CC BY
2SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING ECONOMICS 1, 2024
Research article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3
Management of Socioeconomic Development: National Planning and Its Impact on
the Human Development Index in Russia
Alexander Volodin , Victoria Degtereva*
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia, [email protected],
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Abstract
T
his research focused on the quality assessment of national project management in the Russian
Federation as one of the most significant tools aimed at implementing an effective policy
for socioeconomic development. The hypothesis was that increased investment in national
programmes and their prioritisation in the framework of public administration could improve
socioeconomic development in Russia. The human development index (HDI), which directly assesses
the level of human development in different countries based on indicators such as life expectancy,
education, and well-being, shows this level. This research aimed to assess the efficiency of Russian
socioeconomic programmes based on an independent analysis of the HDI. The authors highlight the
urgent need for improvement and articulate the range of potential challenges and solutions through
a statistical analysis of the correlation between the HDI and indicators of project management costs
in Russia and a regression evaluation of project implementation indicators. When implemented, these
recommendations can improve the spending efficiency of federal funds, estimated at 8.5 trillion rubles,
as well as regional and local funds allocated for executing national projects.
Keywords: socioeconomic development, innovation, national planning, national projects, human development
index
Citation: Volodin, A., Degtereva, V., 2024. Management of Socioeconomic Development: National Planning and
Its Impact on the Human Development Index in Russia. Sustainable Development and Engineering Economics 1,
3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0
© Volodin, A., Degtereva, V., 2024. Published by Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University
46 Enterprises and sustainable development of regions
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING ECONOMICS 1, 2024
Научная статья
УДК 351.8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3
Государственное Планирование Управления Социально-Экономическим
Развитием и Его Влияние на Индекс Человеческого Развития в России
Александр Володин , Виктория Дегтерева*
Санкт-Петербургский политехнический университет Петра Великого, Санкт-Петербург, Россия,
[email protected], [email protected]
*Автор, ответственный за переписку: [email protected]
Аннотация
В
основе данной части лежит анализ качества государственного проектного управления
в Российской Федерации, как одного из наиболее значимых инструментов реализации
политики эффективного социально-экономического развития. Рассматривается гипотеза
о том, что увеличение вложений в инструмент государственных программ и выделение его в
общей схеме государственного управления является значимым фактором улучшения уровня
социально-экономического развития России, выраженного в индексе человеческого развития,
который непосредственно оценивает уровень человеческого развития в разных странах на
основе таких показателей, как продолжительность жизни, образование и благосостояние. Целью
работы является оценка эффективности проведения государственных программ по улучшению
социально-экономического положения России на независимую оценку данного развития. В
результате проведенного статистического анализа корреляции индекса человеческого развития и
показателей затрат на проектное управление в России, а также регрессионной оценки показателей
выполнения проектов, авторы приходят к выводам о необходимости их серьезной доработки
и формируют перечень проблем и точек роста. При реализации предложенных авторами
рекомендаций следует ожидать с экономической точки зрения улучшения эффективности трат
средств федерального бюджета, оцениваемых в 8,5 трлн. рублей, а также средств регионального
и местного бюджета, определяемых для исполнения национальных проектов.
Ключевые слова: социально-экономическое развитие, инновации, государственное планирование,
национальные проекты, индекс человеческого развития
Цитирование: Володин, А., Дегтерева, В., 2024. Государственное Планирование Управления Социаль-
но-Экономическим Развитием и Его Влияние на Индекс Человеческого Развития в России. Sustainable
Development and Engineering Economics 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3
Эта работа распространяется под лицензией CC BY-NC 4.0
© Володин, А., Дегтерева, В., 2024. Издатель: Санкт-Петербургский политехнический университет Петра
Великого
Предприятия и устойчивое развитие регионов 47
Management of socioeconomic development: national planning and its impact on the human development index in Russia
1. Introduction
This research assessed the quality of public project management in the Russian Federation as one
of the most significant tools for implementing an effective policy for socioeconomic development. The
leading hypothesis was that increased investment in national programmes and their prioritisation in the
overall framework of public administration could improve the level of socioeconomic development in
Russia, as expressed by the Human Development Index (HDI).
This research aimed to assess the efficiency of Russian socioeconomic programmes based on an
independent analysis of the HDI. In Russia, the blueprint for socioeconomic development is based on
the system of the National Projects of the Russian Federation, approved by the Presidential Council for
Strategic Development and National Projects on December 24, 2018. The system of projects is classified
as type 3 in the state’s socioeconomic policy, which is the development of conditions that allow citizens
to have the opportunity to eliminate economic inequality.
Researchers worldwide have addressed issues of quality in the management of several projects
related to interorganisational knowledge. Researchers from Finland have focused primarily on strate-
gies, resources, management, and training (Martinsuo, Ahola, 2022). Those from South Africa (Silvius,
Marnewick, 2022) and Europe (Todorov, 2014) have also considered the conceptual framework and the
importance of sustainability in organisational strategy and project management.
The scientific literature often raises issues of economic development in regions and states, for
instance (Skhvediani, Kudryavtseva, 2018; Demidenko, Kulibanova, Maruta, 2018; Didenko, Skripnuk,
Mirolyubova, 2018). Many studies have been devoted to detecting additional ways of increasing eco-
nomic efficiency. The article by Rudskaya and Rodionov (Rudskaya, Rodionov, 2018), in particular, lists
the development of human potential (Rodionov, Kudryavtseva, Skhvediani, 2018; Shabunina, Shchel-
kina, Rodionov; 2018) and the improvement of housing (Zaborovskaia, Plotnikova, 2016) among the
solutions that can ensure regional economic growth. However, they do not address problems that arise
in the digital development of society to invite proportional growth.
Moreover, economic analysis often emphasises neural networks. For instance, Babkin et al. (Bab-
kin, Karlina, Epifanova, 2015) stressed them. However, they did not focus on these tools’ applicability
to the state apparatus; they also observed ex ante and ex post approaches (Degtereva, Ivanova, 2018).
Economic modelling is commonly applied to help effectively predict a region’s future development, the
associated problems, and how to manage them (Rudskaya, Rodionov, 2017; Sokolitsyn, Ivanov, Soko-
litsyna, 2017). Simultaneously, developed economic models can be used for environmental assessments
(Shabunina, Shchelkina, Rodionov, 2017). However, one must consider that many models created to
improve the socioeconomic conditions in the Russian regions following the innovations defining their
development (Rudskaia, 2017; Rodionov, Rudskaia, Degtereva, 2020) often neglect solutions to existing
problems. For example, the scientific literature emphasises citizens’ social development separately to
create a balanced demand in the regional economic system (Farvaque, Mihailov, Naghavi, 2012; Stro-
eva, 2016).
Issues of digitalisation of the economy are common in business, but in the public sector, they tend
to be neglected and, in practice, the issue of digitising the state apparatus is not prioritised. Simultane-
ously, many scientific papers theoretically address the problems of digitalisation at the societal level, for
instance, Bataev and Plotnikova’s study. They discussed the upsides and effectiveness of digital banking,
assessed its inaccessibility among the middle aged and the elderly, and the risks that they are likely to en-
counter when attempting to use it, which younger generations do not (Bataev, Plotnikova, 2019). How-
ever, the digital component in economic assessments is reduced to the level of enterprises in different
areas. For example, Demidenko, Kulibanova, and Maruta used the parameters of digitalisation to assess
the capitalisation of companies (Demidenko, Kulibanova, Maruta, 2018), and Gromova employed it to
assess Russia’s automobile industry (Gromova, 2019).
The scientific community frequently provides research on the development of different kinds of
48 Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2024, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3
Volodin, A., Degtereva, V.
rating systems, in particular (Diaz-Sarachaga, Jato-Espino, Castro-Fresno, 2017) (for global assessment),
and a number of works with a similar methodology (Balios, Thomadakis, Tsipouri, 2016) and (Holly,
2017) (for applied tasks). Despite a wide range of research on the global picture, few works consider
the country-wise character of socioeconomic development. Thus, this article is especially relevant and
significant for the world community and for a better understanding of Russia’s position.
2. Materials and Methods
The National Projects of the Russian Federation look ahead to 2030 and represent 14 directions for
developing the main societal sectors, with an overall allocation of over 25 trillion rubles and 7.5 trillion
rubles of funds acquired from non-budgetary sources. The following categories comprise the National
Projects framework:
1. Health Care
2. Education
3. Demography
4. Culture
5. Safe Quality Roads
6. Housing and the Urban Environment
7. Ecology
8. Science and Universities
9. Small- and Medium-Sized Business and the Support of Individual Entrepreneurs
10. Labour Productivity
11. International Cooperation and Exports
12. The Digital Economy of the Russian Federation
13. The Tourism and Hospitality Industry
14. A Comprehensive Plan for the Modernisation and Expansion of Trunk Infrastructure1.
Due to this policy, socioeconomic inequality in Russia can be significantly reduced by boosting the
competitiveness of citizens and the country itself in the global arena.
This expert method allowed for a selection of the most promising indicators of socioeconomic de-
velopment in Western countries for the final assessment. The range of indicators includes the following:
1. Reduction in mortality among the working-age population (to 350 cases per 100,000 people)
2. Reduction in mortality from cardiovascular diseases (to 450 cases per 100,000 people)
3. Reduction in mortality from neoplasms, including malignant tumours (to 185 cases per 100,000
people)
4. Reduction in infant mortality (to 4.5 cases per 1,000 newborns)
5. Representation of Russian universities in the TOP-500 global university rankings
6. Number of students involved in public associations on the basis of educational institutions of
general, secondary, higher, and vocational education (one million people cumulative total)
7. Increase in the total birth rate (to 1.7 children per woman)
National projects: key goals and expected results. Official website of the Government of Russia. URL: http://government.ru/projects/selection/741/35675/.
1
Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2024, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3 49
Management of socioeconomic development: national planning and its impact on the human development index in Russia
8. Number of people recommended with individual health plans (health passports) in health cen-
tres (in millions of people)
9. Share (percentage) of citizens systematically engaged in physical activity and sports
10. Share (percentage) of small- and medium-sized businesses in the GDP
11. Share (percentage) of exports of small- and medium-sized businesses, including individual
entrepreneurs, in the total volume of non-resource exports
12. Domestic spending on the development of the digital economy from all sources by share (per-
centage) in the GDP
13. Share (percentage) of households with broadband access
14. Share (percentage) of socially important infrastructure facilities equipped with broadband ac-
cess
15. Share (percentage) of the Russian Federation in the global volume of data storage and process-
ing services
16. Number of data processing centres in federal districts
17. Average hours of downtime of state information systems caused by computer attacks
18. Value share (percentage) of domestic software purchased or leased by federal executive au-
thorities, executive authorities of constituent entities, and other public authorities
19. Value share (percentage) of domestic software purchased or leased by state corporations and
companies with state participation
20. Labour productivity growth in medium-sized and large enterprises in the basic non-resource
sectors of the economy (percentage compared to the previous year)
21. Export volume of non-primary non-energy goods (in billions of USD)
22. Effectiveness of support measures for industrial exports (minimum increase in exports per one
ruble of state support)
23. Export volume of agro-industrial products (in billions of USD)
24. Effectiveness of support measures for exports of agro-industrial products (minimum increase
in the volume of exports per ruble of state support)
25. Export volume of services (in billions of USD per year)
26. Share of manufacturing, agricultural products, and services exports in the country’s GDP (per-
centage)
27. Volume of trade turnover between Russia and EAEU member states (in billions of USD)
The principles and requirements of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with its focus on digital trans-
formation, explain the significance of meeting all the previously mentioned indicators for Russia to en-
sure socioeconomic development. Meanwhile, one should not forget that the prospects for implementing
an effective management model are burdened by many negative factors in the Russian context, creating
a unique impediment for the Russian model of ensuring the effective implementation of even the most
promising, widely proven global practices of socioeconomic development.
The analysis of the prospects for such an instrument as national projects (earlier, state programmes)
will be based on the ratio of investments in this instrument of socioeconomic policy, expressed as a por-
tion of the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation, to the growth of the HDI, with an average
50 Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2024, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3
Volodin, A., Degtereva, V.
growth rate of 0.52% per year (based on indicators from 1991 to 2021), which ranks 168 in the global
ranking and slightly lower than the world rate of 0.72%2.
This index is calculated by experts in the United Nations Development Program, along with a
group of independent international experts who invite analytical methods and statistical data from na-
tional institutions and international organisations. It is applied in editions of a special series of UNDP
reports on human development3.
When calculating the HDI, three types of indicators are considered:
1. Life expectancy
2. Literacy rate (the average number of years spent on education) and the expected duration of
education
3. Standard of living, estimated via gross national income per capita at purchasing power parity in
US dollars4.
The hypothesis of this research was that a more significant investment in national programmes and
their prioritisation in the framework of public administration could improve the model of socioeconomic
development. The HDI was selected because it is one of the most informative, time-based assessments
of all available aggregate indicators of socioeconomic development. Since the time series of the con-
solidated budget of the Russian Federation began in 20035, the Federal Treasury has been conducting
an accurate calculation of this indicator. The centralised implementation of financing these programmes
began in 2011; thus, the sample contains indicators from 2003 to 2018, with the investments before 2011
assessed as zero. The raw data collection for this research is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary indicators of expenditures on national programmes and their comparison with the
growth of HDI
Federal budget
Expenditures of
expenditures on Share in
the consolidated Percentage
the implementation expenditures
Year budget of the Rus- increase
of national pro- on state pro- HDI in Russia
sian Federation in HDI
grammes (mln. ru- grammes
(mln. rubles)
bles)
2003 3,964,872 0.00% 0.754 1.07%
2004 4,669,654 0.00% 0.761 0,93%
2005 8,406,812 0.00% 0.764 0.39%
2006 8,375,228 0.00% 0.775 1.44%
2007 11,378,578 0.00% 0.786 1.42%
2008 14,157,027 0.00% 0.791 0.64%
2009 16,048,336 0.00% 0.789 -0.25%
2010 17,616,656 0.00% 0.796 0.89%
2011 13,747,779 0.00% 0.808 1.51%
2012 16,714,058 0.00% 0.811 0.37%
2013 18,338,453 1,144,843 6.24% 0.817 0.74%
2014 20,320,103 3,348,542 16.48% 0.818 0.12%
2015 22,205,323 3,538,295 15.93% 0.824 0.73%
2016 31,323,679 2,431,452 7.76% 0.828 0.49%
2
Official website of the UN Human Development Index. URL: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data#.
3
GDP per capita, PPP (constant dollars based on 2011. Official website of the World Bank. URL:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD? most_recent_value_desc=false.
4
Official website of the UN Human Development Index. URL: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data#.
5
Consolidated budget of the Russian Federation and the budgets of state off-budget funds. Federal Treasury, official website. URL:
http://www.roskazna.ru/ispolnenie-byudzhetov/konsolidirovannyj-byudzhet/.
Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2024, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3 51
Management of socioeconomic development: national planning and its impact on the human development index in Russia
2017 34,284,709 4,828,688 14.08% 0.833 0.60%
2018 34,284,709 9,068,390 26.45% 0.841 0.96%
2019 37,382,242 12,597,491 33.70% 0.845 0.48%
2020 42,503,030 14,135,065 33.26% 0.83 -1.78%
2021 47,072,682 6,747,263 14.33% 0.822 -0.96%
2022 34,284,700 18,691,351 54.52% 0.754
Source: compiled by the author based on data from the UN Human Development Index, Federal Trea-
sury, Portal of state programs of the Russian Federation.
4. Results
Graphs (Figures 1 and 2) based on the data from Table 1 reflect the hypothesised assumption that
such a mechanism of socioeconomic development improves the population’s welfare, thus raising the
HDI compiled by the UN.
Figure 1. Graph of the share of public expenditures by year against the level of the HDI
Source: compiled by the author based on data from the UN Human Development Index, Federal Trea-
sury, Portal of state programs of the Russian Federation
Figure 2. HDI indicator of the share of total expenditures on national programmes since 2013
Source: compiled by the author based on data from the UN Human Development Index, Federal Trea-
sury, Portal of state programs of the Russian Federation.
Figures 1 and 2 show that the greater the share of expenditures invested in national programmes,
the greater the rate of HDI growth in Russia. However, the coefficient of determination was small—only
0.5. Therefore, it can be concluded that despite having a certain correlation between the presented val-
ues, financing solely through project management cannot fully describe the growth or decline trends in
52 Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2024, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3
Volodin, A., Degtereva, V.
the HDI. However, it should be noted that at least half of this trend is described. Thus, the hypothesis
suggested for this research was confirmed only partially, but conceptually, the mechanism of national
programmes in the modern management system is complex and confusing. It nevertheless has a fa-
vourable impact on Russia’s socioeconomic development. Moreover, the share of its implementation in
the structure of expenditures has recently been declining, along with the overall HDI. In essence, it is
reformed at the global level into national projects because it can show positive results in the socioeco-
nomic development of Russia, but due to a number of problems and incorrect assessments, it does not
sufficiently justify itself.
5. Discussion
Throughout this research on the project management of socioeconomic development in Russia, the
authors identified the following areas for improvement:
1. Managers and supervisors are not personally responsible for national programmes, which leads
to a lack of order on their implementation.
2. International experience in the area of the implementation of national projects is not considered,
resulting in an insufficient level of efficiency.
3. No control body has been properly established to run national programmes, resulting in haphaz-
ard solutions to developing and implementing these programmes.
4. Expanding on point 3, the implementation of national programmes and projects lacks clear
economic and social efficiency.
5. When national programmes are implemented, unachieved target indicators are often ignored,
leading to a lack of flexibility.
6. Insufficient opportunities to revise indicators and a lack of clear criteria and terms result in un-
systematic adjustments.
To improve the efficiency of national programmes in the Russian Federation, and to eliminate the
identified shortcomings, ensuring the following steps are taken is necessary:
1. The introduction of personal responsibility for the implementation of programmes for depart-
ment heads, the establishment of a payment and bonus system, and the introduction of a public control
commission to track the effectiveness of national programme implementation
2. The development of a globally competitive innovation system and the acceleration of innova-
tion processes in the national economy and society
3. The transition to a model of strategic target programme planning is based on the formation of an
institutional system of national target programmes. This system will ensure transparent mechanisms for
the revision of target indicators in response to external economic changes.
4. Strengthening requirements for the precise fulfilment of national programmes by their executors
5. The evaluation of the economic and social efficiency of national programmes using world-rank-
ing systems
6. The transition to a fully project-based method of managing national programmes since it is cur-
rently not used full-scale
The actual percentage of fulfilment of the required indicators confirms the complexity of the mech-
anisms for the implementation of national programmes and projects. A total of 968 milestones were
planned for 2019, the pre-pandemic year, when their fulfilment was not potentially hindered by seri-
ous external circumstances, and only 619 were conducted, making the overall fulfilment percentage of
63.94%. The biggest problem involves the following socioeconomic indicators:
Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2024, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3 53
Management of socioeconomic development: national planning and its impact on the human development index in Russia
1. Healthcare – 0 out of 92 milestones
2. Education – 0 out of 70 milestones
3. Social support of citizens – 25 out of 48 milestones
4. Employment promotion – 33 out of 58 milestones
5. Economic development and innovative economy – 76 out of 86 milestones, which occurred
mostly because of objective economic prerequisites
6. Socioeconomic development of the Far Eastern Federal District/Kaliningrad Oblast/Arctic Zone
of the Russian Federation (effectiveness of territorial management is assessed) – 38 out of 60 milestones.
7. Conceptual conditions for modern, effective socioeconomic development expressed in the pro-
gramme Information Society are fulfilled by 30 out of 38 milestones6.
Figure 3 presents the conducted regression analysis and shows a downward trend in the percent-
age of milestones completed when managing national programmes. This observation again confirms the
presence of significant imperfections in the existing mechanism. Logically enough, it calls for changes
in the current concept of national project management in general and national programmes in particular.
Figure 3 shows the percentage of milestones completed by year.
Figure 3. Percentage of milestones completed for national programmes5
Interestingly, due to the low execution efficiency, the section of the official website5, on which
data on the execution of and expenditures on programmes are posted based on resolutions of the Gov-
ernment of the Russian Federation, is currently available only by direct link without redirection from the
site’s main page.
The assessment used can be refined and detailed when considering specific areas of the national
programmes of the Russian Federation and other independent indicators of socioeconomic development
that affect the HDI. This analysis is characterised by a certain consolidation and generalisation of both
the quality of project management and its dependence on the HDI. Therefore, it provides broad pros-
pects for more detailed consideration and deeper results. As previously indicated, the expenditures of
federal funds of the Russian Federation on national project management in the consolidated budget were
an average of 22.35%. Moreover, using this tool results in numerous economic and managerial difficul-
ties, leading to lower HDI levels.
6. Conclusion
Following the authors’ proposed recommendations, one should expect to improve the efficiency
of spending federal funds (currently estimated at 8.5 trillion rubles), along with regional and local funds
6
Financing of state programs. The portal of state programs of the Russian Federation is the official website. URL: https://programs.gov.ru/Portal/analytics/federal_budget_expenditure.
54 Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2024, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3
Volodin, A., Degtereva, V.
allocated for the implementation of national projects. From a social perspective, one should expect a
more comprehensive fulfilment of social development obligations, which have been almost completely
ignored since late 2019. Positive change is also likely to be seen in Russia’s overall socioeconomic de-
velopment, accompanied by the opportunity to minimise Russia’s losses from the global economic crisis
and regain the growth of the HDI caused by the pandemic.
References
Babkin A. V, Karlina E.P., Epifanova N.S., 2015. Neural networks as a tool of forecasting of socioeconomic systems strategic development.
Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 207, 274–279.
Balios D., Thomadakis S., Tsipouri L., 2016. Credit rating model development: An ordered analysis based on accounting data. Res. Int.
Bus. Financ. 38, 122–136.
Bataev A., Plotnikova E., 2019. Assessment of digital banks’ performance. Espacios. 40 (20).
Degtereva V., Ivanova M., 2018. Ex ante and ex post regulatory impact assessment in Russia: Framework and practice.
Demidenko D., Kulibanova V., Maruta V., 2018. Using the principles of “digital economy” in assessing the company’s capitalization. Pro-
ceedings of the 31st International Business Information Management Association Conference, 6087.
Diaz-Sarachaga J.M., Jato-Espino D., Castro-Fresno D., 2017. Methodology for the development of a new sustainable infrastructure rating
system for developing countries (SIRSDEC), Environ. Sci. Policy. 69, 65–72.
Didenko N., Skripnuk D., Mirolyubova O., 2017. Big data and the global economy, 1–5.
Farvaque E., Mihailov A., Naghavi A., 2012. The grand experiment of communism: Discovering the trade-off between equality and effi-
ciency. SSRN Electron. J.
Gromova E., 2019. Digital economy development with an emphasis on automotive industry in Russia. Espac. 40 (6).
Holly D. et al., 2017. Development of a behaviour rating system for rural/remote pre-hospital settings. Appl. Ergon. 58, 405–413.
Martinsuo M., Ahola T., 2022. Multi-project management in inter-organizational contexts. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 40 (7), 813–826.
Rodionov D., Kudryavtseva T., Skhvediani A., 2018. Human development and income inequality as factors of regional economic growth.
Eur. Res. Stud. J. 21, 323–337.
Rodionov D., Rudskaia I., Degtereva V., 2017. Regional foresight as a technology for development of the regional innovation system. Pro-
ceedings of the 29th International Business Information Management Association Conference. Education Excellence and Inno-
vation Management through Vision 2020: From Regional Development Sustainability to Global Economic Growth. 2699–2705.
Rudskaia I., 2017. A regional innovation system: Formation features and growth areas (case study: St. Petersburg). Proceedings of the 30th
International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA. Vision 2020: Sustainable Economic develop-
ment, Innovation Management, and Global Growth, 541–547.
Rudskaia I., 2017. Regional innovation foresights: Drivers and barriers for development. Proceedings of the 30th International Business
Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2017. Vision 2020: Sustainable Economic Development, Innovation
Management, and Global Growth, 889–903.
Rudskaya I., Rodionov D., 2017. Econometric modeling as a tool for evaluating the performance of regional innovation systems (with
regions of the Russian Federation as the example). Acad. Strateg. Manag. J., 16.
Rudskaya I.A., Rodionov D.G., 2018. Comprehensive evaluation of Russian regional innovation system performance using a two-stage
econometric model.
Shabunina T. V, Shchelkina S.P., Rodionov D., 2018Regional Habitat as a Factor of the Human Capital Assets Development in Russian
Regions. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 313–317.
Shabunina T. V, Shchelkina S.P., Rodionov D.G., 2017. An innovative approach to the transformation of eco-economic space of a region
based on the green economy principles. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J.
Silvius G., Marnewick C., 2022. Interlinking sustainability in organizational strategy, project portfolio management and project manage-
ment; A conceptual framework. Procedia Comput. Sci. 196, 938–947.
Skhvediani A., Kudryavtseva T., 2018. The socioeconomic development of Russia: Some historical aspects. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 21, 195–207.
Sokolitsyn A., Ivanov M., Sokolitsyna N., 2017. Statistic modeling industrial enterprises production process parameters. Proceedings of the
30th International Business Information Management Association Conference: Sustainable Economic Development, Innovation
Management, and Global Growth, 1041–1052.
Stroeva O.A. et al., 2016. Peculiarities of formation of socially oriented strategy of economic growth of national economy. 19, 161–170.
Todorov T.S. Evaluating project and program management as factor for socio-economic development within EU, 2014. Procedia – Soc.
Behav. Sci. 119., 819–828.
Zaborovskaia O.V., Plotnikova E.V., 2016. Assessment of the housing stock condition as an element for estimating the conditions for hu-
man capital development in the regions of the Russian Federation. Proceedings of the 28th International Business Information
Management Association Conference – Vision 2020: Innovation Management, Development Sustainability, and Competitive
Economic Growth. 1218–1225.
Список источников
Babkin A. V, Karlina E.P., Epifanova N.S., 2015. Neural networks as a tool of forecasting of socioeconomic systems strategic development.
Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 207, 274–279.
Balios D., Thomadakis S., Tsipouri L., 2016. Credit rating model development: An ordered analysis based on accounting data. Res. Int.
Bus. Financ. 38, 122–136.
Bataev A., Plotnikova E., 2019. Assessment of digital banks’ performance. Espacios 40 (20).
Degtereva V., Ivanova M., 2018. Ex ante and ex post regulatory impact assessment in Russia: Framework and practice.
Demidenko D., Kulibanova V., Maruta V., 2018. Using the principles of “digital economy” in assessing the company’s capitalization. Pro-
ceedings of the 31st International Business Information Management Association Conference, 6087.
Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2024, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3 55
Management of socioeconomic development: national planning and its impact on the human development index in Russia
Diaz-Sarachaga J.M., Jato-Espino D., Castro-Fresno D., 2017. Methodology for the development of a new sustainable infrastructure rating
system for developing countries (SIRSDEC), Environ. Sci. Policy. 69, 65–72.
Didenko N., Skripnuk D., Mirolyubova O., 2017. Big data and the global economy, 1–5.
Farvaque E., Mihailov A., Naghavi A., 2012. The grand experiment of communism: Discovering the trade-off between equality and effi-
ciency. SSRN Electron. J.
Gromova E., 2019. Digital economy development with an emphasis on automotive industry in Russia. Espac. 40 (6).
Holly D. et al., 2017. Development of a behaviour rating system for rural/remote pre-hospital settings. Appl. Ergon. 58, 405–413.
Martinsuo M., Ahola T., 2022. Multi-project management in inter-organizational contexts. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 40 (7), 813–826.
Rodionov D., Kudryavtseva T., Skhvediani A., 2018. Human development and income inequality as factors of regional economic growth.
Eur. Res. Stud. J. 21, 323–337.
Rodionov D., Rudskaia I., Degtereva V., 2017. Regional foresight as a technology for development of the regional innovation system. Pro-
ceedings of the 29th International Business Information Management Association Conference. Education Excellence and Inno-
vation Management through Vision 2020: From Regional Development Sustainability to Global Economic Growth. 2699–2705.
Rudskaia I., 2017. A regional innovation system: Formation features and growth areas (case study: St. Petersburg). Proceedings of the 30th
International Business Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA. Vision 2020: Sustainable Economic develop-
ment, Innovation Management, and Global Growth, 541–547.
Rudskaia I., 2017. Regional innovation foresights: Drivers and barriers for development. Proceedings of the 30th International Business
Information Management Association Conference, IBIMA 2017. Vision 2020: Sustainable Economic Development, Innovation
Management, and Global Growth, 889–903.
Rudskaya I., Rodionov D., 2017. Econometric modeling as a tool for evaluating the performance of regional innovation systems (with
regions of the Russian Federation as the example). Acad. Strateg. Manag. J., 16.
Rudskaya I.A., Rodionov D.G., 2018. Comprehensive evaluation of Russian regional innovation system performance using a two-stage
econometric model.
Shabunina T. V, Shchelkina S.P., Rodionov D., 2018Regional Habitat as a Factor of the Human Capital Assets Development in Russian
Regions. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 313–317.
Shabunina T. V, Shchelkina S.P., Rodionov D.G., 2017. An innovative approach to the transformation of eco-economic space of a region
based on the green economy principles. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J.
Silvius G., Marnewick C., 2022. Interlinking sustainability in organizational strategy, project portfolio management and project manage-
ment; A conceptual framework. Procedia Comput. Sci. 196, 938–947.
Skhvediani A., Kudryavtseva T., 2018. The socioeconomic development of Russia: Some historical aspects. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 21, 195–207.
Sokolitsyn A., Ivanov M., Sokolitsyna N., 2017. Statistic modeling industrial enterprises production process parameters. Proceedings of the
30th International Business Information Management Association Conference: Sustainable Economic Development, Innovation
Management, and Global Growth, 1041–1052.
Stroeva O.A. et al., 2016. Peculiarities of formation of socially oriented strategy of economic growth of national economy 19, 161–170.
Todorov T.S. Evaluating project and program management as factor for socio-economic development within EU, 2014. Procedia – Soc.
Behav. Sci. 119., 819–828.
Zaborovskaia O.V., Plotnikova E.V., 2016. Assessment of the housing stock condition as an element for estimating the conditions for hu-
man capital development in the regions of the Russian Federation. Proceedings of the 28th International Business Information
Management Association Conference – Vision 2020: Innovation Management, Development Sustainability, and Competitive
Economic Growth. 1218–1225.
The article was submitted 02.02.2024, approved after reviewing 21.02.2024, accepted for publication 25.02.2024.
Статья поступила в редакцию 02.02.2024, одобрена после рецензирования 21.02.2024, принята к
публикации 25.02.2024.
About authors:
1. Alexander Volodin, research student, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg,
Russia. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6488-4234, [email protected]
2. Victoria Degtereva, Doctor of Economics, professor, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St.
Petersburg, Russia. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2227-6916, [email protected]
Информация об авторах:
1. Александр Володин, аспирант, Санкт-Петербургский политехнический университет Петра Великого,
Санкт-Петербург, Россия. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6488-4234, [email protected]
2. Виктория Дегтерева, д.э.н., профессор, Санкт-Петербургский политехнический университет Петра
Великого, Санкт-Петербург, Россия. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2227-6916, [email protected]
56 Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2024, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2024.1.3
