A Methodology for Assessing the Harmonisation Level of Industrial and Trade Policies

Yuliya Sidorenko

Research article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.4.4

A Methodology for Assessing the Harmonisation Level of Industrial and Trade

Policies

Yuliya Sidorenko

Local Administration of the municipal formation municipal district Posadsky, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation Corresponding author: yla-box@mail.ru

Abstract

The paper examines the existing approaches to developing a methodology for determining the level of policy harmonisation. The author suggests a methodology based on the rating method for assessing the level of harmonisation of the components of the industrial and trade policy of St. Petersburg at the institutional level. A scale for quantitatively and qualitatively assessing the harmonisation of industrial and trade policies at the institutional level has been developed. An assessment of the harmonisation of institutional support for industrial and trade policies of St. Petersburg at the federal and regional levels was made. The author developed criteria for harmonising industrial and trade policies which are based on the mutual orientation of the goals and objectives of industry and trade development, the comprehensiveness and systematic use of support measures and the effectiveness of the pursued policies. The principles of uniformity, goal setting, consistency, rationality and mutual socio-economic conditionality can be used to harmonise the industrial and trade policies of the constituencies of the Russian Federation. To assess the level of harmonisation of industrial and trade policies, the indicator of the 'the share of locally produced goods in the region's trade turnover' has been proposed and a scale of qualitative characteristics of the level of harmonisation has been developed. The author suggests a list of indicators for assessing the socio-economic effect of the harmonisation of St. Peterburg's industrial and trade policies based on the light industry sector.

Keywords: methodology for assessing harmonisation, policy harmonisation, trade policy, industrial policy, institutional support for industrial and trade policy, light industry

Citation: Sidorenko, Y., 2023 A Methodology for Assessing the Harmonisation Level of Industrial and Trade Policies. Sustainable Development and Engineering Economics 4, 4. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.4.4

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0

54

Sustainable development of regional infrastructure

Научная статья УДК 338.2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.4.4

Методика Оценки Уровня Гармонизации Промышленной и Торговой

Политики

Юлия Сидоренко

Администрация муниципального округа Посадский, Санкт-Петербург, Российская Федерация Автор, ответственный за переписку: yla-box@mail.ru

Аннотация

В статье рассмотрены существующие в современной литературе подходы к разработке методики определения уровня гармонизации проводимой политики. Предложена авторская методика оценки уровня гармонизации компонентов промышленной и торговой политики региона (г. Санкт-Петербурга) на институциональном уровне, на основании бально-рейтингового метода. Разработана шкала количественной и качественной оценки уровня гармонизации промышленной и торговой политики институционального уровня. Проведена оценка гармонизации институционального обеспечения промышленной и торговой политики Санкт-Петербурга федерального и регионального уровня. Сформулированы критерии гармонизации промышленной и торговой политики, заключающиеся во взаимной ориентации целей и задач развития промышленности и торговли; комплексности и системности использования мер и инструментов поддержи; результативности проводимой политики. Определены принципы гармонизации промышленной и торговой политики, состоящие во единообразии, целеполагании, согласованности, рациональности, взаимной социально-экономической обусловленности, экономическом эффекте для бюджета субъекта Российской Федерации. Для оценки уровня гармонизации, реализуемой промышленной и торговой политики, предложен показатель «удельный вес товаров собственного производства в товарообороте региона» и разработана шкала качественной характеристики уровня гармонизации. Предложен перечень показателей оценки социально-экономического эффекта гармонизации промышленной и торговой политики Санкт-Петербурга на примере отрасли легкой промышленности.

Ключевые слова: методика оценки гармонизации, гармонизация политики, торговая политика, промышленная политика, институциональное обеспечение промышленной и торговой политики, легкая промышленность

Цитирование: Сидоренко, Ю., 2023. Методика Оценки Уровня Гармонизации Промышленной и Торговой Политики. Sustainable Development and Engineering Economics 4, 4. https://doi.Org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.4.4

Эта работа распространяется под лицензией CC BY-NC 4.0

Устойчивое развитие региональной инфраструктуры

55

1. Introduction

This paper studies the level of institutional support for the industrial and trade policies of St. Petersburg at the federal and regional levels. This study's relevance lies in its search for up-to-date methods for assessing the harmonisation of industrial and trade policies during the period of economic sanctions and within the process of import substitution in the industry of the Russian Federation. The existing approaches to developing methods for assessing the level of policy harmonisation do not measure the level of institutional support, which is the industrial and trade policy enshrined in federal and regional regulatory legal acts. This study's research objectives are the following: to propose a methodology for assessing the level of harmonisation of industrial and trade policy in St. Petersburg, to analyse and evaluate the level of harmonisation of institutional support for industrial and trade policy of St. Petersburg and to determine harmonisation criteria to formulate principles of harmonisation and assess the harmonisation level of industry and trade in St. Petersburg.

Approaches to developing a methodology for determining the level of harmonisation of policies are reflected in the works of Russian researchers. I.F. Bogatyrev examines industrial policy harmonisation from the point of view of achieving internal and external harmonisation. Internal harmonisation is the mutual consistency of the elements of the industrial policy mechanism, while external harmonisation involves industrial policy mechanisms and other types of economic policies (Bogatyrev, 2021).

K.A. Doroshenko, L.I. Egorova and M.K. Chuts explore the harmonisation of foreign trade and economic security at the regional level. They examine the indicators reflecting foreign trade relations and indicators of economic security that have certain threshold values. The researchers suggest using a foreign trade multiplier of regional trade, which characterises the relationship between the region's net income and the net export that caused this increase as an indicator, reflecting the analysis of the commodity structure of the region's exports and imports (Doroshenko and Egorova, 2013).

A. N. Kalyuzhny proposes ranking as a means of harmonising the industrial and trade policies of enterprises through assessing the harmonisation indicators of the trade and industrial policies of an enterprise, such as the following: 1) pursuing innovative activities, which implies the consistency of all its constituent elements, properties, internal processes, connections, contradictions and trends; 2) focusing all types of enterprise resources on 'key (root) competencies'; 3) marketing activities of an industrial organisation in an innovative economy; 4) identifying and motivating employees who have important knowledge ofindustrial organisation; and 5) building an innovative organisational structure. In the second stage of the assessment, the deviation of the sum of ranks by the type of activity from the reference number is calculated. In the third stage, the calculation results are ranked by enterprises. Based on the scale compiled by the author, enterprises are graded according to the level of harmonisation of industrial and trade policies (Kalyuzhny, 2012).

L. L. Tonysheva and T. A. Mezhetskaya propose a system for assessing industrial and trade policies based on indicators characterising the results of their implementation, such as for industrial policy: industrial production index percentage, labour productivity index percentage, index of investment volume in fixed capital percentage, index of growth of high-performancejobs percentage, the share of costly technological innovations in the total volume of shipped goods percentage, the innovative activity of industrial production organisations, level of harmonisation of national quality standards with international ones; for trade policy: share of domestic equipment about imported; share of exports of Russian high-tech equipment; expansion of the portfolio of orders of enterprises percentage, expansion of sales markets of enterprises percentage, increase in the attractiveness of the industry for investment, change in the reputation of enterprises in the market; changes in the amount of advertising. Next, they propose to evaluate specific indicators of industrial and trade policies using an expert-analytical method. The final stage determines the integral indicator of industrial and trade policy using the formula (Tonysheva and Mezhetskaya, 2016).

The methods proposed above by the authors are noteworthy as they reflect the harmonisation at the

level of an industrial enterprise or country; however, only a few works investigate the level ofharmoni-sation of industrial and trade policies at the regional level. It is necessary to adapt existing methods and develop new ones considering the approaches the experts suggested. We propose our methodology for determining the level of industrial and trade policy harmonisation at the regional level.

2. Materials and methods

The information and empirical base of the study is the data obtained from the Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation and the Office of the Federal State Statistics Service for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region (Petrostat). The following sources are also used: the laws of the Russian Federation and St. Petersburg in the field of industrial policy and trade, economic development strategies, industry and trade development strategies at the federal and regional levels, government programs aimed at developing industries and trade in the Russian Federation and the city of St. Petersburg and reports from the Federal Tax Service in form No. 1-NOM 'Accrual and receipt of taxes, fees and insurance contributions to the budget system of the Russian Federation for main types of economic activity'.

The methodology of the study is based on general scientific methods. Statistical observation of economic conditions, comparison and grouping and induction made it possible to formulate criteria for determining the level of harmonisation of industrial and trade policies at the institutional level and formulate principles for harmonising industrial and trade policies in the region. Comparative and structural analysis and scientific generalisation allowed for assessing the level of harmonisation of industrial and trade policies of St. Petersburg at the institutional level. Based on the point-rating method, a scale for quantitative and qualitative assessment of the harmonisation of industrial and trade policies at the institutional level was developed. The graphical method made it possible to prove the correlation between the ongoing harmonised industrial and trade policies and the level of economic effect for the region (in the number of tax revenues to the budget).

3. Results and Discussion

To determine the level of harmonisation of industrial and trade policies at the institutional level, the following criteria are proposed:

1. Mutual orientation of the goals and objectives ofindustry and trade development;

2. Comprehensive and systematic use of a system of support measures and tools at all levels of government;

3. Effectiveness, which is the positive result of support measures and the approximation of harmonisation indicators to the desired results of industrial and trade policy development.

The formulated principles of harmonisation of industrial and trade policies of the region are the following:

1. Uniformity, which is the presence of consistent institutional support for industrial and trade policies and a correlated system for evaluating implemented programs;

2. Goal setting, which is expressed in setting goals aimed at mutual support and development of industries using the region's potential while considering the existing industry problems;

3. Consistency, which implies the mutual orientation of industrial and trade policies through adopting norms and rules aimed at the interconnected development of industry and trade;

4. Efficiency, which means the effectiveness of support measures by achieving a positive socio-economic effect while optimising government spending;

5. Rationality, which is expressed in an economically justified ratio of the volume of resources allocated for developing industry and trade and the effect of their use;

6. Mutual socio-economic conditionality, which assumes that the harmonisation of industrial policy and trade policy is aimed at the socio-economic development of the region as a whole through the development of production and the formation and satisfaction of consumer demand;

7. Economic effect for the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, which means an economicallyjustified forecast of an increase in tax revenues received by a constituent entity of the federation from the industrial sector of the economy and trade due to the harmonisation of industrial and trade policies.

At the institutional level, We propose using the point rating to assess the harmonisation of the components of the industrial and trade policy of St. Petersburg enshrined in federal and regional regulations:

1 point is assigned if a subject of the federation has adopted a normative legal act approving the policy;

2 points are assigned if there is a partial orientation of the components of industrial and trade policy towards each other (mention of related industry/trade while considering interests);

3 points are assigned if there is a significant orientation of the policy components towards each other (consolidating the goals, objectives and target indicators of the document of orientation and consideration of the interests of the related industry/trade and the presence of measures and actions aimed at the complementary development of industries).

Table 1. Assessment of the harmonisation level of industrial and trade policies of St. Petersburg at the

institutional level

Industrial policy Number of points Trade policy Number of points Total

Federal level

Federal Law of 31 December 2014 No. 488-FZ: On Industrial Policy in the Russian Federation 1 Federal Law of 28 December 2009 No. 381-FZ: On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Trade Activities in wthe Russian Federation 3 4

Strategy for developing the economic security of the Russian Federation for the period until 2030, approved by decree of the president of the Russian Federation of 13 May 2017 N 208 2 Strategy for developing the economic security of the Russian Federation for the period until 2030, approved by decree of the president of the Russian Federation of 13 May 2017 N 208 2 4

Consolidated strategy for the development of the manufacturing industry of the Russian Federation until 2024 and for the period until 2035, approved. by order of the Government of the Russian Federation of 6 June 2020 N 1512 3 Trade development strategy in the Russian Federation for 2015-2016 and Trade development strategy until 2020, approved by order of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation dated 25 December 2014 No. 2733 3 3 6

Draft strategy for the development of trade in the Russian Federation until 2025 3

State enterprise: Development of industry and increasing its competitiveness 2013-2030 2

State enterprise: Development of the pharmaceutical and medical industry, approved by decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 28 December 2017 No. 1673. 3

No. 374 state enterprise: Development of shipbuilding and equipment for the development ofoffshore fields, approved by the decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 31 March 2017 No. 374 3 2.75 State enterprise: Economic development and innovative economy 2013-2030 3 5.75

State enterprise: Development of the pharmaceutical and medical industry, approved by decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 28 December 2017 No. 1673. 3

Total 8.75 11 19.75

Regional level

Law of St. Petersburg dated 13 May 2009 No. 221-47: On the Fundamentals of Industrial Policy of St. Petersburg 1 Law of St. Petersburg dated 27 October 2010 No. 582-139: On State Regulation of Trade Activities in St. Petersburg 1 2

Law of St. Petersburg dated 19 December 2018 N 771-164: On the Strategy for the Socio-economic Development of St. Petersburg for the Period until 2035 2 Law of St. Petersburg dated 19 December 2018 N 771-164: On the Strategy for the Socio-economic Development of St. Petersburg for the Period until 2035 1 3

State enterprise of St. Petersburg: Development of industry, innovation and agro-industrial complex in St. Petersburg 1 State enterprise of St. Petersburg: Development of entrepreneurship and consumer market in St. Petersburg 2 3

Total 4 4 8

To interpret the assessment results using the point-rating method, a scale to quantitatively and qualitatively assess the level of harmonisation of industrial and tradwe policies at the institutional level was developed (Table 2). The value of the harmonisation coefficient is calculated as the ratio of the number of points corresponding to the reflection of mutual interests of industrial and trade policies in the document and the number of analysed documents.

Table 2. Assessing harmonisation at the institutional level of industrial and trade policies

Characteristics of the harmonisation level The value of the harmonisation coefficient

No harmonisation 1-2

Low level of harmonisation 2-3

Average level of harmonisation 3-4

High level of harmonisation 4-5

Full harmonisation 5-6

The analysis revealed elements of harmonisation of industrial and trade policy components at the federal level of government. (The value of the coefficient as of 2022 is 4.93, which corresponds to a high level of harmonisation.) The regulatory framework governing activities in the field of industry and trade has a greater degree of consistency between the components of industrial and trade policy, namely in defining goals, objectives and mutual consideration of the interests of producers, trade representatives and consumers when approving and consolidating the course of industrial and trade policy within the framework of federal legislation and strategic planning documents, which indicates harmonisation.

At the same time, an insufficient level of harmonisation of the components of the industrial and trade policy of the region has been revealed. (The value of the coefficient as of 2022 is 2.6, corresponding to a low level of harmonisation.) At the legislative level of the federation, which forms the legal basis for industrial development, there is no consideration of the interests of trade in industrial enterprises, and there is no orientation towards changing consumer demand. State programs determining the formation and implementation of industrial and trade policies in St. Petersburg do not reflect the industries' consistency and mutual orientation towards each other in the programs' assigned goals, objectives and target indicators.

Analysing the components of the federal-level regulatory framework in industrial and trade policy showed greater harmonisation than at the level of the federal subject of St. Petersburg. This fact is due to the responsibility of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, which approves documents that determine the direction and formation of industrial and trade policy.

To assess the harmonisation level of the implemented industrial and trade policy, we proposed the indicator 'the share of locally produced goods in the region's trade turnover, and we developed a scale of qualitative characteristics ofharmonisation level (Table 3).

Table 3. Scale for assessing the harmonisation of industry and trade in the region

Level of harmonisation Assessment Share of locally produced goods in the region's

of harmonisation trade turnover, %

Absence or low level of harmonisation No harmonisation 0-30

Average level of harmonisation Partial harmonisation 30-60

High level of harmonisation Harmonised 60-100

As of 2020, the level of harmonisation of the automotive and light industries of St. Petersburg has been assessed. Calculations were based on data from analytical reports from Auto-Dealer-SPb on sales of new passenger and light commercial vehicles in St. Petersburg in 2020, and the turnover of St. Petersburg in the textile group of goods for 2020 (in US dollars).12

Table 4. Assessing harmonisation level of industrial and trade policies of St. Petersburg in the passenger car and light industries as of 2020

Industry sector Import Self-produced goods Level of harmonisation

Passenger cars (new) 9.62% 90.38% Harmonised (high level ofharmonisation)

Light industry 62.63% 37.37% Partial harmonisation (average level ofharmonisation)

Table 4 shows that the passenger car industry of St. Petersburg has a high level of harmonisation, which is confirmed by statistical indicators and the volume of tax revenues (Figure 1). The light industry of St. Petersburg is at the lower limit of the average level of harmonisation, which is also evidenced by statistical data and volumes of tax revenues (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Tax revenues to the federal budget of the Russian Federation from the constituent entities of __St. Petersburg for 2006-2021, in thousands of rubles3

1 Sales of new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles in St. Petersburg in 2020. URL: http://spb-adlr.ru/articles/analytics.php?id=72384

2 Foreign trade statistics. According to the Federal Customs Service of Russia. Trade turnover of St. Petersburg 'Textiles', URL: https://ru-stat.com/date-Y2021-2021/RU40000/

iНе можете найти то, что вам нужно? Попробуйте сервис подбора литературы.

trade/world/1 l#:~:text=Trade turnover%20 ofSt. Petersburg%20products%20from %20group,machine%20or%20manual%20knitting"%20(21%25)

3 Accrual and receipt of taxes, fees and insurance contributions to the budget system of the Russian Federation for the main types of economic activity in St. Petersburg. Form No. 1-NOM for 2006-2021. URL: https://www.nalog.gov.ru/rn78/related_activities/statistics_and_analytics/forms/10761488/

Assessing the socio-economic effect of the harmonisation of St. Petersburg's industrial and trade policies using the example of the light industry sector is possible by analysing the dynamics of indicators of socio-economic development in the city (in % of the same period) according to the following indicators:

1. Tax revenues to the budget of St. Petersburg from industry (according to OKVED);

2. Retail trade turnover in the textile product group;

3. Wholesale trade turnover in the textile product group;

4. Foreign trade turnover of St. Petersburg in the textile product group;

5. Number of people employed in textile and clothing production in St. Petersburg;

6. Average monthly wage in manufacturing for certain types of economic activity per employee (in the groups clothing production and textile production).

It is possible to assess the socio-economic effect of harmonisation of industrial and trade policies using this list of indicators in other industries. The works of researchers devoted to this topic do not reflect methods for assessing the institutional support for harmonising industrial and trade policies, and they do not specify the criteria and principles for determining harmonisation. To measure the level of harmonisation of the implemented industrial and trade policy, the indicator 'the share of locally produced goods in the region's trade turnover' was proposed, and a scale of qualitative characteristics of the level of harmonisation was developed. This indicator determines the state of harmonisation and indicates critical points in the implementation of the policy and is also important for determining the industrial and economic security of the country.

4. Conclusion

This study obtained the following results:

1. The criteria for harmonisation comprise the mutual orientation of the goals and objectives of the development of industry and trade; comprehensive and systematic use of support measures; and effectiveness of the policy being implemented.

2. The principles of harmonisation of industrial and trade policies comprise uniformity, goal setting, consistency, rationality, mutual socio-economic conditionality and economic effect for the budget of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

3. A methodology is proposed for assessing the harmonisation of institutional support for industrial and trade policies using the example of St. Petersburg; this method is universal and can be applied to other constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The point-rating method makes it possible to assess the level of harmonisation of the components of industrial and trade policy enshrined in federal and regional regulations. A scale for quantitative and qualitative assessment of the level of harmonisation has been developed.

4. To assess the harmonisation level of the implemented industrial and trade policy, the indicator 'the share of locally produced goods in the region's trade turnover' was proposed, and a scale of qualitative characteristics of the level of harmonisation has been developed.

5. An assessment was made of the level of harmonisation of industrial and trade policies of St. Petersburg in the passenger car and light industries as of 2020.

Updating legislation and a closer focus on industry and trade at the regulatory level and coordinated interaction between industry, trade and state representatives will open opportunities for the state to successfully resolve public issues concerning the expansion and development of the sectoral structure of the industry and the implementation of the import substitution process, which will result in harmonised

industrial and trade policies.

References

Bogatyrev I.F., 2021. Theoretical and applied aspects of harmonization of industrial and competitive policy. University Bulletin, 7, 3-99. Bogatyrev I.F., 2021. Harmonization of trade and industrial policy and state support. Bulletin of the Samara State Economic University, 5, 33-43.

Batova V.N., 2015. Harmonization of trade and industrial policy as a tool for ensuring the economic security of an enterprise. Penza: Format, 153,

Kleimenova Y.A., 2012. Harmonization of industrial and trade policies as a factor in economic modernization. Bulletin of the South Russian State Technical University (NPI), 3, 146-149. Kalyuzhny A.N., 2012. Methodological basis for assessing the harmonization of industrial and trade policy. Bulletin of the Astrakhan State Technical University, 1, 8-111.

Sidorenko Y.A., 2020. Harmonization of industrial and trade policy as a tool for the development of industry in the region. Bulletin of the

Altai Academy of Economics and Law, 9, 142-148. Smirnova Y.A., Feofilova T.Y., 2018. Methods and tools for harmonizing industrial and trade policies as a way to achieve economic security of an industrial region (on the example of St. Petersburg). Regional Economics and Management: Electronic Scientific Journal, 2, Tonysheva L.L., Mezhetskaya T.A., 2016. Industrial and trade policy: A methodological approach to assessing the degree of harmonization

and determining development trajectories. Theory and Practice of Social Development, 2, 39-43. Polyansky V.V., 2015. Methods and principles ofharmonization ofpublic authorities. Lexrussica, 10, 32-45.

Kalyuzhny A.N., 2012. Methodological basis for assessing the harmonization of industrial and trade policy. Bulletin of the Astrakhan State Technical University, 1, 108-111.

Vasilchenko M.Y., 2021. Harmonization of federal and regional investment policies as a condition for reducing interregional differentiation of innovative development. Bulletin of the Belgorod University of Cooperation, Economics and Law, 1, 117-129. DOI: 10.21295/2223-5639-2021-1-117-129 Doroshenko K.A., Egorova L.I., Chuts M.K., 2013. Methodological approaches to assessing the harmonization of foreign trade and economic security of the region. Economics of Sustainable Development, 13, 87. Solovyova N.E., Zabnina G.G., Ladygina I.A., 2019. Problems of harmonization of the socio-economic development of the region. Modern

Economics: Problems and Solutions, 11, 177-187. Safiullin M.R., Zainutdinova E.E., 2017. On possible approaches to the harmonization of competition and industrial policy: monograph. Kazan: Artifact, 112,

Barseghyan A.S., 2010. Harmonization of industrial and trade policy of Armenia taking into account economic security. Proceedings of the

Kuban State Agrarian University, 3, 24. Kleimenova Y. A., 2019. Scientific and methodological approach to the development and substantiation of the integral index ofharmonization of industrial and trade policy. Bulletin of the Academy of Knowledge, 5, 91-98. Uskov V.S., 2020. Problems of forming state industrial policy in the context of digitalization of the economy. Economic and Social Changes, 6, 134-151

Mkrtchyan M. G., 2013. On the issue of harmonization of industrial and trade policies in strategic plans for the development of individual

branches of industrial production. World of Economics and Management, 2, 69-83. Aliev T.M., Ismagilova O.D., Popova V.N. Approaches to Assessing the Level of Digitalization and Global E-commerce Policy Choices. Pros-transtvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2020, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 136-164. https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2020.4.136-164 (In Russian)

Starikov Y. N. To the issue about the state industrial policy tasks on industry digital modernization in Russia// Regional economy and management: electronic scientific journal. ISSN 1999-2645. — №2 (62). Art. #6216. Date issued: 29.05.2020. Available at: https://eee-region.ru/article/6216/ Kuznetsov S.V., Gorin E.A, 2017. Digitalization ofthe economy and transformation ofindustrial policy. Innovations, 12, Kobzev V.V., BabkinA.V., SkorobogatovA.S., 2022. Digital transformation ofindustrial enterprises in the new reality. я-Есопоту, 15,

7-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18721/JE.15501 Ibragimova R.S., 2020. Prospects for the Development of the Textile and Clothing Industry of Russia. Transformation of the Socio-economic Space of Russia and the World, 40-44. Rodionov D.G., Kichigin O.E., Selentieva T.N., 2019. Features of assessing the competitiveness of innovative regional clusters: an institutional approach. St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics, 12, 48-58. DOI: 10.18721/JE.12104 Ivanov D.V., Sokolitsyn A.S., 2018. The Study of Modern Models of Interaction between Authorities and Business Structures in Russia. Discourse, 4, 43-49. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2018-4-5-43-49

Список ИСТОЧНИКОВ

Bogatyrev I.F., 2021. Theoretical and applied aspects of harmonization of industrial and competitive policy. University Bulletin, 7, 3-99. Bogatyrev I.F., 2021. Harmonization of trade and industrial policy and state support. Bulletin of the Samara State Economic University, 5, 33-43.

Batova V.N., 2015. Harmonization of trade and industrial policy as a tool for ensuring the economic security of an enterprise. Penza: Format, 153,

Kleimenova Y.A., 2012. Harmonization of industrial and trade policies as a factor in economic modernization. Bulletin of the South Russian State Technical University (NPI), 3, 146-149. Kalyuzhny A.N., 2012. Methodological basis for assessing the harmonization of industrial and trade policy. Bulletin of the Astrakhan State Technical University, 1, 8-111.

Sidorenko Y.A., 2020. Harmonization of industrial and trade policy as a tool for the development of industry in the region. Bulletin of the

Altai Academy of Economics and Law, 9, 142-148. Smirnova Y.A., Feofilova T.Y., 2018. Methods and tools for harmonizing industrial and trade policies as a way to achieve economic security

of an industrial region (on the example of St. Petersburg). Regional Economics and Management: Electronic Scientific Journal, 2, Tonysheva L.L., Mezhetskaya T.A., 2016. Industrial and trade policy: A methodological approach to assessing the degree of harmonization