CC BY
21I Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 2020 13(4): 442-452
DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-0580 УДК 332.1; 338.2
Institutional Innovations for the Development of the East of Russia: Effects of Implementation in the Resource Region
Natalia Е. Antonova and Natalia V. Lomakina*
Economic Research Institute of FEB RAS Khabarovsk, Russian Federation
Received 15.11.2019, received in revised form 10.03.2020, accepted 10.04.2020
Abstract. The authors examined the responses of economic agents to implantation in 2013-2020 of institutional instruments of a "new model" for the development of the Far Eastern macro-region. The trend of the predominance of investments in resource projects in the total volume of investments in fixed assets in the macro-region has been confirmed. The study contains new results confirming the influence of the predominantly raw character of the region's economy on the transformation of institutions, expressed through: modification of institutional instruments for the development of the region and the formation of a multiplicity of preferential regimes in the interests of large resource-based companies; the emergence of negative institutional externalities for the regional economy in the implementation of selected institutional instruments in the resource-based industries. We ranged the Far Eastern and several Siberian regions according to the degree of resource dependence with the estimation of the selected indicators for the natural resource sector as a whole (including the extraction of mineral, forest and water-biological resources), which corresponds to the economic specialization of the macro-region. We have revealed that the result of the implementation of the "new model" of development was an increase in resource dependence in the economy of the Far Eastern macro-region in the studied period. The obtained estimates demonstrate the contradiction between the goals, institutional instruments and the first results of the implementation of the "new model" of development of the Far East. The study allows to gain new knowledge at the intersection of certain theoretical and applied scientific directions: assessing the effectiveness of state regional policy; the role of natural resources in economic development; institutional design.
Keywords: state regional policy, preferential regimes, resource region, resource dependence, natural resource sector, Far Eastern macro-region.
Research area: economics.
© Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved
* Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0003-0317-0817 (Antonova); 0000-0003-3490-5775 (Lomakina)
Citation: Antonova, N.E., Lomakina, N.V. (2020). Institutional innovations for the development of the East of Russia: effects of implementation in the resource region. J. Sib. Fed. Univ. Humanit. Soc. Sci., 13(4), 442-452. DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-0580.
Introduction
The state's attention (in various forms of its manifestation) to the Far Eastern macro-region, as well as the predominantly resource-based nature of the region's economy and its dependence on the external economic situation, are fundamental factors in its development (Minakir, 2006).
The novelty of the situation is now determined by the following factors:
1) the state program documents declared the creation of conditions to ensure the sustainable development of the Far Eastern Federal District (FEFD) at the expense of the modernized structure of the economy;
2) to achieve this goal, new institutions for the development of the economy of the Far Eastern macro-region have been introduced, which include a number of legislative, organizational, and infrastructural tools to create an appropriate institutional environment;
3) significantly expanded the boundaries of the FEED due to the inclusion of two Siberian regions - the Trans-Baikal Territory and the Republic of Buryatia. If in previous periods these territories were considered in different ways in the Far Eastern development programs, now the situation is legitimized at the highest managerial level.
This situation makes a number of research questions relevant:
In which sectors and complexes preferences are mainly accumulated?
Is the role of resource sectors in the Far Eastern macro-region's economy decreasing?
Are there opportunities for weakening the predominantly raw nature of the development of the macro-region in the foreseeable future?
Finding answers to these questions is the purpose of this article.
Statement of the problem
Studies on the sustainable, balanced development of territorial systems of various hierarchical levels (from the state to the municipali-
ty (Kryukov, 2014)) with mainly raw material specialization of the economy, state regulation and its consequences for such territories are devoted to a large number of works (Libman, 2013; Alexeev, Chernyavskiy, 2014; Cust, Poel-hekke, 2015; Pyzhev et al., 2015; Popodko, Nagaeva, 2019). Despite the fact that the scope of research on the problems of resource regions is quite wide, discussions on the issues of identification and selection criteria for this type of territory have not been completed. In the scientific literature, the concepts of "resource regions" (Resursnye regiony, 2017), "resource areas" (Kryukov, 2014), "resource type regions" (Kurbatova et al., 2019) and others are discussed. Despite the presence of certain differences in definitions, it is common for research to recognize in the economy of such territories the crucial importance of the extraction and primary processing of natural resource industries for the formation of GRP and regional revenues, as well as for the employment of the population.
An important turn in the study of resource territories, in our opinion, is a detailed description of approaches to their development based on the use of the concepts of "resource abundance" and "resource dependence". At the same time, resource abundance is an exogenous factor (determined by natural-industry characteristics), and "resource dependence is endogenous, is formed not only under the influence of resource abundance, but also under the influence of the institutional environment and economic policy" (Kurbatova et al., 2019: 93). Of particular importance is the thesis that "resource dependence" forms the orientation of prospective development towards resource sectors as sources of economic growth, which reduces the competitiveness of other centers of competence in such territories.
For the Far Eastern macro-region, the forms and several results of the manifestation of state participation in its development both at various historical stages (Minakir,
Prokapalo, 2017) and within the framework of the modern "new" management model (Antonova, Lomakina, 2018) have been analyzed in sufficient detail, and a conclusion has been drawn about the ambiguity of the consequences of the instruments used for the macro-region (Izotov, 2017; Minakir, Prokapalo, 2017). Nevertheless, the question remains whether the institutional instruments of the "new economic policy" of the state in the FEFD are capable of affecting the diversification of the macro-region's economy towards a decrease in the share of extractive industries and, accordingly, an increase in the share of manufacturing industries. Or is the specificity of the economy of the regions of the resource type such that it does not respond to these instruments and, under the influence of institutional innovations, the same raw material structure of the economy is reproduced?
The object of consideration in this article is the natural resource sector (NRS) of the Far Eastern macro-region as part of the mineral resources, fisheries and forest complexes. The industries of the NRS in the macro-region became "stabilizers" in times of crisis and "drivers" during periods of economic recovery. Different industries of this sector often had multidirectional dynamics of economic processes, however, the role of the NRS in the Far Eastern economy definitely increased, and, above all, the mining complex (Rossi-iskii Dal'nii Vostok..., 2017). Evaluation of the first results of the implementation of certain instruments of the "new model" for the development of the macro-region in its natural resource sector (Antonova, Lomakina, 2018), monitoring of investment activity in the NRS (Lomakina, 2018) also confirmed its increasing importance.
As part of the solution of the research problem, in the first part of the article we examined the responses of economic agents to the implantation of the basic instruments of the "new model" of development of the Far Eastern Federal District. The main emphasis is placed on the analysis of investment activity in the extraction and primary processing of the basic natural resources of the FEFD. In the second part of the work, the regions of the FEFD were
ranked according to the levels of resource dependence using the methodological approach proposed in the article (Kurbatova et al., 2019). At the same time, the object of assessment has been expanded in comparison with the authors proposed. The estimation of indicators for ranking the Far Eastern and individual Siberian regions by the degree of resource dependence was carried out for the natural resource sector as a whole (extraction of mineral, forest and water-biological resources), which corresponds to the economic specialization of the macro-region and makes this assessment more adequate.
We study the period from 2013 to 2020, reflecting the first results of the federal center's implementation of the "new model" of the development of the FEFD. As the information base, official statistical data, regulatory documents of the federal and regional levels, analytical and expert estimates were used.
Discussion
1. Structural priorities ofpreferential regimes: the role of resource industries
Such instruments of state support as the formation of territories with special economic regimes turned out to be quite demanded among investors in the FEFD. According to the federal law "On Territories of Advancement of Socio-Economic Development in the Russian Federation" (dated December 29, 2014 No. 473-03), residents of the territory of advancement of socio-economic development (ASEZ) are granted a number of preferences, including priority connection to infrastructure facilities created at the expense of state budget funds; preferential taxation of residents of the ASEZ; preferential amount of insurance contributions for the wage fund; reduction in administrative burden; application of the procedures of the free customs zone; expedited procedures for obtaining a building permit, etc. The main condition is the localization of preferences within the framework of the ASEZ for the activities of its residents. In terms of content and pursued goals, the ASEZs are identical to special economic zones (Special Economic Zones..., 2011).
At the beginning of 2020, 20 ASEZ were created in ten regions of the FEFD.
When considering projects for the inclusion of ASEZ, priority was to be given to full-cycle industries in the following areas: manufacturing sector based on primary resources; petrochemical complex; production of construction materials; agro-industrial complex; production of high-tech services; other high-tech industries producing high value-added, export-oriented products.
We conducted an analysis of the number of declared and implemented projects in the ASEZs in the territories of the FEFD with the identification of projects related to the natural resource sector (Table 1).
In the macro-region as a whole, the activity of investors from NRS does not look as high in the share of declared projects as one might expect, taking into account the natural resource specialization of the FEFD. The analysis by regions shows that in the northern regions of the FEFD, where the economy is predominantly resource-based (Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Kamchatka Territory) there is a higher share of NRS projects (mainly in mining and fishery) compared to the regions of the southern zone of the FEFD
with a more diversified economy (Khabarovsk and Primorsky Territories, Amur Region). Nevertheless, in the ASEZ of the southern regions there are a lot of projects both in mining and fishery, and in the forest industry. It should be noted the high degree of implementation of NRS projects in almost all regions (except for the ASEZs in the Trans-Baikal Territory and the Republic of Buryatia, which are just being created).
Much more realistically, the situation is reflected not in the share of projects, but in the structure of investment in projects, showing the investment activity of the residents of the ASEZ. Figure 1 shows the share of investments in NRS projects in the total number of projects implemented under the ASEZ.
In most regions of the FEFD, the share of investments in NRS projects is dominant, including in the four regions the natural resource sector accounts for almost all of the investments in the ASEZs. Investors prefer to invest in projects that guarantee the highest commercial efficiency from capital. Taking into account the natural resource specialization of the economy of the FEFD, such projects have always referred, first of all, to the mining, fisheries and the forest industry, and these types of
Table 1. NRS projects in investment projects in the ASEZ, 2015-2019
Regions The number of projects in the ASEZ, units The share of NRS projects from the total number of ASEZ projects, % The ratio of the number of implemented and declared NRS projects, %
declared implemented declared implemented
Republic of Buryatia 2 0 0,0 0,0 0,0
Republic of (Sakha) Yakutia 41 29 29,3 41,4 100,0
Trans-Baikal Territory 9 0 66,7 0,0 0,0
Kamchatka Territory 103 85 25,2 24,7 80,8
Primorye Territory 113 80 13,3 15,0 80,0
Khabarovsk Territory 84 63 22,6 28,6 94,7
Amur Region 29 16 20,7 25,0 66,7
Sakhalin Region 38 31 10,5 9,7 75,0
Jewish Autonomus Region 4 3 50,0 66,7 100,0
Chukotka AO 50 41 44,0 41,5 77,3
Total FEED 473 348 24,0 25,6 79,0
Source: calculated according to the data from the website of the Far East Development Corporation. Available at: https://erdc.ru
Fig. 1. The share of investments in NRS projects implemented in the ASEZ, Located in the regions of the FEED
Source: calculated according to the data of the Far East Development Corporation. Available at: https://erdc.ru
activities accounted for the bulk of investment in the ASEZs.
The above analysis shows the preservation and consolidation of the trend of the predominance of investments in resource projects in the total volume of investments in fixed assets in the FEFD (Lomakina, 2018).
Moreover, in our opinion, in the institutional field of the "new model" for the development of the FEFD, a new trend is also emerging - the modification of the instruments of state support for regional development under the objective influence of the predominantly raw nature of the region's economy.
One example illustrating such processes can be the formation of the ASEZ "Komso-molsk" in the Khabarovsk Territory, which, when created in 2015, had three sites. The key activities of this ASEZ at that time were declared metal and wood processing, food industry, mechanical engineering, mechanical processing, tourism. By 2018, another 4 new sites were added to this ASEZ, on three of which (located quite far from the original ASEZ border) resource projects are being implemented: a timber processing complex (investment volume 1.1 billion rubles) and two projects for the extraction and enrichment of tin (total investment of 10.5 billion rubles.). At the beginning of 2020, at the proposal of the regional authorities, the expansion of the
boundaries of this ASEZ was again discussed by joining four land plots for mineral resource projects (development of the Malmyzh gold-copper deposit, processing of tailings at the Solnechnyi mining plant).
Such processes, firstly, violate the principle of the formation of the ASEZ - the provision of preferences in localized territories, and, secondly, demonstrate the intensification of the provision of benefits to mainly resource based companies. The authorities are encouraged by the existing system for evaluating their activities: one of the key indicators of creating conditions for the accelerated development of the FEFD is the number of created ASEZs and the accumulated amount of residents' investments. Based on the volume of investments implemented in the ASEZ projects, NRS projects are the most attractive in these respects.
The instrument for obtaining tax preferences outside special territories - obtaining the status of a "regional investment project " (RIP) - was also in demand in the resource sector of the Far East. The key preferences in the framework of this instrument are income tax benefits and mineral extraction tax, so mineral companies have become the main applicants for them. The RIP regime has passed several stages in its development. For the initial period of launching this instrument (2014-2016), there were quite strict legal requirements for
applicants of benefits, the formation of a special RIP Register and inclusion of projects into it by decision of regional government bodies. The result of this period was the registration as a RIP of a small number of mineral projects in selected Far Eastern regions. In 2016, under the pressure of resource based companies, at the federal level significant amendments were made to the RIP formation procedure: liberalization of the financial barrier (by volume of investments), change in the validity period of preferences (for investments made since January 1, 2013), introduction of a notification procedure for receiving benefits (without coordination with regional authorities and inclusion in the register) (Lomakina, 2018). The unexpected loss of control over these processes at the regional level, the threat of the growth of uncontrolled shortfalls in regional budgets led to active actions by the governing bodies of several regions to refuse these preferences.
For example, in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, currently only three large gold mining companies form more than half of the region's own revenues. According to experts, the annual falling-out incomes of the regional budget only due to preferences under the RIP can amount to more than 1 billion rubles (from 50% to 70% of all mineral extraction tax). Therefore, in 2018, a legislative initiative was launched in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug to exclude it from the regions, in the territory of which, when implementing the RIP, it is not necessary to include the organization in the register of participants and, accordingly, to coordinate with the regional authorities. In the Khabarovsk Territory, in the structure of the economy of which the resource sectors are not dominant, at the beginning of 2020, logging, coal mining and processing, mining of metallurgical ores and other minerals, as well as production of precious metals were excluded from the list of activities covered by the RIP regime.
Thus, the liberalization of the RIP regime in the interests of resource based companies has led to the emergence of negative "institutional externalities" for the regions, which, in our opinion, is also a confirmation of the emerging modification of state support tools for regional
development under the objective influence of the predominantly raw materials nature of the economy of the Far East.
An equally important mechanism of the "new model" for the development of the mac-roregion is government support for investment projects, the practical implementation of which can give a significant effect for the Far East. To date, this procedure has not only been worked out normatively, but the results have already been obtained. In 2015-2018 several stages of the selection of investment projects for direct state support in the form of subsidies for the creation and reconstruction of infrastructure in the framework of investment projects were carried out. During the selection process, more than fifty projects in various sectors were considered and 13 investment projects were selected for state support, 8 of which were in mining and 1 in the forest industry. Subsidies from the federal budget in 2015-2020 were planned at 32.5 billion rubles, with more than 90% of these funds being allocated to support mineral projects. At the beginning of 2020, the Government of the Russian Federation decided to supplement the list with two more mineral resources projects - development of the Pravour-miysky tin ore deposit (Khabarovsk Territory) and the Nasedkino gold deposit (Trans-Baikal Territory). State support for these projects will amount to more than 1.6 billion rubles.
The mechanism of direct state support of investment projects for solving infrastructure problems is of a general nature. However, in fact, resource projects are still recognized as being in line with the strategic goals of the region's development and creating the maximum social and economic effect in the region, competitive both for private investors and the state.
It should be noted the positive importance of the state support instrument for expanding the raw material base. Firstly, new deposits that did not have such prospects before could be involved in the development, and secondly, this expands the development opportunities for "junior" companies in the Far East. But all together, this is still aimed at the growth of the mineral sector in the structure of the economy of the m acro -reg ion.
2. Dynamics of resource dependence of the regions of the FEFD during the implementation of the "new model" of development
One of the objectives of our study is to find out whether the role of resource industries in the macro-region's economy is reduced in terms of contribution to GRP. To find the answer to this question, we analyzed the structure of the economy of the regions of the FEFD using the approach described in the article (Kurbatova et al., 2019). This paper presents a classification of resource-type regions based on the following criteria: the share of the extractive sector in GRP and the ratio of the share of extractive and manufacturing sectors in GRP. The authors ranked and distributed among the selected groups the regions of the Russian Federation.
Using this approach, but with the inclusion of all natural resource sectors in the assessment, we obtained a ranked characteristic of the resource dependence of the regions of the FEFD (Table 2).
The study showed that all regions of the Far Eastern Federal District belong to resource-type regions, but of varying degrees of dependence. This was reflected in their distribution into 3 groups: with very high, high and middle levels of resource dependence. It should be noted that the regions of the FEFD that were not included in the group of resource-dependent in the classification in the article (Kurbatova et al., 2019), with more complete consideration of natural resource sectors, fell into regions with a middle level of resource dependence. Moreover, the consideration of indicators in dynamics shows an increase in the resource dependence of the regions. For example, if the Jewish Autonomous Region at the beginning of the period could be characterized as a region with a middle level of resource dependence, then by 2017 its characteristic is a region with a high level of resource dependence. This reflects the real situation in this region: at present, the main macroeconomic indicators of the economy in the region are determined by the launch of a
Table 2. Dynamics of the distribution of regions of the Far Eastern FD by levels of resource dependence, %
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
regions with very high level of resource dependence
Republic of (Sakha) Yakutia 45,3/26,6 46,4/29,0 50,8/33,9 52,8/52,8 50,0/45,5
Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 36,3/181,5 44,1/220,5 49,1/70,1 50,3/125,8 46,5/93,0
Magadan Region 21,7/9,0 21,6/10,8 34,6/20,4 47,0/26,1 45,4/26,7
Sakhalin Region 64,8/17,5 68,7/32,7 63,9/30,4 59/21,1 64,0/20,6
regions with high level of resource dependence
Amur Region 16,9/3,8 19,2/5,1 24,8/5,9 20,9/6,1 18,4/3,6
Kamchatka Territory 19/1,9 20,4/2,3 25,4/2,6 29,3/2,9 26,3/2,5
Trans-Baikal Territory 15,0/4,9 13,0/3,2 17,0/3,5 19,5/3,8 18,8/3,3
regions with an middle level of resource dependence
Republic of Buryatia 9,1/0,6 9,2/0,5 10,2/0,6 10,4/0,8 9,2/0,9
Primorye Territory 9,5/1,1 10,8/1,1 11,0/1,3 10,6/1,2 9,3/0,9
Khabarovsk Territory 11,4/1,5 10,1/1,1 12,5/1,1 12,3/1,1 12,6/1,2
Jewish Autonomus Region 7,7/1,3 11,6/2,0 12,8/2,5 12,1/2,2 16,9/2,1
Note: in the numerator - share of the natural resource sector in the GRP, %; in the denominator - ratio of the shares of the natural resource /manufacturing sector in the GRP, %.
Source: calculated according to the classification in (Kurbatova et al., 2019) and data of Regiony Rossii (Regions of Russia)) (2017, 2019).
Fig. 2. Share of the natural resource sector in the GRP of the FEED' regions, 2013 and 2017, % Source: calculated according to data of Regiony Rossii (Regions of Russia)) (2017, 2019)
large-scale resource project (Kimkano-Su-tarsky mining plant).
Figure 2 shows the change in the share of GRP in the natural resource industries at two time points (2013 and 2017), reflecting the period of introduction and operation of the institutional instruments of the "new model" for the development of the FEFD. During this time the share of GRP in most regions either increased or remained virtually unchanged.
It can be concluded that the "new model" of the development of the FEFD during the last five years is aimed at consolidating and even increasing resource dependence in the macro-region's economy. Under the influence of institutional innovations its same raw material structure is reproduced. The practice of implementing institutional innovations in the FEFD indicates that not only the institutional organization determines the level and dynamics of resource dependence, but also the objective specificity (resource abundance of the region) modifies these instruments.
Conclusion
The study of state stimulation of the development of a resource-type regions by the
example of assessing the effects of certain institutional mechanisms of the "new" model for the Far Eastern macro-region confirms the thesis that "the institutional organization of resource-type economies is largely determined by their resource-industry characteristics, but not directly, and indirectly, through the actions of dominant political and economic actors. They are the subjects of institutional design, creating a demand for certain rules of the game and actively participating in the processes of their development and implementation" (Kurbatova et al., 2019: 95).
For the Far Eastern and Siberian regions, the concrete results of such an institutional design in the period under review were:
1) a further increase in the importance of resource sectors in their economies;
2) modification of institutional instruments for the development of the region in the interests of large resource-based companies (for example, the "erosion" of territories of special preferential regimes);
3) negative institutional externalities for the regional economy from liberalization of the RIP regime in natural resource sectors;
4) the formation of "multidimensional benefit packages" (ASEZ regime preferences plus direct subsidies from the federal budget) for individual large resource-based companies that exhibit rent-oriented behavior (for example, PJSC Rusolovo, RFP Group timber industry holding).
In addition, the growth of resource dependence of the regions of the East of Russia is also manifested in their assessment of strategic prospects. As the analysis showed (Lomakina, 2019), to the "depth" of 10-15 years, significant structural changes in their economies are not expected. In most areas of the macro-region,
References
extractive industries remain the key areas of development and the main drivers of their economic growth.
The task of overcoming negative impacts and turning them into positive effects requires taking into account and evaluating the institutional environment, and searching for possible instruments for managing it in the desired direction. What is needed is preventive work with institutional design: calculating not only the economic efficiency of projects, but also the expected effectiveness of institutional measures and preferential regimes.
Alexeev, M., Chernyavskiy, A. (2014). Natural Resources and Economic Growth in Russia's Regions. Working papers. Series: Economics. WP BRP 55/ec/2014. Available at: https://publications.hse.ru/en/pre-prints/125385100
Antonova, N.E., Lomakina, N.V. (2018). Prirodno-resursnye otrasli Dal'nego Vostoka: novye factory razvitiya [Natural Resource-based Industries of the Far East: New Drivers of Development]. In Ekonomi-cheskie i social'nye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz [Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast], 11(1), 43-56. DOI: 10.15838/esc/2018.1.55.3
Cust, J., Poelhekke, S. (2015). The Local Economic Impacts of Natural Resource Extraction. The Ox-Carre Working Paper No. 156. Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies. Available at: https://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/materials/working_papers/4732/oxcarrerp2015156.pdf
Izotov, D.A. (2017). Dal'nii Vostok: novatsii v gosudarstvennoi politike [Far East: Innovations in Public Policy]. In EKO [ECO], 4, 27-44.
Kryukov, V.A. (2014). Syr'evye territorii v novoi institutsional'noi real'nosti [Resource Areas in the New Institutional Environment]. In Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika [Spatial Economics], 4, 26-60. DOI: 10.14530/se.2014.4.026-060
Kurbatova, M.V., Levin, S.N., Kagan, E.S., Kislitsyn, D.V. (2019). Regiony resursnogo tipa v Rossii: opredelenie i klassifikatsiia [Resource-type Regions in Russia: Definition and Classification]. In Terra Eco-nomicus, 17(3), 89-106. DOI: 10.23683/2073-6606-2019-17-3-89-106
Libman, A. (2013). Natural Resources and Sub-national Economic Performance: Does Sub-national Democracy Matter? In Energy Economics, 37, 82-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2013.02.003
Lomakina, N.V. (2018). Gosudarstvennoe stimulirovanie investitsii v mineral'no-syr'evye proekty: dal'nevostochnyi variant [Government Promotion of Investment in Mineral and Raw Materials Projects: Far Eastern Case]. In Regionalistika [Regionalistics], 5(4), 14-23. DOI: 10.14530/reg.2018.4.14. Available at: http://regionalistica.org/archive/19-2018/2018-4/113-reg-2018-4-2-eng
Lomakina, N.V. (2019). Strategicheskie prioritety ekonomicheskogo razvitiya i "resursnaya ekonomika" Dal'nevostochnogo makroregiona [Strategic Priorities of Economic Development and "Resource Economy" of the Far East Macroregion]. In EKO [ECO], 7, 35-53. DOI: 10.30680/ЕС00131-7652-2019-7-35-53
Minakir, P.A. (2006). Ekonomika Regionov. Dalniy Vostok [Regions' Economics. Russian Far East]. Moscow. Economica. 848 p.
Minakir, P.A., Prokapalo, O.M. (2017). Rossiiskii Dal'nii Vostok: ekonomicheskie fobii i geopoli-ticheskie ambitsii [Russian Far East: Economic Phobias and Geopolitical Ambitions]. In EKO [ECO], 4, 5-26
Popodko, G.I., Nagaeva, O.S. (2019). "Triple Helix" Model for Recourse-Based Regions. In Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences, 12 (12), 2309-2325. DOI: 10.17516/1997— 1370-0524
Pyzhev, A.I, Syrtsova, E.A., Pyzheva, Yu.I., Zander, E.V. (2015). Sustainable Development of Krasnoyarsk Krai: New Estimates. In Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences, 8 (11), 2590-2595. DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-2015-8-11-2590-2595
Resursnye regiony v novoi real'nosti [Resource Regions of Russia in the "New Reality"] (2017). Novosibirsk. IEOPP SO RAN. 308 p.
Rossiiskii Dal 'nii Vostok: naputi v budushchee [The Russian Far East: on the Way to Future] (2017). Khabarovsk. ERI FEB RAS. 395 p.
Special Economic Zones. Progress, Emerging Challenges, and Future Directions (2011). The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Available at: https://openknowledge. worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2341/638440PUB0Exto00Box0361527B0PUBLIC0.pdf
Институциональные новации
для развития Востока России:
эффекты реализации в ресурсном регионе
Н.Е. Антонова, Н.В. Ломакина
Институт экономических исследований ДВО РАН Российская Федерация, Хабаровск
Аннотация. Исследованы отклики экономических агентов на имплантацию в 2013-2020 гг. институциональных инструментов «новой модели» развития Дальневосточного макрорегиона. Подтверждено закрепление тенденции преобладания инвестиций в ресурсные проекты в общем объеме инвестиций в основной капитал в макрорегионе. Получены новые результаты, подтверждающие влияние преимущественно сырьевого характера экономики региона на трансформацию институтов, выраженную через: модификацию институциональных инструментов развития региона и формирование множественности преференциальных режимов в интересах крупных сырьевых компаний; появление отрицательных институциональных экстерналий для региональной экономики при реализации отдельных институциональных инструментов в сырьевых отраслях. Проведено ранжирование дальневосточных и отдельных сибирских регионов по степени ресурсной зависимости с расчетом выбранных индикаторов для ресурсного сектора в целом (добыча полезных ископаемых, лесных и водно-биологических ресурсов), что соответствует экономической специализации макрорегиона и делает такую оценку более адекватной. Показано, что результатом реализации «новой модели» развития в исследуемом периоде стал рост ресурсной зависимости в экономике Дальневосточного макрорегиона. Полученные оценки демонстрируют противоречие между целевыми задачами, институциональными инструментами и первыми результатами реализации «новой модели» развития Дальнего Востока. Проведенное исследование позволяет получить новые знания на стыке отдельных теоретических и прикладных научных направлений: оценки эффективности государственной региональной политики; роли природных ресурсов в экономическом развитии; институционального проектирования.
Ключевые слова: государственная региональная политика, преференциальные режимы, ресурсный регион, ресурсная зависимость, природно-ресурсный сектор, Дальневосточный макрорегион.
Научная специальность: 08.00.00 - экономические науки.
