Russian Regions on the Route From Industrial to Network (Russian Realities and Experience of the EU Regions)

This work reflects the results from the cycle of research done in 2001-2004 for 20 Russian regions. At the end of it it was possible to generalize the regularities of the initial stage of transition which were characteristic for the Russian regions on their move from industrial to network model of economic development; compare Russian experience with EU core regions experience (the latter has started this way 20-25 years earlier, in mid-seventies). Typical features of this period are the increasing economic role of support sector and knowledge economy in the regional development, the increasing role of the mobile assets and footloose firms, gradual transformation of the industrial complexes into economic clusters, changes in typology of infrastructural networks (from vertical hierarchy to horizontal grid), etc. Regional authorities in every region abandon previous style of administrative commands and shift to economic coordination with the actors of the regional economy. There are expectations in the Russian regions that this transition will help to overcome economic and environmental limitations of the industrial paradygm which are evident in late Soviet period. The speed, intensity, and vulnerability of these transition are different among northern, central, and southern regions of Russia. Old economic ranks of the Russian regions of the industrial period has changed essentially. Cities-service centers have increased their importance; on the other side, role of big and small industrial cities and settlements have universally decreased. The most painful transformation is characteristic for the big industrial regions like Kuzbass (analogue of the German Ruhr). On the other side oil and gas regions of Russia are passing this transformation in easier way. But each Russian region has its own peculiarities in economy and social sphere which determine the trajectory and speed of transition.

A comparative analysis of the cohesion policy in the Russian Federation and in the European Union

First years of the economic growth of the Russian economy on one side, and the enlargement of the European Union on the other side, create mych more similarities in the cohesion policy of both entities now than in the 1990-s. Russian Federation is experiencing the shift from the dominance of the operating transfers in the investment transfers as the equalizing tool. their relative importance is naturally increasing in the contemporary period of stable regional development. On the other hand, after the access of new countries in the EU the contrast between regions will irrevitably increase though not reaching the level of disparities between contemporary Russian regions. In the year 2001 federal program of diminishing interregional disparities was elaborated in Russia. Its methodology, principles and methods of distribution of investment transfers took into consideration European experience in this field. Both Russian Federation and the European Union use simple formula-based criteria to determine the exact regions-participants of the equalizing program. Both entities have special approach for the rules of distribution of the central investment transfers for most lagging countries. But in contrast with the Structural Funds policy of the European Union the stress in the Russian case is mainly on the support of the "hard" factors of regional development - physical infrastructure and not on the "soft" factors (quality of the human capital) and direct branches of the economic activity like agriculture as is the case in the regional policy of the European Union.

Tools and institutions of interregional convergence: the case of Russian federal policy

After a decade of reform contrasts between regions in Russia in per resident regional gross product and per resident real income have increased essentially. The challenge to smooth these inequalities is one of the high priorities for the contemporary Russian federal regional policy. For this purpose in the year 2001 federal program of diminishing interregional disparities was elaborated. In 2002 forty regions will receive federal assistance in this Program. Institutional factors on the regional level are critical to make this assistance more efficient. To understand this influence special research of the link between the structure of the regional authorities and the regional economic growth has been undertaken for 10 regions. The model of regional authority-'open corporation' is more effective in attracting additional external investments for the federal assistance money. The model of regional authority-'closed partnership' is more effective in decreasing transaction costs of utilising federal money in social projects to fight inequalities. In the ethnic republics federal assistance sometimes in reality can increase disparities as it is chanelled for the clan in power and not distributed evenly among all the groups and localities. The paper concludes by suggestion for the improvement of the contemporary federal regional policy in Russia.

Multiregional analysis with use of regional accounts and Input-Output tables

Authors construct Regional input-output tables (11 products of goods and sevices) on the basis of regional accounts and National input-output table (120 products) by 79 subjects of the Russian Federation. Information of the Regional input-output tables is used for three types of multiregional models (size 79 x 11): a) multiregional input-output model; b) multiregional optimization model (with vector criterion function); c) spatially-economic equilibrium model. Multiregional economic analysis is developed by the following directions: 1) export-import impact on the regional economy; 2) possibilities of decreasing of regional trade deficit and deficit of regional balances of payment; 3) searching of equilibrium and quasi-equilibrium in the multiregional system; 4) possibilities of leveling of regions by the level of final consumption of households per capita; 5) use of reserves of the basic industrial capital in one regions for increase of final demand in another regions.

Macroeconomy of the Russian regions ? neighboring with the New European Union

In the paper is presented the comparative analysis of macroeconomic indicators of six regions of the Russian Federation neighboring with six countries of the New European Union (EU). The basic line of investigation: ? Interregional comparisons of gross regional products (GRP) by production and by final use; ? Estimation of regional net export; ? Evaluations of financial flows in the system ?region ? national economy ? global economy?, including outflows from regions to abroad of Russia; ? Differentiation of regions by GRP per capita and the econometric analysis of the differentiation factors; ? Changes of GRP in 1996-2001 (divergence or convergence?); ? Major tasks of regional policy. Comparison GRP of Russian regions and GDP of neighboring EC countries (in accordance with methodology of international comparisons) is carried out for the first time. Following tasks of research are formulated.

Programs of regional development revisited - case of the Russian Federation

One of unexpected results of the economic reform in Russia was the rebirth of interest for regional programs and schemes as documents of strategic planning. Regional and municipal authorities, scientific community (not only Keynesian-like, but liberal economist Friedman-style as well), big and small business community, and civil society structures, now emerging in the Russian regions, all demonstrate their interest towards regional programs and schemes. Of course these documents are not of directive character now. They are of coordinative, partnership nature, oriented to consolidate efforts and resources of the state, business, citizens for modernization of the regional economy and increase of the GRP. Their ideology is based not only on principles of Soviet economists under the Gosplan era but on the achievements of institutional theory, theory of regional markets and the experience of regional policy in the European Union. However, in spite of new methodology of contemporary Russian regional programs and schemes, they neglect post-industrial challenges ahead of the country, in their concrete projects. For instance, cluster of federal programs of regional parity ("Diminishing discrepancies between Russian regions”, "Socio-economic development of Kaliningrad; the Kurils Islands; Far-Eastern regions; Southern republics in the European Russia”), in contrast with cluster of federal programs on the new economy, deals only with current social problems. These defects of contemporary federal and regional programs of socio-economic development can be seen precisely in the federal Program "Diminishing discrepancies between Russian regions intil 2015” approved by federal government in 2001. In this document possibilities to decrease striking contrasts between leaders and outsiders are connected with state financed projects of social and communal infrastructure in the 40 oblasts, republics and okrugs, whose level of social and economic development is beyond the average. Same problems in the EU regions are solved by projects directed to increase the quality of human resources. They are proved to be very efficient. During the last years Council for Research for Productive Forces (CRPF) has been eleborated four programs of socio-economic development: for Republic of Komi, Kemerovo and Jewish Oblasts, Khanty-Mansi autonomous Okrug. These documents are not comprehensive in contrast with their Soviet predecessors. They deal with numbered list of problems. They admit that regional development is multi-actors process. Structures of regional authorities, business, civil society participate in the projects under the Program. Many program measures are oriented to provide balance of interest for economic agents. Special attention is devoted to improve regional norms and rules of economic behaviour for economic actors in the new section titled "Development of the regional normative base”. CRPF is working under schemes of development and allocation of productive forces for Khanty-mansy autonomous Okrug and Chechen Republic. In comparison with programs schemes are more long-term documents of territorial planning. Also they include different variants of future development for every municipality. Experience of several federative states in the European Union meeting the challenge of striking inter-regional contrasts proves the necessity to elaborate new federal program "Innovative region” for the Russian Federation. It can be seen as analogue of the German program "Innoregio”. This new program should affirm new perception of creative region (now dominating perception in the federal programs is about region as the location of social problems), stimulate build-up of regional innovative systems, development of post-industrial activities. Russian programs and schemes as tools of regional policy which in the Soviet era were so distinct from Europeans by their directive ideology, central role of the state, slowly but straightforwardly are synchronizing with their analogues in the EU by their goals, tasks, and mechanisms

A comparative analysis of the cohesion policy in the Russian Federation and in the European Union

First years of the economic growth of the Russian economy on one side, and the enlargement of the European Union on the other side, create mych more similarities in the cohesion policy of both entities now than in the 1990-s. Russian Federation is experiencing the shift from the dominance of the operating transfers in the investment transfers as the equalizing tool. their relative importance is naturally increasing in the contemporary period of stable regional development. On the other hand, after the access of new countries in the EU the contrast between regions will irrevitably increase though not reaching the level of disparities between contemporary Russian regions. In the year 2001 federal program of diminishing interregional disparities was elaborated in Russia. Its methodology, principles and methods of distribution of investment transfers took into consideration European experience in this field. Both Russian Federation and the European Union use simple formula-based criteria to determine the exact regions-participants of the equalizing program. Both entities have special approach for the rules of distribution of the central investment transfers for most lagging countries. But in contrast with the Structural Funds policy of the European Union the stress in the Russian case is mainly on the support of the "hard" factors of regional development - physical infrastructure and not on the "soft" factors (quality of the human capital) and direct branches of the economic activity like agriculture as is the case in the regional policy of the European Union

Russian Regions on the Route From Industrial to Network (Russian Realities and Experience of the EU Regions)

This work reflects the results from the cycle of research done in 2001-2004 for 20 Russian regions. At the end of it it was possible to generalize the regularities of the initial stage of transition which were characteristic for the Russian regions on their move from industrial to network model of economic development; compare Russian experience with EU core regions experience (the latter has started this way 20-25 years earlier, in mid-seventies). Typical features of this period are the increasing economic role of support sector and knowledge economy in the regional development, the increasing role of the mobile assets and footloose firms, gradual transformation of the industrial complexes into economic clusters, changes in typology of infrastructural networks (from vertical hierarchy to horizontal grid), etc. Regional authorities in every region abandon previous style of administrative commands and shift to economic coordination with the actors of the regional economy. There are expectations in the Russian regions that this transition will help to overcome economic and environmental limitations of the industrial paradygm which are evident in late Soviet period. The speed, intensity, and vulnerability of these transition are different among northern, central, and southern regions of Russia. Old economic ranks of the Russian regions of the industrial period has changed essentially. Cities-service centers have increased their importance; on the other side, role of big and small industrial cities and settlements have universally decreased. The most painful transformation is characteristic for the big industrial regions like Kuzbass (analogue of the German Ruhr). On the other side oil and gas regions of Russia are passing this transformation in easier way. But each Russian region has its own peculiarities in economy and social sphere which determine the trajectory and speed of transition