CC BY
52
UDC 332.13:005.41(470.3)
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FORMATION OF TECHNOLOGICAL POTENTIAL IN THE CENTRAL FEDERAL DISTRICT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Polyanin A.V., Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, Orel City, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
Makarova Y.V., Senior lecturer Orel State Agrarian University, Orel City, Russia
E-mail: makarovorel@yandex. ru
ABSTRACT
Management of social and economic development of regional complexes must take account of economic and innovative potential of the region. We used a technique based on the calculation system of interrelated indicators to the potential subjects’ assessment of the Central Federal District. In terms of overcoming the crisis, the technological potential of the regional complex will depend on the degree of implementation of the advantages in regions. Effective implementation of the technological capabilities will allow less painful exit from the crisis for those regions which were able to take advantage of economic and innovative potential.
KEY WORDS
Regional complex; Potential of the region; Technological capacity; Regional development
Regional policy involves leveling the social and economic development by equalization schemes territories as an important part of the task. Thus, as a rule, the existing potential of the regions remains out of the spotlight. Effective regional economic development is impossible without consideration of existing capacity in the region, which is necessary to be able to determine the potentials and to use the available opportunities.
Management of social and economic development of regional complexes should take into account various potential regions. We used a technique based on the calculation system of interrelated indicators to the potential subjects’ assessment of the Central Federal District.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The system of interconnected indicators before each constitutes is the result of the normalization and aggregation of a number of particular indicators in common, characterizing different areas forming the region's economic potential and innovative capacity of the region which subsequently form the generalized technological potential. To normalize the rows of particular indicators the totality of their values by region and by one or another indicator in selected regions rank are considered. After that the value of the index corresponding to the number of regions whose performance is worse than that of the region is calculated. Then this number is compared with the total number of regions in the group under consideration.
Normalized score (NP) is the ratio of the number of regions whose performance is worse than that of the region (N i), the total number of regions in the given group (N z):
NP = (Ni / Nz) x 10
Normalized indices have a value from 0 to 10. Evaluation 10 is assigned to the region with the best indicator, 0 goes to an outsider region in this group. With ten percent of the regions on the actual index value take from 9 to 10, the following ten percent from 8 to 9, etc.
Aggregation of the obtained normalized values into the indicators occurs by calculating average values of respective potentials of the region. General index stands technological potential of the region, which is calculated as the average indicators of economic and innovative potential. To evaluate the economic potential of our region manufacturing, investment, financial and social spheres of each region are considered (Table 1).
Productive sector is represented by the following indicators: fixed assets (at book value at year-end); the number of industrial enterprises; number of farms; growth (index) of industrial production; growth (index) of agricultural production in all categories.
In the focus of the social sphere the following indicators are considered: population of the region; average annual employment in the economy; person’s average income, the number of reported crimes; the number of hospital beds per 10 thousand people.
Indicators of the investment areas: investment in fixed assets; investment growth (volume indices of investment in fixed capital as a percentage of the previous year); and investment in fixed assets per capita, RUR; foreign investment.
The financial sector is represented by the following indicators: net financial result (profit minus loss) of organizations, the amount of profit organizations; debt on credit obligations; bank deposits attracted by credit organizations.
Table 1 - Assessment of economic potential in the Central Federal District
Subject CFD Aggregated indicators
Production sphere Social services Investment scope Financial sphere
Belgorod region 6.33 5.55 3.89 6.66
Bryansk region 3.45 5.70 1.78 3.78
Vladimir region 4.44 5.56 5.33 5.55
Voronezh region 7.33 5.42 5.89 7.33
Ivanovo region 6.00 5.14 3.44 0.14
Kaluga region 3.89 3.20 5.11 3.22
Kostroma region 2.67 2.64 2.11 0.89
Kursk region 3.67 3.75 0.89 4.22
Lipetsk region 4.11 4.86 6.11 3.67
Moscow region 8.33 7.50 7.56 8.89
Orel region 2.89 1.95 2.01 3.00
Ryazan region 5.47 2.78 3.00 3.00
Smolensk region 3.33 3.89 4.67 5.11
Tambov region 4.22 3.34 2.11 2.34
Tver region 6.00 5.14 3.78 3.67
Tula region 6.11 7.08 5.33 6.89
Yaroslavl region 6.44 6.39 4.25 1.23
Moscow 5.70 7.36 8.67 9.44
As part of our innovation capacity three sets of indicators has been allocated (Table 2). The first block evaluated scale tabs of completely foreign economic activity (indicators of foreign trade including export and import for the CIS and non-CIS countries.)
Second is the degree of development of the internal innovation capacity building in areas: research development (number of organizations engaged in development research, and number of personnel employed in research and development), the number of organizations using information and communication technologies, the number of organizations implementing technological innovation; volume of innovative products, services, m. of RUR.
In the third block the business activity in the region was analyzed on the basis of indicators: gross regional product (GRP); number of small enterprises on the year-end period; average monthly salary; retail trade turnover; customer costs on average per capita.
Table 2 - Assessment of innovative potential in the Central Federal District
Subject CFD Aggregated indicators
Foreign trade Innovations Business activity
Belgorod region 7.78 5.00 7.00
Bryansk region 6.11 4.07 3.00
Vladimir region 4.46 6.48 4.89
Voronezh region 6.11 8.33 6.44
Ivanovo region 1.95 3.89 2.34
Kaluga region 4.17 5.74 5.44
Kostroma region 1.95 0.93 2.78
Kursk region 4.45 4.44 4.33
Lipetsk region 8.06 0.74 6.55
Moscow region 8.33 8.89 8.45
Orel region 3.06 1.85 2.55
Ryazan region 1.67 2.78 4.44
Smolensk region 5.56 2.04 4.33
Tambov region 1.00 4.44 2.89
Tver region 1.39 7.03 6.55
Tula region 6.95 5.92 6.67
Yaroslavl region 3.62 6.11 7.44
Moscow 9.44 9.44 7.55
Comprehensive assessment with the general index stands technological potential of the region, which is calculated as an average of the indicators of economic and innovative potential (Table 3) has identified the leading regions and regions outsiders.
Table 3 - Assessment of technological potential in the CFD
Subject CFD Economic potential Innovation potential Total technological capacity
Belgorod region 6.36 6.60 6.48
Bryansk region 3.43 4.39 3.91
Vladimir region 5.22 5.26 5.25
Voronezh region 6.49 6.96 6.73
Ivanovo region 3.65 3.38 3.52
Kaluga region 3.36 5.12 4.24
Kostroma region 3.02 1.89 2.46
Kursk region 3.72 4.41 4.07
Lipetsk region 4.69 5.12 4.91
Moscow region 8.07 8.56 8.32
Orel region 2.46 2.49 2.48
Ryazan region 3.56 2.96 3.26
Smolensk region 4.25 3.98 4.12
Tambov region 3.25 2.78 3.02
Tver region 4.40 4.99 4.70
Tula region 6.60 6.51 6.56
Yaroslavl region 6.79 5.72 6.26
Moscow 7.80 8.81 8.31
Absolute leaders are Moscow and Moscow region. In terms of the economic potential of the leading regions, except the capital region, Yaroslavl, Tula, Voronezh, Belgorod region. High rate of innovation capacity have Voronezh, Belgorod, Tula and Yaroslavl regions can be allocated. Rating technological capabilities allowed us to determine the leading regions, which became Voronezh, Tula, Belgorod, Yaroslavl region. The regions Kostroma, Orel, Tambov can be attributed as outsiders.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the assessment of the potentials, the integral evaluation matrix of the competitiveness of regions in the Central District is composed (Table 4).
Table 4 - Matrix of the integrated assessment of technological capacity in the Central Federal District
Group «A» Moscow region Moscow Voronezh region Tula region Belgorod region Yaroslavl region Group «B» Vladimir region Lipetsk region Tver region Smolensk region Kursk region
Group «C» Kaluga region Bryansk region Ivanovo region Ryazan region Group «D» Tambov region Orel region Kostroma region
Group «A» includes areas with high social and economic development Regional innovative type of development is characterized for these complexes. Leading regions (Voronezh and Tula region) characterizes the economic potential of high values (6.49 and 6.6, respectively) and innovative capacity (6.96 and 6.51 respectively). Voronezh region has the highest rate (above only in the capital region) current indicators (production dimensional sphere - 7.33; financial sector - 7.33). Tula region has a strong performance in the financial sector - 6.89 and in the social sphere - 7.08.
There is a mixed performance in the Yaroslavl region, which is characterized by high economic potential indicator - 6.79. This region has a potentially high degree of competitiveness, but not fully utilizes the innovative nature of the economy, which in the constancy of regional policy will not allow him to continue to remain in the group of regional complexes with high levels of socio-economic development.
Group «B» includes regions with an average level of social and economic development. Regional complexes of this group are characterized by a good level of aggregate indicators. This group includes five areas: Vladimir, Lipetsk, Tver, Smolensk, and Kursk. Vladimir region has scorecards of all indicators, the greatest innovation in (6.48), social (5.56) and financial (5.55) areas. Lipetsk region has a high indicator of trade in foreign (8.06), business activity (6.55). There is every reason to believe that the region has all chances to go to the group «A».
Tver region has a high value of the indicator of economic potential in the production (6.0), social (5.14) areas, as well as an indicator in the field of innovation (7.03) and in the sphere of business activity (6.55). When forming regional policy we should pay attention to the development of foreign trade. Almost all the indicators of the Smolensk region correspond to the average values; the only exception is a summary indicator of innovation in the field of (2.04), which requires additional attention when developing a strategy for regional economic development area. Kursk region is one indicator of the economic potential of the region, the value of which is below average (in the investment field - 3.22), other indicators correspond to the average values.
In general, this group of regional complexes has a balanced social and economic development. However, these regions should make better use of the potential competitiveness of these areas.
Group «C» includes the regions of inertial type of development. However, it should be noted that this group includes ambiguous developing complexes. Kaluga and Bryansk are the regions which have growth potential, but poor use of available opportunities. Kaluga region is characterized by economic potential below the average (in the investment field -3.11, in the social sphere - 3.2, in the financial sphere - 3.22). In this innovative potential is balanced for fixed indicators: in innovation - 5.7; in the sphere of business activity - 5.41; in
foreign trade - 4.17. Bryansk region characterizes by less balanced development of different industries: high level of the indicator in a social sphere (5.7) and very low indicator in the investment field (0.78). Similar situation and potential for innovation: a high rate in foreign trade (6.11) and almost two times lower than the combined indicator of business activity in the area (3.0).
This group also includes two regions, which are also inherent in the inertial type of economic development. They are Ivanovo and Ryazan regions. However, these regional systems do not focus on the potential growth of social and economic development. Overall ambiguous current level indicators and strategic competitiveness indicate a problem in social and economic development of these regional complexes.
Group «D» includes depressed regions with low levels of social and economic development: Tambov, Orel and Kostroma regions have low level indicators. Tambov region has an average indicator in the industrial sector (4.22), the rest of the summary indicators have a low value (in the financial sector - 2.34; foreign trade - 1). However, the formation of regional policy should pay attention to a relatively high level cue indicator innovative field (4.44), indicating the potential of the region.
Summary indicators of economic potential of the Orel region have practically the same level (1.95 to 3), a similar situation occurs with innovation potential (their values are in the range of 1.85 to 3.06).Kostroma region closes regional rating of the Central Federal District: the extremely low rate in the financial sphere (0.89) and high - in the investment field (5.89). Innovative potential has extremely low values in innovation - 0.93 and -1.95 in foreign trade.
We take into consideration that the potentials are not a guarantee of successful development of the region in the future. In our opinion, in terms of overcoming the crisis, the regional competitiveness of the complex will be determined by the potential of the region, but more importantly, depends on the degree you have been using the advantages of regions. Therefore, it is especially important for the regional authorities to build the correct vector of social and economic development.
REFERENCES
1. Vertakova Y.B. Theoretical aspects of the dynamic character and social and economic systems in the management of Regional Development. Vertakova Y.V., Plotnikov V.A. // News of the Russian Geographical society. 2011. vol. 143. No 6. p. 42-50.
2. Polozhentseva Y.S. Increase of the competitiveness of the region on the Basis of smoothing spatial differentiation: the cluster approach / Y.S. Polozhentseva // News of the Southwestern State University. 2011. No 1. P. 34.
3. Polyanin A.V. Concepual and strategic aspects of the regional economic growth and development / A.V. Polyanin // Economic Sciences. - 2011. - No 74. - p. 134-137.
4. Polyanin A.V. Formation and evaluation of the economic growth of the region / A.V. Polyanin // News of the Southwestern State University. Economics. Sociology. Management. - 2011. - No 1. - p. 47-52.
5. Repichev A.I. Monitoring methodology of farm relations in the integrated agroformations / I. I. Repichev, L.V. Tugacheva / / Kazan science. - 2010. - No 8. - p. 300-304.
