexit referendum campaigns. Critical Discourse Studies. 2019;4(16):449–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2019.1591290
8. Bond J.R.P, Tejeiro R. Perceived Threat Had a Greater Impact Than Contact with Immigrants on Brexit Vote. Journal of Social and Political Sciences. 2019;2(2):333–346. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1991.02.02.74
9. Clarke H.D., Goodwin M., Whiteley P. Why Britain Voted for Brexit: An Individual Level Analysis of the 2016 Referendum Vote. Parliamentary Affairs. 2017;3(70):439–464. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsx005
10. Сolantone I., Stanig P. Global Competition and Brexit American Political Science Review. 2018;2(112):201–218. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000685
11. Dustmann C., Frattini T., Preston I.T. The effect of immigration along the distribution of wages. 2013;1(80):145–173.
12. Kumarasingham H. The Role and Powers of the Queen in the 2019 Brexit Political Crises – Reflections from British and Commonwealth History. 2020;1(48):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2020.1718372
13. Loyen A., Hidde P., Ploeg V., Bauman A., Brug J., Lakerveld J. European Sitting Championship: Prevalence and Correlates of Self-Reported Sitting Time in the 28 European Union Member States. 2016;3(11):e0149320. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149320
14. Mazur-Wierzbicka E. Circular economy: advancement of European Union countries. Environ Sci Eur. 2021;33:111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00549-0
15. Mothana S., Korček M. Investigation of Driving Forces of Energy Consumption in European Union 28 Countries. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy. 2015;2(5):422–432.
16. Wasson E. A History of Modern Britain: 1714 to the Present. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2015. 464 p.
17. Wawrosz P., Valenchik R., Roubal O., Sazanova S. Economic paradigms and economic communications. Upravlenie / Management (Russia). 2019;7(1):60–65. https://doi.org/10.26425/2309-3633-2019-1-60-65 (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Ryazanova G.N. Changes in the human resources market as a key factor of political decisions. UPRAVLENIE / MANAGEMENT (Russia). 2023;11(4):129-137. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26425/2309-3633-2023-11-4-129-137
Views:
301
Email this article 