CC BY
2DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2021-22-4-3
JEL classification: R10
Elena B. Dvoryadkina Elvin V. Dzhalilov
Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia Ural State University of Economics, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Properties of traditional industrial regions' economic space: Theoretical foundations
Abstract. Economic growth in traditional industrial regions occurs predominantly due to industrial municipalities located within its economic space. The studies of regional economic space mainly concentrate on the issues of the balanced spatial development, aspects of spatial polarisation and fragmentation. The paper aims to substantiate the properties of economic space of a traditional industrial region from the perspective of regional identity. Methodologically, the research relies on fundamental tenets of spatial economics, typology of regions, and the concept of regional identity. The authors use dialectical and structural logical methods, method of typology, instrumental analysis. Based on the typological attributes of the traditional industrial region, the authors identify and provide characteristics of the properties of its economic space: evolutionary nature; weak diversification of industry; stability of internal content; industrialism. The paper proves that in line with the concept of regional identity these properties can serve as identifiers of traditional industrial regions and their economic space. The research findings form a theoretical basis for further research of the processes of development of traditional industrial regions' economic space.
Keywords: economic space; regional typology; traditional industrial region; regional identity; regional identifier.
For citation: Dvoryadkina E. B., Dzhalilov E. V. (2021). Properties of traditional industrial regions' economic space: Theoretical foundations. Journal of New Economy, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 45-61. DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2021-22-4-3 Received September 20, 2021.
In the territorial structure of the national economy there is a large number of regions, most of which have their distinguishing features: in terms of natural resources, economy, demography, society and culture, organisation and management, political system, etc. In addition to these features, there are attributes, which can be used to typify regions, and moreover, every attribute is simultaneously a factor affecting the formation of the economic specialisation and imprinting onto the processes of social and demographic development.
Introduction
Traditional industrial regions chosen to be the object of this research bear particular significance for the development of the national socioeconomic space and catch special interest of both scholars and regulatory bodies represented by government agencies and local governments.
The purpose of the research is to find the theoretical foundations for identifying the properties of economic space of traditional industrial regions based on their top-ological attributes. In line with the purpose, the study is going to fulfil the following objectives: 1) to generalise about the approaches to regional typologies; 2) to substantiate that traditional industrial type is independent type of regions possessing specific attributes; 3) to prove that these attributes all together determine regional identity of traditional industrial regions and inter alia have a spatial aspect of their manifestation; 4) to specify properties of economic space of traditional industrial region.
Regional typologies and the criterion of industry
Traditional industrial regions as an independent type of regions can be identified in regional typologies on the basis of such a key attribute as industry. Our previous research as well as the findings of other scientists show that currently the approaches to regional typologies are numerous and include those that take into account the belonging to an individual industry (cf. Appendix). Given that regional typologies are formed according to the concrete research purposes and can be based on both objective and subjective attributes as well as change under the impact of different factors and conditions, we can argue that any typology is of relative nature. Meanwhile, when sectoral typologies of regions are constructed, industries, types of economic activities, and basic sectors of the economy, as a rule, are used among the criteria.
Amid the first requirements formulated for the construction of regional typologies were those of Baranskiy [1980, p. 287]. We subscribe to the view of other authors [Tyapushova, 2013, p. 88; Polynev, Grishina, 2019] who believe that regional typology is the division of different regions of the country into several homogeneous groups on the basis of one or more of the most significant criteria, attributes, relationships and organisation levels of both quantitative and qualitative nature with the purpose of their identification, orderly description and comparison [Animitsa, Novikova, Kho-dus, 2009, p. 54].
In the context of the research objectives, it seems appropriate to focus on the sectoral regional typologies, which are based, among other things, on the criteria of the presence and level of development of industrial production. We should note that in the 1970s, the theory of industrial complexes started to employ the ideas of the spatial approach, which were reflected in subsequent scientific papers [Streit, 1969; Richter, 1969]. In this context, the theory of industrial clustering and the theory of network
economy [Czamanski, Ablas, 1979; Enright, 1993] may also be referred to. Industry as a resource-intensive type of economic activity is of special spatial significance, in particular, since the economic space can be described as an abstract economic landscape, which represents "the dynamics of resource allocation across activities and locations" [Krugman, 1994, p. 412].
The relationship between regional and industrial development is actively studied in the context of the evolutionary approach to the development of regions in general and industry as a type of economic activity in particular. A team of Czech and Austrian researchers discovered various trajectories of regional and industrial evolution and emphasised that there are both positive and negative trajectories among them. The key driving force behind the uneven development of industrial regions is argued to be a shift from an inter-sectoral spatial division of labour to an intra-sectoral division reflecting asymmetric power relations within the economy [Blazek et al., 2019].
Shniper and Novoselov proposed a complex typology of regions, which distinguishes between industrially developed territories, regions with a predominance of mining enterprises, and areas of agro-industrial orientation [Shniper, Novoselov, 1993].
In the mid-1990s, following the surge of scientific activity in the study of depressed regions, Lyashevskaya used the criteria of low economic growth, poor production diversification, backward industrial structure, qualitatively low living standards, unfavorable environmental conditions and identified five types of regions, including regions of industrial development, old industrial regions with a significant share of the extractive industry, and old industrial regions with a significant share of the manufacturing industry [Lyashevskaya, 1994]. The same period saw the development of Markova and Bedenkov's regional typology that adopted the applied criteria (analysis of the dynamics of industrial production and the processes of state regulation of regional development aimed at overcoming the decline in industrial production) [Markova, Bedenkov, 1995], and Guseva's typology based on innovative attractiveness and sectoral specialisation of regions [Guseva, 1996].
In this context, we shall agree with Chernyshev, who believed that "generalisation of foreign experience in defining depressed regions allows us to characterise them as industrial areas" [Chernyshev, 2015, p. 17].
Based on the sectoral employment of population, Nefedova suggested a classification that includes five groups of regions: post-agricultural and post-industrial; hy-perindustrial; industrial; industrial-agricultural; agri-industrial [Nefedova, 2003, pp. 18-19].
According to the criterion of the cause behind the spread of the depression to the entire regional economy, Granberg identified old industrial, agri-industrial, and extractive (focal) regions [Granberg, 2001].
In 2005, the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia presented a new approach to regional typology based on the Concept of the strategy for the socioeconomic development of regions of the Russian Federation. "... In the typology, all subjects of the Russian Federation are grouped according to the basis of development and the degree of involvement in the global development processes: globalisation, urbanisation, and new industrialisation. One key reason behind the construction of the typology of Russian regions was the idea that it is incorrect to set the same development goals for all constituent entities of the Russian Federation, just as it is incorrect to compare absolutely any constituent entity of the Russian Federation with another in terms of the level and possibilities of socioeconomic development ... The types of regions were determined using the combination of expert assessments with the analysis of indicators of socioeconomic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation" [Menshchikova, 2011, pp. 18-19].
In line with this approach, seven types of regions were recognised: three types with two subtypes, and a special non-system type:
1) regions that are the engines of growth, which include world centres and centres of federal significance;
2) supporting regions, the subtypes of which are raw materials regions and old industrial regions;
3) depressed regions, subdivided into background regions and recessionary regions;
4) special regions (special territories).
Shevandrin built an extended typology of regional economic systems according to the structural organisation of their economy [Shevandrin, 2007]. The typology contains agricultural, regions with low, medium and high level of industrialisation, and transaction-oriented regions. According to the researcher, the revealed typological affiliation of a region is sufficient to judge about its socioeconomic position on the basis of direct correlation between the systematised types of regional economic systems and the level of their socioeconomic development.
Lapaev put forward a typology of regions during the transition to innovative development. Applying the criteria of the availability of raw materials and financial resources, the level of the region's growth potential (low, medium or high), the scientist recognised such types as depressed regions, former industrial centers, regions of new industrial development, oil- and gas-producing regions [Lapaev, 2014]. In the same vein, Kaufmann and Toedtling emphasised that the concept of innovation has undergone substantial changes, which shifted the focus from the micro-level to regional and national innovation systems, and present the results of research on innovation in Austria's old industrial regions undergoing restructuring [Kaufmann, Toedtling, 2000].
Zainutdinov developed a typology of single-industry regions based on the sectoral structure of the gross regional product (GRP) determined according to OKVED1, the share of sectors, and the index of industrial production. As a result, he identified groups of regions by enlarged sectors of the economy: regions specialising in manufacturing (production of coke, petroleum products, and nuclear materials; metals production and production of finished metal products; production of vehicles and equipment; production of foodstuffs, including beverages and tobacco); mining (mining of fossil fuels; mining of mineral resources, except for fossil fuels); agriculture and forestry, hunting (animal husbandry) [Zainutdinov, 2015].
Polynev and Grishina used structural and sectoral criteria and proposed a detailed regional typology that takes into account a number of structural peculiarities of the domestic economy and major structural and sectoral shifts both in the medium and long run. According to this typology, the regions are divided into post-industrial, industrial diversified, industrial resource-processing, agri-industrial, agri-polyservic-ing, polyservicing, regions with energy resources [Polynev, Grishina, 2019, pp. 33-35].
A typology related to the criteria of technological development and the corresponding economic performance was presented by Bole, Kozina, and Tiran [2019], who recognised five types of regions. The first type is characterised by the presence of foreign-based and high-tech firms and, at the same time, poor economic performance (neoliberal industrial regions); the second includes "champion towns" with strong economies, innovations, and industry of international importance (post-socialist champion); the third describes economically polarised regions, combining high unemployment and the share of fast-growing companies below the average, as well as strong economic performance (high-tech firms, high added value per employee, and income above the average); fourth type groups low-tech regions with a fast-growing and investment-favourable economic environment (dynamic low-tech); fifth type consists of the regions with mixed economic performance [Bole, Kozina, Tiran, 2019].
Having identified critical factors, subjects and mechanisms of development, Zenka, Slach, Sopkuliak [2017] identified five types of Czech regions: peripheries, single factory regions, 'ordinary' diversified industrial regions, lower-tier satellite platforms and higher-tier satellite platforms, complemented by the cores and hinterlands of metropolitan regions and the medium-sized urban regions with metropolitan functions.
The intensification of industrialisation processes at the present stage of economic development influences the formation of regional typologies. This way, for instance, using the criterion of the relationship between the level of industrialisation and
1 All-Russian Classification of Economic Activities
innovative performance, it is possible to distinguish four models of regional innovative development: a non-industrial model of innovative stagnation, an industrial model of innovative stagnation, a post-industrial model of innovative development, and a new industrial model of innovative development [Doroshenko, Ryapukhina, 2019].
Ray, Lamarche and MacLachlan provide evidence that regional differences are due to two effects: the region effect, which includes the factor of its location and population, and the industry-mix effect, which takes into account differences in sectoral structure. Consequently, the types of problems faced by regions and the policies pursued to address them are much more complex than if the differences were due solely to the structure of industry. This becomes evident when developing a regional typology that takes into account both effects [Ray, Lamarche, MacLachlan, 2013].
Topaloglou, Kallioras, Manetos and Petrakos formed a typology of the border regions of European countries based on the criteria laid down by the theory of location and trade, as well as the theory of integration. Primary and secondary data, incorporating quantitative and qualitative determinants for border regions, were interpreted using the methods of factor and fuzzy clustering analysis. As a result, five types of border regions were distinguished: highly integrated regions with strong economic performance, high degree of cultural similarity, and small area of the territory; regions with pronounced agglomeration effects that are in need of implementing structural policy because of the increased competition in industrial markets; highly integrated regions with solid economic performance despite noticeable cultural differences; regions with high potential for development, with a favorable geographic location, but with weak economic performance; regions with low market potential and predominantly negative trends in economic development [Topaloglou, Kallioras, Manetos, Petrakos, 2005].
In view of the above, we can conclude that economic typologies of regions include types distinguished applying the criterion of the presence of industry, the structure of industrial production, and the level of industrial development. As we can see, the traditional industrial type of regions as such is absent in the typologies; instead, the concepts of an old industrial or industrial region, which are similar in content, are used.
Traditional industrial region and its regional identity
The concept of traditional industrial region is close in its semantic meaning to the concept of old industrial region [Dvoryadkina, Golosheykin, 2012], which is actively present in the discourse of both domestic regional economic science [Zi-min, Odesser, 1989; Animitsa, Vlasova, Surnina, 2000; Romanova, Bryantseva,
Pozdnyakova, 2013; Litovchenko, 2014; Maltsev, Mordvinova, 2016; Sorokina, La-tov, 2018] and international one [Carney, Hudson, Lewis, 1980; Steiner 1985,1999; Todtling, Trippl, 2004].
Taking into account the objectives of the study, we will rely on the following definition: "Traditional industrial region is a special type of region that emerged historically, mainly in the era of the formation and development of industrial production, has a set of such basic topological attributes as a significant time period of organisation, the priority of industry, its dominance and importance in the economic complex of the region, the inertia of the sectoral structure of the regional economy, as well as industry being the predominant factor behind urban development in the region (this results in a substantial number of single-industry towns in the region)" [Dvoryadkina, Golosheykin, 2010, p. 116]. The combination of these attributes shapes the regional identity of traditionally industrial regions. In a spatial context, this identity is a set of spatial features of a region's functioning conditioned by the topological attributes.
Consider the phenomenon of regional identity in more detail paying special attention to the spatial context and taking into account that the concept of identity is ambiguous, dynamic, and elusive [Ernste, 2003; Paasi, Metzger, 2017]. Currently, this concept is believed to be the most general and universal, describing a range of qualitative and quantitative characteristics that are associated with the specifics of any cultural or geographical individual (personality, group, territorial community, territory) [Levochkina, 2016]. Evidently, each region has unique features due to its geographical position, history of development, stages of evolution of its economy and society, cultural traditions, etc. One cannot but agree with the opinion of Kore-panov that "... regional identity acts as the process of interpreting regional uniqueness through which the region becomes institutionalised in a certain community" [Korepanov, 2009, p. 277].
Most often, regional identity is viewed as a type of social identity. This way, Ka-zakova points out that the place of regional identity in the hierarchical pyramid of social identity is determined according to the system of other identities: national, ethnic, territorial, local [Kazakova, 2008]. The scholar identifies three closely interrelated components in its structure: regional identity, regional values, and regional mentality. From the standpoint of the socio-constructivist approach, the region is positioned as a social construct that defines and forms itself through various social and discursive practices [Varro, Lagendijk, 2013].
In the literature, considerable attention is devoted to the regional cultural values during the development of regional identity. The place is perceived as a transformed space with a value content [Tuan, 1996]; it is noted that regional identity is based on symbols, the meaning of which is the production and reproduction of social integrity
and socio-spatial identity [Paasi, Zimmerbauer, 2011], and that regional values are sustainable [Appadurai, 1991].
The later works of Kazakova and Ryazanova focus on the relationship between economic and regional identity. In their opinion, regional identity can be considered as the basis for the modernisation processes in economic development of a territory. The scientific analysis of the economic development of a territory cannot rely solely on traditional economic processes and preconditions outside the context of cultural understanding, and in general, regional identity is the driver of the regional economic development [Kazakova, Ryazanova, 2017].
Konovalov states that the concept under consideration is a system one, it mirrors cultural, social, psychological, and economic aspects. He gives the following definition: "regional identity is a system positive, negative or neutral characteristic of a region, reflecting business entities' perception and assessment of a certain territory, which are expressed in the adopted economic (and non-economic) decisions and judgments" [Konovalov, 2019, p. 57]. It is noteworthy that the economic aspect, in contrast to the cultural, social, and psychological, characterises the external component of regional identity.
Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Bazhenova and Bazhenov distilled the essence of the regional economic identity. They identified seven layers of a region's internal space, each of which responsible for certain types of activities performed using certain resources:
• mental (related to thinking, mental abilities of a person, forming a special mentality);
• cultural (associated with culture, forming cultural patterns, thesaurus, assessments, etc.);
• institutional (producing intra-system institutions);
• cognitive (connected with consciousness, mental activity, providing the development and advancement of knowledge);
• organisational and technological (accumulating a set of technologies);
• imitative (making possible to borrow patterns, cases from the history of functioning of other regions, world society);
• historical (ensuring the preservation of available data, problem statements, methods for resettling them) [Bazhenova, Bazhenov, 2015].
The researchers arrive at the conclusion that the economic identity of a region forms and manifests in all the indicated layers, each of which grapples with its own problem.
In general, scientists have started to explore the economic aspects of regional identity relatively recently, and we should agree that initially the study of economic
identity as a component of regional identity was associated with economic zoning [Chernobrovkina, 2015]. Summarising the opinions of a number of researchers, Chernobrovkina states that economic identity has objective grounds: it reflects the scale of the territories, specifics of the territorial organisation (self-organisation) of communities, which depends on economic resources, place and role in the system of regional division of labour, as well as is connected with self-positioning of the region due to the economic and geographical location, resource availability, location of large industrial centrrs, etc. [Chernobrovkina, 2015].
If investigating a traditionally industrial region as a special type of region and looking closely at its economic space, we believe it is important "to identify economic specialisation of a region as the most essential indicator, which allows determining the role of the region in the international and national division of labour. In turn, to draw the contours of the possible economic specialisation of the region, several indicators are utilised. First, this is the sectoral structure of the economy (structure of GDP) in the region. Secondly, these are the primary economic sectors associated with the export strategy of the region" [Chernobrovkina, 2015, p. 140].
We should point to that the term "self-identification of a territory" is close in meaning to the term "regional identity". Bochko proposed to apply the method of self-identification of a territory to analyse the essence of the territory and assess the prospects for its development. "The term "self-identification" means referring oneself to oneself for the purpose of self-knowledge, establishing the identity of one's qualitative characteristics with a real or imaginary understanding of oneself, that is, with an understanding of one's own image by oneself. With regard to a territory, self-identification implies correlating its past appearance (in our case, socioeconomic) to the present. In real life, the process of self-identification of a territory is a phenomenon of continuous monitoring of constantly changing characteristics of development under the influence of transforming conditions and circumstances" [Bochko, 2011, p. 10]. The identifiers here include self-assessment of the territorial community; data on changes in socioeconomic and other development; information about changes in the spatial environment; analysis of trends and time sequence of changes.
Galazova proved the need to determine the semantic meanings of regional identity and its role as a spatial factor in the development of economies, reveal its properties and significance for regional reproduction processes. The structural elements of regional identity include tangible (natural, geographic, economic, transport, logistics, infrastructural, cultural, etc.) and intangible (political, social, mental, cultural, gender, economic, communicative, etc.) components. Spatial aspects of regional identity of territories' socioeconomic development encompass spatial distribution and spatial development of regional resources [Galazova, 2014].
The spatial territorial aspect of regional identity, the phenomenon of place, is the subject of many studies (cf. [Lefebvre, 1991; Osborne, 2001; Manzo, 2003]). The territorial geographical approach understands regional identity as a set of special geo-territorial, natural, historical, mental, ethnic and other characteristics that make it possible to distinguish it from the multiplicity of other territories. Traditionally industrial regions as an independent type are characterised by the presence of ore, forest, water, and land resources, which made it possible to become specialised in metals production and preserve this specialisation in the evolution of economic development.
The economic approach sees regional identity as a set of properties of a localised territory, which is characterised by production, personnel, technological, infrastruc-tural, and market specialisation as a subsystem of the national economy. Since large metallurgical enterprises are concentrated in the traditional industrial region, corporate identity is a factor in the formation of regional identity.
Encapsulating the above approaches, we offer own interpretation of the properties of traditionally industrial regions' economic space in Table.
Properties of traditional industrial regions' economic space based on its topological attributes
Attributes Properties
Significant time period of organisation (formation) Evolutionary nature
Priority of industry, its dominance in the economic complex of the region Weak diversification of the industrial production sector
Inertia of the sectoral structure of the regional economy Stability of internal content, its preservation
Industry as the predominant factor behind urban development and, as a consequence of this, a substantial number of single-industry towns in the region Industrialism, which implies formation of industrial loci in economic space
Let us characterise the essence of the properties of traditional industrial regions' economic space in more detail.
1. Evolutionary nature. One topological attribute of traditionally industrial regions is a significant time period of organisation, that is, the economic space of a region of this type has been forming over a long period of time. Consequently, the process of its development consists of a number of evolutionary stages associated with large cycles of industrialisation.
2. Weak diversification of the industrial production sector. In the economic complex of the traditionally industrial region, industry dominates, as a result of which the
production sector of its economic space is poorly diversified, which allows us to speak of its production homogeneity. The economic space of a region of this type is saturated with industrial types of economic activities and economic agents functioning in them, as well as production ties between them. In addition, to ensure the development of industry, it is necessary to have an appropriate infrastructure (production, market, social, institutional).
3. Stability of internal content. The inertia of the sectoral structure of a traditionally industrial region determines the stability of its economic space: many features of its internal content persist throughout its evolution. Despite the global trends in economic development associated with the growth of the service sector in the sectoral structure of regional economies, the internal structure of the industrial production sector itself remains unchanged, and industry as a basic sector does not lose its dominant position. This property is also confirmed by the presence of waves, cycles, phases and stages of development and transformation of the mining and metals industry.
4. Industrialism. This property, conditioned by the immense importance of industry as a factor behind urban development, leads to the emergence of a significant number of single-industry towns. In the economic space of traditionally industrial regions, industrial loci are formed. If following the tenets of the resource and territorial approaches, such loci are towns specialising in mining and metals production, on the basis of which industrial municipalities are found.
Taking into account the fundamental propositions of regional identity, the revealed properties should be considered as regional identifiers of a traditionally industrial region and its economic space.
Conclusion
In summary, we can draw the following theoretical and methodological conclusions.
Despite the existence of the concept "traditional industrial region", it is not found in regional typologies. Nevertheless, we consider it reasonable to recognise it as an independent type of region based on a number of essential attributes of the regional economy relating not only to sectoral, but also to territorial (urban development) factors.
Since the essential attributes of traditionally industrial regions embrace the dominance of industry in its economic complex and the priority of industry as a factor behind urban development, it is possible to classify municipalities in the traditionally industrial regions' economic space using these attributes. In addition, it seems necessary to take into consideration the processes of industrialisation with their specific territorial embodiment and localisation at the municipal (local) level. With a view to
structuring the economic space of these regions further, we can identify the municipalities of the industrial, industrial-agricultural and agricultural types.
One of the paradigmatic peculiarities of the regional economics as a scientific discipline is the research of economic activity in space and time coordinates. Since regions of different types have certain specifics of economic space, and traditional industrial regions are no exception, then it is necessary to take into account regional identifiers in the further definition of methodology of research programmes.
The proposed theoretical foundations for the study of the economic space of traditionally industrial regions contribute to the development of the subject field of the regional economics, which expands and advances knowledge about the diversity of spatial socioeconomic systems of regions of various types.
Appendix. Regional typolo;
gies based on the criterion of industry: A comparative analysis
Key authors Types of regions
Shniper, Novoselov [1993] Industrially developed territories; regions with a predominance of mining enterprises; areas of agro-industrial orientation
Lyashevskaya [1994] Regions of industrial development; old industrial regions with a significant share of the extractive industry; old industrial regions with a significant share of the manufacturing industry
Granberg [2001] Old industrial regions; agri-industrial regions; extractive (focal) regions
Nefedova [2003] Post-agricultural and post-industrial regions; hyperindustrial regions; industrial regions; industrial-agricultural regions; agri-industrial regions
Shevandrin [2007] Agricultural regions; regions with low, medium and high level of industrialisation; transaction-oriented regions
Lapaev [2014] Depressed regions; former industrial centers; regions of new industrial development; oil- and gas-producing regions
Zainutdinov [2015] Regions specialising in manufacturing; regions specialising in mining; regions specialising in agriculture and forestry, hunting
Zenka, Slach, Sopkuliak [2017] Peripheries; single factory regions; 'ordinary' diversified industrial regions; lower-tier satellite platforms; higher-tier satellite platforms
Polynev, Grishina [2019] Post-industrial regions; industrial diversified regions; industrial resource-processing regions; agri-industrial regions; agri-pol-yservicing regions; polyservicing regions; regions with energy resources
Bole, Kozina, Tiran [2019] Regions characterised by the presence of foreign-based and high-tech firms and, at the same time, poor economic performance (neoliberal industrial regions); regions with strong economies, innovations, and industry of international importance (post-socialist champion); economically polarised regions; low-tech regions (dynamic low-tech); regions with mixed economic performance
References
Animitsa P. E., Novikova N. V., Khodus V. V. (2009). Tipologiya kak metod issledovaniya sotsial'no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya regionov [Typology as a method to study the socio-economic development of the regions]. Izvestiya Uralskogogosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo uni-versiteta = Journal of the Ural State University of Economics, no. 1 (23), pp. 52-59. (in Russ.)
Animitsa E. G., Vlasova N. Yu., Surnina N. M. (2000). Teoretiko-metodologicheskie aspekty strukturnoy transformatsii gorodov staropromyshlennogo regiona [Theoretical and methodological aspects of the structural transformation of cities in the old industrial region]. Ekaterinburg: Ural State University of Economics. 148 p. (in Russ.)
Bazhenova E. Yu., Bazhenov S. V. (2015). Formirovanie nauchnogo kontsepta "ekonomiches-kaya identichnost' regiona": mezhdistsiplinarnyy podkhod [The formation of the scientific concept "economic identity of the region": Interdisciplinary approach]. Krymskiy nauchnyy vestnik = The Crimean Scientific Bulletin, no. 6, pp. 151-168. (in Russ.)
Baranskiy N. N. (1980). The formation of Soviet economic geography. In: Izbrannye Trudy [Selected works]. Moscow: Mysl Publ. 287 p. (in Russ.)
Bochko V. S. (2011). Primenenie metoda samoidentifikatsii territorii dlya ee analiza i otsenki perspektiv razvitiya [Application of a method of self-identification of territory for its analysis and estimation of prospects of development]. Ekonomika regiona = Economy of Region, no. 3, pp. 10-17. (in Russ.)
Galazova S. S. (2014). Regional'naya identichnost' ekonomicheskogo prostranstva [Regional identity of economic space]. Ekonomicheskie nauki = Economic Sciences, no. 6 (115), pp. 64-69. (in Russ.)
Granberg A. G. (2001). Osnovy regionalnoy ekonomiki [Fundumentals of regional economics]. Moscow: Higher School of Economics. 495 p. (in Russ.)
Guseva K. (1996). Ranzhirovanie subyektov RF po stepeni blagopriyatnosti investitsionnogo klimata [Ranking of the subjects of the Russian Federation according to the degree of favorable investment climate]. Voprosy ekonomiki = The Issues of Economics, no. 6, pp. 90-100. (in Russ.)
Dvoryadkina E. B., Golosheykin E. V. (2010). Metodicheskiy podkhod k analizu ekonomicheskogo razvitiya traditsionno-promyshlennogo regiona [Methodological approach to the traditional industrial region economic development analysis]. Izvestiya Uralskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta = Journal of the Ural State University of Economics, no. 5 (31), pp. 115-118. (in Russ.)
Dvoryadkina E. B., Golosheykin E. V. (2012). Traditsionno-promyshlennyy region v territorialnoy strukture natsional'noy ekonomiki [Traditional industrial regions in the territorial structure of the national economy]. Ekaterinburg: Ural State University of Economics. 170 p. (in Russ.)
Doroshenko Yu. A., Ryapukhina V. N. (2019). Analiz regional'nykh modeley innovatsion-nogo razvitiya v konturakh politiki neoindustrializatsii [Analysis of regional models of innovative development in the contours of neo-industrialization policy]. Vestnik SGSEU = Bulletin of the Saratov State Social-Economic University, no. 4 (78), pp. 47-51. (in Russ.)
Zaynutdinov R. R. (2015). Monootraslevye regiony Rossii: opredelenie, tipologizatsiya i per-spektivy razvitiya [Single-industry regions of Russia: Determination, typology and prospects of development]. Ekonomika regiona = Economy of Region, no. 4, pp. 106-122. D0I:10.17059/2015-4-9. (in Russ.)
Zimin B., Odesser S. (1989). Evolution of old industrial regions of developed capitalist countries and the use of the results of its study for the conditions of the USSR. In: Geografiya i problemy regionalnogo razvitiya. Moscow: Institute of Geography (USSR Academy of Sciences), pp. 220-235. (in Russ.)
Kazakova G. M. (2008). Rossiyskaya regional'naya identichnost': sovremennyy kul'turologicheskiy diskurs [Russian regional identity: modern cultural discourse]. Vestnik MGUKI = Bulletin of the Moscow State Institute of Culture, no. 6, pp. 16-20. (in Russ.)
Kazakova G. M., Ryazanova A. Yu. (2017). Formirovanie regional'noy identichnosti kak drayvera ekonomicheskogo razvitiya regiona i goroda [Formation of regional identity as a driver of economic development of a region and a city]. Urbanistika = Urban Studies, no. 3, pp. 1-10. DOI: 10.7256/2310-8673.2017.3.22480. (in Russ.)
Konovalov S. A. (2019). Regional'naya identichnost': teoretiko-metodicheskie aspekty issle-dovaniya [Regional identity: Theoretical and methodological aspect of research]. Vestnik Severo-Kavkazskogo federal'nogo universiteta = Newsletter of North-Caucasus Federal University, no. 1 (70), pp. 55-61. (in Russ.)
Korepanov G. S. (2009). Regional'naya identichnost': sotsiokul'turnyy i sotsioekonomi-cheskiy podkhody [Regional identity: Sociocultural and socioeconomic approaches]. Izvestiya Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Gumanitarnye nauki = Izvestia. Ural Federal University Journal. Series 2. Humanities and Arts, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 276-284. (in Russ.)
Lapaev S. P. (2014). Tipologizatsiya regionov Rossii: innovatsionnyy podkhod [Typology of Russian regions: An innovative approach]. Vestnik OGU = Vestnik of the Orenburg State University, no. 8 (169), pp. 100-105. (in Russ.)
LevochkinaN.A. (2016). Regional'naya identichnost': ponyatiei sushchnost'[ Regional identity: The concept and essence]. Mezhdunarodnyyzhurnalprikladnykh i fundamental'nykh issledovaniy = International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research, no. 1, pp. 446-453. (in Russ.)
Litovchenko S. V. (2014). Analiz sovremennykh podkhodov k opredeleniyu sushchnosti staropromyshlennykh regionov [Analysis of contemporary approaches to defining the essence of old industrial regions]. Ekonomichniyprostir = Economic Space, no. 92, pp. 138-150. (in Russ.)
Lyashevskaya M. N. (1994). Problemy vydeleniya depressivnykh rayonov Rossii [Problems of isolating depressed regions of Russia]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 5. Geografiya = Moscow University Bulletin. Series 5. Geography, no. 2, pp. 16-22. (in Russ.)
Maltsev A. A., Mordvinova A. E. (2016). Restrukturizatsiya staropromyshlennykh regionov Evropy: opyt i problemy [The restructuring of old industrial regions in Europe: Experience and problems]. Upravlenets = The Manager, no. 3 (61), pp. 8-13. (in Russ.)
Markova N., Bedenkov A. (1995). Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe polozhenie regionov Rossii (obzor) [Socioeconomic situation in the regions of Russia (a review)]. Voprosy ekonomiki = The Issues of Economics, no. 3, pp. 121-123. (in Russ.)
Menshchikova V. I. (2011). Tipologiya regionov v kontekste obosnovaniya primeneniya instrumentariya regional'noy sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoy politiki [Typology of regions in the context of substantiations of toolkit application of regional social and economic policy]. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki = Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities, issue 10 (102), pp. 14-24. (in Russ.)
Nefedova T. G. (2003). Sel'skaya Rossiya napereput'e. Geograficheskieocherki [Rural Russia in the crossroad (geographical issues).]. Moscow: Novoe izdatel'stvo Publ. 405 p. (in Russ.)
Polynev A. O., Grishina I. V. (2019). Metodicheskie podkhody k postroeniyu tipologii re-gionov dlya razrabotki strategii prostranstvennogo razvitiya Rossii [Methodological approaches to regions' typology for working out the strategy of Russia's spatial development]. Regionalnaya ekonomika. Yug Rossii = Regional Economy. South of Russia, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 29-41. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.15688/re.volsu.2019.1.3. (in Russ.)
Romanova O. A., Bryantseva O. S., Pozdnyakova E. A. (2013). Resursnyy potentsial reindus-trializatsii staropromyshlennogo regiona [Resource potential of reindustrialization of the old industrial region.]. Ekaterinburg: Institute of Economics (Ural branch of RAS). 251 p. (in Russ.)
Sorokina N. Yu., Latov Yu. V. (2018). Evolyutsiya staropromyshlennykh regionov v ekono-mike Rossii [Evolution of old industrial regions in the economy of Russia]. Journal of Economic Regulation, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 6-22. DOI: 10.17835/2078-5429.2018.9.1.006-022. (in Russ.)
Tyapushova E. V. (2013). Metodicheskiy podkhod k tipologii regionov na osnove otsenki konkurentosposobnosti [Methodological approach to the typology of regions based on the assessment of competitiveness]. Vestnik Baltiyskogo federalnogo universiteta im. I. Kanta = IK-BFUs Vestnik, issue 3, pp. 87-93. (in Russ.)
Chernobrovkina N. I. (2015). Ekonomicheskaya identichnost' kak forma samoopredeleniya i samopozitsionirovaniya regional'nogo sotsiuma [Economic identity as a form of self-determination and self-positioning of the regional society]. Gumanitariy Yuga Rossii = Humanities of the South of Russia, no. 4, pp. 134-141. (in Russ.)
Chernyshev K. A. (2015). Tipologiya depressivnykh regionov v sotsial'no-ekonomicheskikh issledovaniyakh [Typology of depressed regions in socio-economic research]. Regionologiya = Russian Journal of Regional Studies, no. 2 (91), pp. 14-20. (in Russ.)
Shevandrin A. V. (2007). Obshchie tendentsii i osobennosti strukturnoy transformatsii regionalnykh khozyaystvennykh system. Avtoref. Diss. kand. ekon. nauk. [General tendencies and specifics of the structural transformation of regional economic systems. Abstract of Cand. econ. sci. diss.].Volgograd. 26 p. (in Russ.)
Shniper R. I., Novoselov A. S. (1993). Regional'nyeproblemy rynkovedeniya. Ekonomicheskiy aspect [Regional problems of market research. An economic aspect]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ.; Sibirskaya izdatel'skaya firma Publ. 443 p. (in Russ.)
Appadurai A., Breckenridge C. (1991). Marriage, migration and money: Mira Nair's cinema of displacement. Visual Anthropology, vol. 4, issue 1, pp. 95-102.
Bole D., Kozina J., Tiran J. (2019). The variety of industrial towns in Slovenia: a typology of their economic performance. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series, no. 46, pp. 71-83. http://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2019-0035.
Blazek J., Kvëton V., Baumgartinger-Seiringer S., Trippl M. (2019). The dark side of regional industrial path development: Towards a typology of trajectories of decline. European Planning Studies, vol. 28, issue 8, pp. 1455-1473. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1685466.
Carney J., Hudson R., Lewis J. (eds.) (1980). Regions in crisis: new perspectives in European regional theory. London: Croom Helm. 179 p.
Czamanski S., Ablas L. A. de Q. (1979). Identification of industrial clusters and complexes: A comparison of methods and findings. Urban Studies, vol. 16, issue 1, pp. 61-80. https://doi. org/10.1080/713702464.
Enright M. J. (1993). Regional clusters and economic development: A research agenda. Boston: Harvard Business School. 756 p.
Ernste H. (2003). About unlearning and learning regions. In: Rutten R., Boekema F., Kuijpers E. (eds.) Economic geography of higher education. Knowledge infrastructure and learning regions. London: Routledge, pp. 110-126.
Kaufmann A., Toedtling F. (2000). Systems of innovation in traditional industrial regions: The case of Styria in a comparative perspective. Regional Studies, vol. 34, pp. 29-40. DOI: 10.1080/00343400050005862.
Krugman P. (1994). Complex landscapes in economic geography. The American Economic Review, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 412-416.
Lefebvre H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell. 454 p.
Manzo L. (2003). Beyond house and haven: toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 23, issue 1, pp. 47-61. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00074-9.
Osborne B. S. (2001). Landscapes, memory, monuments and commemoration: Putting identity in its place. Canadian Ethnic Studies, vol. 33, issue 3, pp. 39-77.
Paasi A., Metzger J. (2017). Foregrounding the region. Regional Studies, vol. 51, issue 1, pp. 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1239818.
Paasi A., Zimmerbauer K. (2011). Theory and practice of the region: a contextual analysis of the transformation of Finnish regions. Treballs de la Societat Catalana de Geografia, vol. 71-72, pp. 163-178.
Ray D. M, Lamarche R. H., MacLachlan I. R. (2013). Restoring the "regional" to regional policy: A regional typology of Western Canada. Canadian Public Policy, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 411-430. https://doi.org/10.3138/CPP.39.3.411.
Richter C. (1969). The impact of industrial linkages on geographic association. Journal of Regional Science, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1969.tb01439.x.
Steiner M. (1985). Old industrial areas: A theoretical approach. Urban Studies, no. 22, no. 5, pp. 387-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420988520080701.
Steiner M. (1999). Institutional change in old industrial areas - Lessons for industrial policy in the transformation process. Proc. 4th Trilateral Conference. Prague: CERGE-EI, pp. 155-189.
Streit M. (1969). Spatial association and economic linkages between industries. Journal of Regional Science, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 177-188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1969.tb01332.x.
Topaloglou L., Kallioras D., Manetos P., Petrakos G. (2005). A border regions typology in the enlarged European Union. Journal of Borderlands Studies, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 67-89.
Tödtling F., Trippl M. (2004). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated policy approach with respect to regional innovation systems. Vienna: Institut für Wirtschaftsgeographie, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business. https://epub.wu.ac.at/944/1/document.pdf.
Tuan Y.-F. (1996). Space and place: Humanistic perspective. In: Agnew J., Livingstone D. N., Rogers A. (eds.) Human geography. An essential anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 444-457.
Varro K., Lagendijk A. (2013). Conceptualizing the region - in what sense relational? Regional Studies, vol. 47, issue 1, pp. 18-28, https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.602334.
Zenka J., Slach O., Sopkuliak A. (2017). Typology of Czech non-metropolitan regions based on their principal factors, mechanisms and actors of development. Geografie, vol.122, issue 3, pp. 281-309. https://doi.org/10.37040/geografie2017122030281.
Information about the authors
Elena B. Dvoryadkina, Dr. Sc. (Econ.), Prof., Prof. of Regional, Municipal Economics and Governance Dept., Ural State University of Economics, 62/45 8 Marta/Narodnoy Voli St., Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
Phone: +7 (343) 283-11-16, e-mail: dvoryadkina@usue.ru
Elvin V. Dzhalilov, Jr. Lecturer of Regional, Municipal Economics and Governance Dept., Ural State University of Economics, 62/45 8 Marta/Narodnoy Voli St., Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia Phone: +7 (343) 283-10-76, e-mail: elvin.dzhalilov.94@mail.ru
© Dvoryadkina E. B., Dzhalilov E. V. , 2021
