CC BY
1SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING ECONOMICS 3, 2023
Research article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3
Systematisation of Drivers for the Development of Socioeconomic Systems
Natalya Viktorova*1 , Pavel Karpenko1, Mariam Voskanyan2
1
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation,
viktorova_ng@spbstu.ru, karpenko_pavel@mail.ru
2
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation,
viktorova_ng@spbstu.ru
*
Corresponding author: viktorova_ng@spbstu.ru
Abstract
T
he Russian economy’s recovery processes during the postcrisis period are accompanied by clear
heterogeneity in the development of regional socioeconomic systems. Domestic researchers note
that over the past twenty years, the level of regional competition for both labour and financial
resources has increased. For example, in the Russian Federation, in the period from 2011 to 2018, the
number of labour migrants within the country increased by 1.59 times from 1894.1 thousand to 3,004.2
thousand people (although the 2018 figure decreased by 3% to 2928.0 thousand people in 2019), and
the inflow of foreign investment for the period from 2011 to 2018 decreased by 40.4%. At the same
time, in 2018, the largest share of foreign direct investment accounted for by the Central Federal District
was 60%. Differentiation of regional development is complicated not only by economic, but also by
natural, ecological, ethnic, political and other factors. In this regard, the role of a competent economic
policy at the regional level is increasing, the main goal of which should be the sustainable development
of territories in conditions that change under the influence of these factors. Thus, ‘the implementation
of an effective regional policy in the context of the overall development of the country’s economy
is impossible without an analysis of regional specialisation and concentration of production in the
country’. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyse the theoretical foundations for determining
the specialisation of regional socioeconomic systems and the formation of a classification of factors
influencing the development of regional socially significant systems. The study is based on the scientific
works of Russian authors in the field of competitiveness, regional differentiation, the geoeconomic
position of a region and its economic independence and development prospects.
Keywords: regional competitiveness, specialisation formation factors, the regional differentiation problem,
sustainable regional development
Citation: Viktorova, N., Karpenko, P., Voskanyan, M., 2023. Systematisation of Drivers for the
Development of Socioeconomic Systems. Sustainable Development and Engineering Economics 3, 3.
https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0
© Viktorova, N., Karpenko, P., Voskanyan, M., 2023. Published by Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic
University
34 Enterprises and sustainable development of regions
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING ECONOMICS 3, 2023
Научная статья
УДК 332.142
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3
Систематизация Драйверов Развития Социально-Экономических Систем
Наталья Викторова*1 , Павел Карпенко1, Мариам Восканян2
1
Санкт-Петербургский политехнический университет Петра Великого, Санкт-Петербург, Россия,
viktorova_ng@spbstu.ru, karpenko_pavel@mail.ru
2
Российско-армянский университет, Ереван, Армения, mariam.voskanyan@rau.am
*
Автор, ответственный за переписку: viktorova_ng@spbstu.ru
Аннотация
П
роцессы восстановления российской экономики в посткризисный период сопровождаются
явной неоднородностью развития региональных социально-экономических систем.
Отечественные исследователи отмечают, за последнее двадцатилетие возрастает уровень
региональной конкуренции как за трудовые, так и финансовые ресурсы. Так, например, в период
с 2011 по 2018 года в Российской Федерации количество трудовых мигрантов внутри страны
возросло с 1894.1 тыс. до 3004.2 тыс. человек, т.е. в 1.59 раз (но в 2019 году сократилось на 3%
по сравнению с 2018 годом до 2928 тыс. человек), а приток иностранных инвестиций за период с
2011 по 2018 сократился на 40.4% (при этом в 2018 году наибольшая доля прямых иностранных
инвестиций приходилась на Центральный федеральный округ, 60%). Дифференциацию
регионального развития осложняют не только экономические, но и природные, экологические,
этнические, политические и прочие факторы. В этой связи возрастает роль грамотной экономической
политики на региональном уровне, главной целью которой должно являться устойчивое развитие
территорий в меняющихся под влиянием данных факторов условий. Таким образом, проведение
эффективной региональной политики в контексте общего развития экономики страны невозможно
без анализа региональной специализации и концентрации производства в стране. Следовательно,
целью данного исследования является анализ теоретических основ к определению специализации
региональных социально-экономических систем и формирование классификации факторов,
влияющих на развитие региональных социально-значимых систем. Исследование базируется
на научных трудах отечественных авторов в области конкурентоспособности, региональной
дифференциации, геоэкономического положения региона, его экономической самостоятельности
и перспектив развития.
Ключевые слова: конкурентоспособность региона, факторы формирования специализации, проблема
дифференцированности регионов, устойчивое развитие региона
Цитирование: Викторова, Н., Карпенко, П., Восканян, М., 2023. Систематизация Драйверов Раз-
вития Социально-Экономических Систем. Sustainable Development and Engineering Economics 3, 3.
https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3
Эта работа распространяется под лицензией CC BY-NC 4.0
© Викторова, Н., Карпенко, П., Восканян, М., 2023. Издатель: Санкт-Петербургский политехнический
университет Петра Великого
Предприятия и устойчивое развитие регионов 35
Systematisation of Drivers for the Development of Socioeconomic Systems
1. Introduction
The competitiveness of a national economy is determined by the competitive capabilities of re-
gional socioeconomic systems, which are considered local centres for generating benefits. Accordingly,
the choice of directions for regional development is critical. The differentiation of regional development
is complicated not only by economic but also by natural, ecological, ethnic, political and other factors.
The relevance of this study is dictated by the growing role of a competent economic policy at the region-
al level, the main goal of which should be the sustainable development of territories in conditions that
change under the influence of these factors. Thus, ‘the implementation of an effective regional policy in
the context of the overall development of the country’s economy is impossible without an analysis of
regional specialisation and concentration of production in the country’ (Rodionov et al., 2019(a)). The
purpose of this article is to analyse the theoretical foundations for determining the specialisation of re-
gional socioeconomic systems and to study the classifications of factors that influence the development
of regional socially significant systems.
A large number of works by scientists in three main areas are devoted to the development of the
theory of regional specialisation: the ‘neoclassical theory of economics, new trade and new economic
geography’ (Rodionov et al., 2019(a)). Regional specialisation, regardless of approach or direction, is
based on a set of factors that explain it (Rodionov et al., 2019(b)). At the same time, as Rastvortseva
(2012) notes, ‘all the factors that underlie the definition of regional specialisation can be divided into two
main groups: “primary factors (geography and natural resources) and secondary (geographical distance
between economic agents)”’. Depending on the direction, these factors, in different combinations, form
the basis of regional specialisation. ‘So, for example, neoclassical theory emphasises the role of primary
factors, and the theory of new trade, in turn, supplements primary factors (geographical location, avail-
ability of production factors, technologies) with secondary ones’ (Rastvortseva, 2018).
As Vasiliev (2007) notes, the distinctive features of the region – diversity of resources and condi-
tions for economic activity – form the prerequisites for the specialisation of regions. At the same time,
the specialisation of regional socioeconomic systems is directly related to the ability of the territories to
effectively produce mass products – that is, to use available economic and natural resources to reduce
the cost of products (Vasiliev, 2007; Kudryavtseva and Shvediani, 2018). An important aspect in this
case is the concentration of any industry in the region, which can be represented as a set of geograph-
ically neighbouring organisations united by the field of activity and complementing each other, or, in
other words, clusters (Frevel, 2013). Cluster theory is currently being widely studied by both foreign and
domestic scientists (see, e.g., Rastvortseva and Kuga, 2012; Shvediani and Kudryavtseva, 2018). With-
in the issue of regional specialisation, cluster theory once played an important role by explaining the
emergence of positive economic effects from the concentration of high-tech industries in one territory.
Graphic systematisation is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Theoretical aspects of the formation of regional specialisation
36 Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2023, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3
Viktorova, N., Karpenko, P., Voskanyan, M.
Thus, to summarise, the basis of regional specialisation rests on external factors, such as geograph-
ical location, the availability of a resource base for production, the spatial location of enterprises and
their interaction with each other, as well as the internal ability of regions to effectively manage external
factors for the production of a regional product. It is these provisions that unite various interpretations of
regional specialisation, which, in general, can be understood as the dominance of any type of economic
activity in a certain territory (Rastvortseva and Kuga, 2012), the result of which is that products focused
on satisfying not only their own needs but also the needs of other regions or, in some cases, export ori-
ented (Vasiliev, 2007).
2. Literature Review
The prerequisites for uneven regional socioeconomic system development may be the differences
in the elements that form the regional systems at the institutional, technical and technological, social,
economic, environmental and other levels, which cause deformation and reduce the efficiency of the
functioning of these systems (Buvaltseva and Sokolovsky, 2008). At the same time, Buvaltseva and
Sokolovsky (2008) note that it is precisely ‘the results of the process of forming the spatial structure
of the national economy’ that have the greatest influence on the differentiation of regions, as a result of
which there has been a shift in redirecting national income to some regions to the detriment of others.
On the one hand, the infrastructural, resource, technological and production potential accumulated in a
region determines the directions of development of regional specialisation; on the other hand, it increas-
es the gap between those regions that were once deprived of these resources.
The differentiation of regions, which is based on their specialisation, is currently being studied
with great interest by domestic researchers. Thus, in a study by Rastvortseva (2018), the author carried
out an analysis of the spatial economic dynamics to identify the differentiation of the regions of the Rus-
sian Federation by assessing the specialisation (using the Krugman Specialisation Index) and concen-
tration of industrial production (using Herfindahl–Hirschman indicators, the Gini Index, the Krugman
Concentration Index and concentration ratios 3 and 4 (CR3 and CR4). According to the results of the
study, Rastvortseva uggested that during the analysed period (from 2002 to 2010), there was a decrease
in the specialisation index in 78.5% of the regions, while in the rest, either an increase or an absence of
any structural changes was observed. After ranking regions according to the degree of specialisation,
Rastvortseva (2018) identified three groups of regions.
1. ‘Regions with a high degree of specialisation (regions with a strong extractive sector), which are
characterised by an excess of the average value of GRP per capita, labour productivity and wages, and
the unemployment rate in such regions is close to the national average.
2. Other regions – regions with a high value of the specialisation index, but with lower than the
national average indicators of GRP, wages and labour productivity, and on the contrary, a high unem-
ployment rate relative to the national average.
3. Regions with a low level of specialisation, which are characterised by the lowest level of spe-
cialization, GRP per capita, labour productivity, wages, and low unemployment (which, according to the
author, is the result of the diversification of the manufacturing industry in the region)’.
It should be noted that one of the main results of Rastvortseva’s (2018) work is undoubtedly the
conclusion that ‘narrow specialisation in any sector of industry’ can afford ‘only regions that ensure the
development of the economy through mining’, which generally confirms the raw material orientation of
the Russian economy.
For the purposes of analysing and identifying the different points of view that Russian authors
have adopted on the issue of differentiation of Russian regions, which is based on their specialisations,
we will consider the work of Kutsenko and Eferin (2019). In their study, based on the methodology of
the European Cluster Observatory, the authors conducted a comprehensive study on the topic of indus-
try specialisation and the dynamics of development of regions in the Russian Federation in the period
Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2023, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3 37
Systematisation of Drivers for the Development of Socioeconomic Systems
from 2005 to 2015 (eighty constituent entities of the Russian Federation participated in the selection, but
the analysis was carried out only for seventy-one due to the absence of a pronounced concentration of
industries in a number of regions) (Kutsenko and Eferin, 2019). Using statistical analysis methods, data
including average employee numbers and data on accrued wage indicators by industry, Kutsenko and
Eferin (2019) determined that in 2015, considering the number of industries of specialisation and the
degree of their development, the regions were divided into four main categories.
1. ‘Agglomeration’ (high indicators of the number of specialised industries and their levels of
development: St. Petersburg, the Leningrad region, Moscow and the Moscow region, the Republic of
Tatarstan).
2. ‘Diversification’ (a large number of areas of competence not distinguished by high growth rates:
for example, the Vladimir, Yaroslavl and Kirov regions).
3. ‘Specialisation’ (regions characterised by a narrow set of professional activity areas: for exam-
ple, the Murmansk, Tyumen and Rostov regions).
4. ‘Differentiation’ (regions characterised by a small number of specialised industries and a low
degree of development: for example, the Republic of Buryatia and the Tambov and Astrakhan regions).
The typology of sectoral development identified by the authors of the study was compared with
‘dynamic development models, such as “emergence”, “intensification”, “fading”, and “disappearance”’,
which allowed Kutsenko and Eferin (2019) to identify the following pattern: ‘regions with a large num-
ber of industries of specialisation (types of “agglomeration” and “diversification”) are subject to large-
scale structural changes, while regions of the “specialisation” or “differentiation” type are characterised
by a wide variability of structural models, which can be explained, first of all, by geography’. ‘Structural
changes are most often observed in the regions of the western part of Russia, while for the eastern part
the situation is the opposite: either no changes occur, or there is a “disappearance” of specialization
industries’ (Grinchel and Nazarova, 2019). Factors such as proximity to million-plus cities play an im-
portant role, and the authors of the study found that the greatest structural changes occur ‘around the
territories where such cities are present; in areas remote from economically developed centres, these pro-
cesses are rarely carried out’ (Kutsenko and Eferin, 2019). The observed regularities allowed the authors
of the study to formulate a new typology of regions according to the speed of structural changes: regional
location zones described as ‘funnel’, ‘streams’ and ‘safe haven’. Thus, ‘the approach developed by the
authors formulates theoretical grounds for clarifying the measures of sectoral development in regions
that differ in the pace of structural transformations, proximity to large agglomerations, and sensitivity to
changes in the sectoral portfolio’ (Kutsenko and Eferin, 2019).
In the context of Russian regions’ increased interest in innovation, one promising area in the theory
of regional development has become ‘smart specialisation’ (Kutsenko et al., 2018). Unlike the classical
idea of the essence of specialisation, ‘smart specialisation’ is ‘a set of rules for choosing priority areas
within the framework of an innovative development strategy based on the competitive advantages of
each region and the compliance of the strengths of the scientific and technical sphere with market needs’
(Zemtsov and Barinova, 2016; Kutsenko et al., 2018). At the same time, ‘smart specialisation’ lies at
the intersection of industries, and its interdisciplinary focus allows it to benefit from the advantages of
new, rapidly growing areas of science and technology, which increases a region’s chances of leadership
(Kutsenko et al., 2018). From the point of view of regional management, ‘smart specialisation’ makes
it possible to differentiate competencies and support measures for regions, thereby avoiding duplication
and excessive or even unreasonable support from federal authorities (Zemtsov and Barinova, 2016).
Today, the problem of developing an effective innovation policy remains relevant for regions with-
in the Russian Federation (Afanasyeva, 2014; Bekov et al., 2009). Using ‘smart specialisation’ princi-
ples at the regional level will make it possible to move away from ‘the paradigm of supporting research
and innovation activities of all regions, regardless of their priorities, specific features, geographic loca-
tion and resource provision, and move to a strategy to support regions with high innovative potential’
38 Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2023, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3
Viktorova, N., Karpenko, P., Voskanyan, M.
(Zemtsov and Barinova, 2016). Zemtsov and Barinova (2016) considered the use of ‘smart specialisa-
tion’ principles to justify the need for a differentiated innovation policy within the Russian Federation.
In this study, the authors performed a cluster analysis, which resulted in a new typology of regions and
cities for the purpose of developing reasoned measures to support the innovative development of terri-
tories and other tools within the framework of regional innovation policy. Thus, the authors of the study
identified seven categories of regions: the first group represents global centres for the development of
innovations, including the federal cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, which are characterised by con-
centrated innovation cycle stages that convey the maximum potential for innovative development and
the presence of a developed infrastructure. Further, the regions are ranked according to the degree to
which certain indicators decrease, which characterises their innovation potential, infrastructure equip-
ment and industry specialisation. The typology of regions and a brief description of the identified groups
are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Typology of Russian Federation regions and their descriptions (Zemtsov and Barinova, 2016)
Region Type Region Type Description
Global centres (Moscow, ‘Concentration of all stages of the innovation cycle, maximum potential (largest
St. Petersburg) agglomerations), developed innovation infrastructure, etc.’
Multifunctional innovation ‘High potential, diversity of functions of the innovation system, centres for the
centres creation and diffusion of innovations on an all-Russian scale, high concentration
of human capital, developed infrastructure’
Specialised creative re- ‘Medium-high potential, innovative systems are specialised in a number of scien-
gions tific and industrial sectors. Presence of large cities and agglomeration effects’
Acceptor-creative research ‘Average potential, but high research and production potential remains. The pres-
and production regions ence of strong technical universities and large enterprises. Active introduction of
new technologies and methods in the manufacturing sectors. Predominance of
localisation effects’
Strongly accepting middle ‘Average potential. They borrow and implement more new technologies and
regions products than they create. There is a group of raw materials and agricultural
regions’
Weakly acceptor semi-pe- ‘Low to medium low potential. New technologies for the country are not being
ripheral regions created. Diffusion of innovations due to remoteness or due to institutional factors
is limited, new technologies are being introduced with low intensity’
Underdeveloped peripheral ‘Weak innovative potential, low innovativeness of regional communities. High
regions share of extraction of raw materials and agriculture in the economy’
According to Zemtsov and Barinova (2016) themselves, ‘this typology requires further clarifica-
tion for specific regions, with a preliminary identification of the scientific and industrial specialisation
of the region’. In general, in our opinion, a strategy of regional innovation development that is based
on the principles of ‘smart specialisation’ and focuses on supporting regions that have the potential and
resource opportunities for the development and diffusion of innovations can become a promising strat-
egy area for ensuring the balanced economic development of subjects of the Russian Federation. The
research included in the literature review is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Literature review systematisation
Author(s) Research Content Methodology Results
(Rastvortseva, 2018) Analysis of spatial economic Assess the specialisation (via the Three groups of regions:
dynamics to identify the differenti- Krugman Specialisation Index)
- regions with a high
ation of the regions of the Russian and concentration of industrial
degree of specialisation
Federation production (via the Herfind-
ahl–Hirschman scores, the Gini - regions with a low
Index, the Krugman Concentra- level of specialisation
tion Index and the CR3 and CR4
concentration scores) - other regions
Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2023, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3 39
Systematisation of Drivers for the Development of Socioeconomic Systems
(Kutsenko and Efer- Analysis of differentiation of Rus- Statistical analysis using data Four categories of
in, 2019) sian regions based on specialisa- on average employee numbers regions:
tion according to the methodology and accrued wage indicators by
- agglomeration
of the European Cluster Obser- industry
vatory - diversification
- specialisation
- differentiation
(Zemtsov and Bari- Changing the paradigm of regional Cluster analysis based on the Seven types of regions:
nova, 2016) innovation policy in Russia from principles of ‘smart specialisa-
- global centres
alignment to ‘smart specialisation’ tion’ (innovative potential indi-
cators, infrastructure equipment - multifunctional innova-
and industry specialisation) tion centres
- specialised creative
regions
- acceptor-creative
research and production
regions
- strongly accepting
middle regions
- weakly acceptor
semi-peripheral regions
- underdeveloped pe-
ripheral regions
Thus, identifying sectoral specialisation in regional socioeconomic systems is important for the
development of territories. Determining priority areas for development is impossible without clarifying
external factors and a region’s internal capabilities for implementing innovative socioeconomic devel-
opment strategies (Gretchin and Polyanin, 2015; Dokukina and Polyanin, 2014). Analysing regional
specialisations makes it possible to comprehensively study the dynamics of a region’s development
and differentiate all subjects according to the degree of their resource equipment and the possibility of
production, on the basis of which to form reasonable requirements for regional authorities in the field of
structural development of territories in order to obtain the maximum economic and social effect.
3. Materials and Methods
The literature review set the direction for further research into the classifications of economic
factors and provided a rationale for focusing on factors related to science and innovation policy, wages
and working conditions and traditional economic indicators. As highlighted in the literature review, the
increase in the level of competition in world markets through the introduction of the results of intel-
lectual and innovative activities, as well as a number of other equally important external factors, has
affected regional socioeconomic system development in the Russian Federation indirectly or directly
(Ivanov, 2006; Polyanin et al., 2014). To date, the domestic literature presents a wide variety of methods
for assessing regional socioeconomic system development, which differ not only in the methodological
apparatus used but also in the rationale for choosing the resulting indicators of regional development.
To date, domestic authors, including those based on the fundamental works of foreign researchers, offer
various methods for assessing regional socioeconomic system development.
It is difficult to form a unified classification of the economic factors that influence regional devel-
opment because the Russian Federation is characterised by large territories and a number of climatic,
geographical, ethnographic and other conditions that differentiate the regions significantly in terms of
both the material and human resources available to them, which in turn determines the specifics of re-
gional development. Domestic researchers agree that for the purposes of sustainable development of
territories and the state as a whole, considering the principles of integrated and systematic approaches.
The management system for the socioeconomic development of regions should consider all factors and
conditions that affect the resulting indicators of territorial functioning as well as their competitiveness
40 Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2023, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3
Viktorova, N., Karpenko, P., Voskanyan, M.
(Bashirova, 2018; Rudenko, 2017; Shaporova et al., 2017).
The study uses modern general scientific methods: content analysis of modern and domestic sci-
entific literature, synthesis and systematisation. The theoretical basis of the study is founded on articles
by Russian authors in the fields of competitiveness, regional differentiation, regional geoeconomic posi-
tioning, regional economic independence and regional development prospects.
4. Results and Discussion
Bashirova (2018) notes that the conditions for the formation and development of regional socio-
economic systems can be understood as a set of ‘circumstances that characterise regional development
both at the present time and the initial level (basic) of the economic development of the region, its
parameters relative to the position susceptibility to innovation and socio-economic transformation’. In
this context, Bashirova (2018) understands factors as ‘a set of driving forces, reasons that determine the
direction of the socio-economic development of the region and that can influence the sustainability and
balance of this development’. Shaporova et al. (2017) offered a more comprehensive definition of the
conditions for regional socioeconomic system development and presented them as ‘a set of processes
and relationships necessary to create and change the internal and external structures of the socio-eco-
nomic system’. At the same time, the authors characterise the factors of development in the same way
– as ‘driving forces’. The interpretation of these economic categories in the study is interesting, and Luk-
yanenko (2014) points out that the factors of regional socioeconomic system development are ‘the main
resource of production activity and the economy as a whole; the driving force of economic, production
processes that influence the result of production, economic activity’, while under the basic conditions for
the functioning and development of regional socioeconomic systems, the author understands ‘the totality
of factors (resources) possessed by this system’.
Despite different approaches to determining the factors and conditions for regional socioeconomic
system development, the authors agree that these categories are not only interconnected through their
influence on regional socioeconomic systems but are also capable of influencing each other. Thus, ‘con-
ditions allow the formation and change of factors, which, in turn, stimulate the transformation of con-
ditions in accordance with adaptation to the new realities of the existence of socio-economic systems’
(Bashirova, 2018).
To date, the domestic literature has accumulated major theoretical baggage related to the detailed
classifications and typologies of factors and conditions for regional socioeconomic system development.
At the same time, according to Bashirova (2018), it is impossible to accurately state the strength and
nature of the influence of the identified factors; for example, not only can positive factors (such as the
inflow of foreign direct investment or the growth of innovative activity in the region) have a stimulating
effect, but negative ones, which can provoke governments to use extraordinary development tools, can
also lead to stimulation. The next step of research is to consider several classifications of factors and con-
ditions for the development of social and economic systems at the regional level proposed by domestic
researchers.
The simplest classification considered is the division of ‘factors into internal and external, which
allows focusing on the location of the factors and subsequent qualitative assessment of the level of
development of the region’ (Lukyanenko, 2014). Thus, Dambueva and Boloneva (2019) distinguish
between internal factors (e.g. institutional, organisational and managerial, market, natural resources,
sociopolitical, scientific and technological progress) and external factors (e.g. political, legal and social).
Gavrilov (2002) notes that environmental factors – external suppliers of goods and services, external
consumers, competing regions, financial organisations, transport enterprises, general economic, general
political, natural and environmental, demographic, scientific and technical factors – can also have an
indirect influence. Gavrilov (2002) refers to the factors of the internal environment: ‘the production and
resource potential of the region; structure of the regional market; personnel potential of the region; re-
gional budget; regional development strategy’. One of the main drawbacks of dividing factors by source
Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2023, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3 41
Systematisation of Drivers for the Development of Socioeconomic Systems
of influence is the impossibility, based on the chosen typology, of identifying the specific features of a
particular region and assessing their innovative attractiveness. In this regard, an approach was proposed
to structure the factors that influence regional development, which consists of two main groups:
- ‘traditional development factors that ensure the ability to meet the demands of society, which are
the factors of competitiveness;
- attractive (innovative) factors of development that characterise the unique features and attractive-
ness of the regional socio-economic system, which makes it possible to evaluate competitive advantages.
Examples of attractive factors are natural, such as natural conditions or resources, and economic factors,
such as labour resources, infrastructure, scientific and technological factors, etc.’ (Lukyanenko, 2014).
An important feature of this classification is the duality caused by factors belonging to multiple
groups. For example, scientific and technical factors can belong both to the group of traditional factors
(i.e. characterising technological solutions in the process of production activities) and to the group of at-
tractive ones (i.e. as a unique technology for the production of a product or service, such as innovation).
Kisurkin (2012) suggests considering the factors and conditions of socioeconomic system development
at the regional level and from the standpoint of an innovative approach. This approach is unique in that it
makes it possible to solve a number of tasks aimed at achieving effective regional socioeconomic system
development, including the following:
- searching for essential factors in the region’s development,
- determining the institutional conditions for the region’s development,
- identifying interrelations and hierarchy of the structure of factors,
- determining the optimal ratio of invested funds and the obtained scientific results, and
- evaluating the region’s response to the impact of the identified factors of innovative development.
The result of Kisurkin’s (2012) study is a classification of factors that influence innovative regional
socioeconomic system development, as obtained by the multicriteria classification of direct and indirect
factors divided into blocks (groups) of socioeconomic indicators for the purposes of applying the man-
agerial approach. Figure 2 shows a graphical representation of the classification proposed by the author
according to meaningful and formal features.
Figure 2. Classification of economic resources: factors influencing regional socioeconomic system
development (Kisurkin, 2012)
42 Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2023, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3
Viktorova, N., Karpenko, P., Voskanyan, M.
Among the features of the classification presented by Kisurkin (2012), we note the feature ‘ac-
cording to the method of measurement’, within which ‘soft’ and ‘hard factors’ are distinguished. This
approach is often found in domestic review articles with links to foreign sources (Bashirova, 2012;
Rudenko, 2017). The classification under consideration makes it possible to combine diverse factors in
terms of the possibility of a quantitative assessment. So, among the hard (i.e. quantitatively measured)
factors, we distinguish the following: factors focused on production resources, factors established and
regulated by the state (e.g. tax systems, budget allocations, subsidies, other support programmes, etc.)
and factors oriented to the manufacturing and service sectors (e.g. infrastructure, population and con-
sumption patterns). Soft factors include those that cannot be quantified and that characterise the stability
of the political system and social climate, the structure of the economy and individual economic entities,
the quality and accessibility of the education system, health care, quality of life in the region and others.
The results of a study by Uraev et al. (2016) are interesting, and the authors consider the process
of strategic regional socioeconomic system development using the example of an enterprise in the ra-
dio-electronic industry in the Republic of Tatarstan. Thus, the authors identified two large blocks that
have direct and indirect impacts on various aspects of an enterprise’s activities as a socioeconomic sys-
tem:
1. The microenvironment, which is the immediate environment of the enterprise (i.e. the socio-
economic system), is formed by suppliers, consumers, dealers, marketing agents, existing and potential
competitors and other entities.
2. The macroenvironment, which has an indirect impact on the activities of the enterprise through
the activities of environmental actors (e.g. state, markets, financial institutions, etc.; Uraev et al., 2016).
Based on the need to jointly study the factors and conditions for the development of regional so-
cioeconomic systems, Sharipova et al. (2017) considered three main approaches to the formation of an
interconnected system of these categories based on the context of global economic systems (industrial
and postindustrial economies). Table 3 summarises the characteristics of these approaches.
Table 3. Characteristics of approaches to forming a system of the factors and conditions of regional
socioeconomic system development (Sharipova, 2017)
The regional
System Development System Development Con-
Approach socioeconomic
Factors ditions
system acts as...
First approach: the system of A structural element of Natural resources, production ca- The totality of balanced factors
priority factors in an industrial the industrial economy. pacity, human resources, research forms the conditions for the devel-
economy potential. opment of regional socioeconomic
system functioning.
Second approach: life cycle fac- A resource base of the The main factor of development is The totality of production factors
tors in a postindustrial economy postindustrial econ- capital (factors of production) and (capital) forms the conditions for
omy. services (or ‘exclusive post-indus- regional socioeconomic system
trial product’). development.
Third approach: factors of the In this approach, the conditions and factors for the development of
internal and external environ- regional socioeconomic systems are equal (e.g., the institutional factor
ment in the conditions of the — forms the institutional development environment).
formation of a regional socio-
economic system
Based on the proposed classification, as well as the identified shortcomings, the authors of the
study propose models for regional socioeconomic system development that consider the operating fac-
tors and necessary conditions for development. In the proposed models of ‘progressive’ regional socio-
economic systems – that is, systems that easily adapt to changing conditions – the authors identify the
Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2023, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3 43
Systematisation of Drivers for the Development of Socioeconomic Systems
factors and conditions of development as follows:
- reducing fluctuations in governance at the regional level,
- regulating current risks,
- influencing federal development authorities,
- long-term interests of society,
- technological institutionalisation of the regional economy,
- spatial localisation, etc.
For ‘unstable’ regional socioeconomic systems – that is, systems that under conditions of adap-
tation to a changing environment cannot withstand competition and demonstrate the results of stagnant
activity – the following ‘stabilising’ factors and development conditions are characteristic:
- regional budget,
- rendering assistance to large subjects of the system,
- creating economic zones,
- disseminating (diffusing) innovations,
- diversifying regional production specialisations, and
- maintaining a balance of priorities.
According to Malinin et al. (2019), in the current conditions of globalisation and increased world
competition, the strongest impact on regional socioeconomic system development is exerted not only
by the internal factors of national and regional economies but by the global factors of the modern world
economy. Considering regional socioeconomic system development from the perspective of increasing
competitiveness in world markets by increasing the productivity of available natural and economic re-
sources, the authors distinguish between internal development factors (or factors of the internal environ-
ment): ‘the specifics of entrepreneurial the environment caused by the institute of entrepreneurship that
has developed in the region; a specific combination of possible types of entrepreneurial activity, char-
acteristic only for a given region’ (Malinin et al., 2019). Among the external development factors (fac-
tors of the external environment), the authors single out the geoeconomic position of the region and its
‘embedding’ in the overall picture of the formation of a single geoeconomic space (country and world).
In the current realities of the national economic system, the solution to most socioeconomic issues,
including the issues of access to education, healthcare, housing, environmental protection and improv-
ing the quality of life of the population, has been moved to the regional level (Bashirova, 2018). At the
same time, given Russian management practices at the regional and local levels, domestic researchers
focus on the fact that most regions ‘adhere to a position of expectation’ and do not seek either economic
independence or an active regional socioeconomic policy (Bashirova, 2018; Baranova, 2019; Smeshko,
2014). Despite this, Zimakova et al. (2019) note that regional socioeconomic systems within the Rus-
sian Federation have great potential for accelerated territorial development; however, the management
of this development requires a better orientation than before, one that takes into account the influence
of environmental factors and conditions on the functioning of these systems. At the same time, further
promises about the development of regions and the country as a whole should be accompanied by in-
novative approaches to understanding the nature of socioeconomic processes at the local and regional
levels (Bakharev et al., 2018; Konnikov et al., 2019). Moreover, it is necessary to understand that the
constant impact of a combination of factors forces a regional one. The system is constantly changing and
adapting to new conditions (Polyanin and Makarova, 2014). Thus, the more complex and dynamic the
environment in which regional socioeconomic system development must take place, the more flexible
44 Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2023, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3
Viktorova, N., Karpenko, P., Voskanyan, M.
and adaptive the regional management system should be (Bashirova, 2018).
5. Conclusion
This article discusses the theoretical aspects of the formation of regional specialisation. Based
on scientific articles by domestic authors on regional differentiation within the Russian Federation and
classifications based on them, this article analyses approaches to determining the factors and conditions
for regional development and characterises approaches to forming a system of factors and conditions for
regional socioeconomic system development. The conclusions reached by the author as a result of the
study are as follows:
1. The basis of regional specialisation is founded on external factors, such as geographical loca-
tion, the availability of a resource base for production, the spatial location of enterprises, their interac-
tions with each other and the internal ability of regions to effectively manage external factors for the
production of a regional product.
2. The analysis of regional specialisation makes it possible to comprehensively study the dynam-
ics of a region’s development and to differentiate all subjects according to the degree of their resource
equipment and the possibility of production potential, on the basis of which it is then possible to create
reasonable requirements for regional authorities in the field of territorial structural development to obtain
the maximum economic and social effect.
3. In modern conditions of globalisation and increasing world competition, the strongest impact on
the development of regional socioeconomic systems is exerted not only by internal national and regional
economic factors but also by global factors related to the modern world economy.
Acknowledgments
The research was financed as part of the project “Development of a methodology for instrumental
base formation for analysis and modeling of the spatial socio-economic development of systems based
on internal reserves in the context of digitalization” (FSEG-2023-0008)
References
Afanasyeva N.V., 2014. Issues of forming an innovative economy. Econ. Entrep. 8(49), 46–49.
Bakharev V.V., Konnikov E.A., Konnikova O.A., Lukashevich N.S., 2019. Influence of the composition of foreign trade of the Russian
Federation on the socio-economic indicators of the country. Econ. Sci. 179, 38–44.
Baranova, I. V., 2019. Social infrastructure as a component of the administrative component of the social potential of the region. Journal of
Legal and Economic Research 4, 153-157.
Bashirova A.A., 2018. Factors and conditions influencing the balanced development of the region. Reg. Probl. Transform. Econ. 9(95),
102−110.
Bekov M.B., Ivanov V.V., Surina A.V., Tukkel I.L., 2009. Innovation Management: National and Regional Innovation Systems. Sci. Tech.
Bull. St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University 5(87), 13–20.
Buvaltseva V.I., Sokolovsky M.V., 2008. Uneven Regional Development: Features of Manifestation and Ways to Overcome. Sib. Financ.
Sch. 3, 43–48.
Dambueva M.M., Boloneva A.A., 2019. Factors in the development of regional socio-economic systems. Educ. Sci. 8(189), 631–635.
Dokukina I.A., Polyanin A.V., 2014. Formation of strategic cost management for innovative development in terms of increasing the com-
petitiveness of the region. Cent. Russ. Bull. Soc. Sci. 2(32), 219–225.
Frevel B., 2013. Sicherheit: Ein (un-)stillbares Grundbedürfnis. Springer, Freiburg
Gavrilov A.I., 2002. Regional Economics and Management, Moscow: Unity, 239.
Gretchin V.V., Polyanin A.V., 2015. Directions for improving innovative activity at the regional level, in: Forecasting the Innovative De-
velopment of the National Economy within the Framework of Rational Environmental Management: Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Scientific and Practical Conference, Perm, November 13, 2015. Perm: Perm State National Research University, pp. 39–46.
Grinchel B.M., Nazarova E.A., 2019. Russian regions: competitive attractiveness and sustainable development. St. Petersburg State Uni-
versity of Aerospace Instrumentation, St. Petersburg. 248 p.
Ivanov V.V. 2006. Methodological problems of formation of regional innovation policy. Secur. Eurasia 1(23), 261–278.
Kisurkin A.A., 2012. Factors influencing the innovative development of the region and their classification by management levels. Mod.
Probl. Sci. Educ. 2, 294.
Konnikov E.A., Pankova L.V., Fedorova E.E., 2019. Influence of environmental factors on the dynamics of the development of the credit
market in the context of key groups of credit products. Econ. Sci. 172, 37–41.
Kudryavtseva T.Yu., Shvediani A.E., 2018. Analysis of the relationship between cluster specialization and gross regional product. Econ.
Sci. 11(5), 66–73.
Kutsenko E., Eferin, Ya., 2019. ‘Whirlpools’ and ‘Quiet Harbors’ in the dynamics of industry specialization of Russian regions. Foresight
Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2023, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3 45
Systematisation of Drivers for the Development of Socioeconomic Systems
13(3), 24–40.
Kutsenko E., Islankina E., Kindras A., 2018. Is it possible to be smart alone? Research of innovative strategies of Russian regions in the
context of smart specialization. Foresight 12(1), 25–45.
Lukyanenko V.N., 2014. Factors in the development of regional socio-economic systems: theoretical aspects. Bull. Transbaikal State Uni-
versity 9, 119–124.
Malinin A.M., Chepiga P.N., Gorlova D.D., 2019. Study of the influence factor in the context of the development of regional socio-econom-
ic systems. Mod. Asp. Econ. 12–2(268), 20–29.
Polyanin A.V., Makarova Yu.L., 2014. Economic development of regional business spaces. Bull. South-Western State University (Series:
Econ., Sociol., Manag.) 2, 36–48.
Polyanin A.V., Makarova Yu.V., Dokukina I.A., 2014. Innovative and economic potentials of regions as a priority of competitiveness in the
national economy. Nat. Interests: Priorities Secur. 10(23), 17–26.
Rastvortseva S.N., 2018. Economic activity of Russian regions. Econ. Soc. Chang.: Facts, Trends, Forecasts 11(1), 84–98.
Rastvortseva S.N., Kuga Ya.T., 2012. Regional specialization and geographical concentration of industry in Russia. Sci. Bull. Belgorod
State University (Series: Econ., Comp. Sci.) 23, 13–1(132), 37–46.
Rodionov D.G., Baranova I.V., Nasrutdinov M.N., 2019(a). Formation of the interference model of indicators of the social potential of the
region. Russian Economic Online Journal 4, 119.
Rodionov D.G., Baranova I.V., Nasrutdinov M.N., 2019(b). Identification of key mediators of the development of the social potential of the
region. Russian Economic Online Journal 3, 69.
Rudenko M.N., 2017. Classification of factors of development and realization of the economic potential of regions from the perspective of
a socio-cultural approach. Russian entrepreneurship 18(15), 2215-2230.
Shaporova O.A. et al., 2017. Factors and conditions of functioning and development of regional socio-economic systems. International
conference on Humans as an Object of Study by Modern Science. Springer, 530–541.
Smeshko O.G., 2014. Factors of development of the regional economy (assessment of use and management policy): abstract of the disser-
tation for the degree of Doctor of Economics, 22.
Uraev N.N. et al., 2012. Methodological Aspects of Strategic Development of Regional Socio-Economic System (Following the Example
of Radio-Electronic Industry Enterprises in the Republic of Tatarstan). Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. ERIC 11(12), 5094–5108.
Vasiliev A.N., 2007. About some indicators of specialization of the region. Proceedings of the Far Eastern Federal University. Economics
and Management 3, 78-84.
Zemtsov S., Barinova V., 2016. Changing the paradigm of regional innovation policy in Russia: from alignment to “smart specialization”.
Questions of Economics 10, 65-81.
Zimakova I.V. et al., 2019. Factors and conditions of functioning and development of modern regional socio-economic systems. Eleftherios
Thalassinos 7(1), 371-377.
Список источников
Frevel B. Sicherheit. Ein (un-)stillbares Grundbedürfnis. Springer, Freiburg
Shaporova O.A. et al., 2017. Factors and conditions of functioning and development of regional socio-economic systems. International
conference on Humans as an Object of Study by Modern Science. Springer, 530–541.
Uraev N.N. et al., 2012. Methodological Aspects of Strategic Development of Regional Socio-Economic System (Following the Example
of Radio-Electronic Industry Enterprises in the Republic of Tatarstan). Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. ERIC, 11(12), 5094–5108.
Zimakova I. V et al., 2019. Factors and conditions of functioning and development of modern regional socio-economic systems. Eleftherios
Thalassinos 7(1), 371-377.
Афанасьева Н.В., 2014. Вопросы формирования инновационной экономики. Экономика и предпринимательство 8(49), 46–49.
Баранова, И. В., 2019. Социальная инфраструктура как составляющая административного компонента социального потенциала
региона. Журнал правовых и экономических исследований 4, 153-157.
Бахарев В.В., Конников Е.А., Конникова О.А., Лукашевич Н.С., 2019. Влияние состава внешней торговли Российской Федерации
на социально-экономические показатели страны. Экономические науки 179, 38–44.
Баширова А.А., 2018. Факторы и условия, влияющие на сбалансированное развитие региона. Региональные проблемы
преобразования экономики 9(95), 102−110.
Беков М.Б., Иванов В.В., Сурина А.В., Туккель И.Л., 2009. Управление инновациями: национальные и региональные
инновационные системы. Научно-технические ведомости Санкт-Петербургского государственного политехнического
университета 5(87), 13–20.
Бувальцева В.И., Соколовский М.В., 2008. Неравномерность регионального развития: особенности проявления и направления
преодоления. Сибирская финансовая школа 3, 43–48.
Васильев А.Н., 2007. О некоторых показателях специализации региона. Известия Дальневосточного федерального университета.
Экономика и управление 3, 78–84.
Гаврилов А.И., 2002. Региональная экономика и управление, М.: Юнити, 239.
Гретчин В.В., Полянин А.В., 2015. Направления совершенствования инновационной активности на региональном уровне.
Прогнозирование инновационного развития национальной экономики в рамках рационального природопользования:
Материалы Международной научно-практической конференции, Пермь, 13 ноября 2015 года. Пермский государственный
национальный исследовательский университет, 39–46.
Гринчель Б.М., Назарова Е.А., 2019. Российские регионы: конкурентная привлекательность и устойчивость развития. Санкт-
Петербург: Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет аэрокосмического приборостроения, 248 с.
Дамбуева М.М., Болонева A.A., 2019. Факторы развития региональных социально-экономических систем. Образование и наука
8(189), 631–635.
Докукина И.А., Полянин А.В., 2014. Формирование стратегического управления затратами на инновационное развитие в условиях
повышения конкурентоспособности региона. Среднерусский вестник общественных наук 2(32), 219–225.
Земцов С., Баринова В., 2016. Смена парадигмы региональной инновационной политики в России: от выравнивания к “умной
46 Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2023, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3
Viktorova, N., Karpenko, P., Voskanyan, M.
специализации”. Вопросы экономики 10, 65–81.
Иванов В.В., 2006. Методологические проблемы формирования региональной инновационной политики. Безопасность Евразии
1(23), 261–278.
Кисуркин А.А., 2012. Факторы, влияющие на инновационное развитие региона и их классификация по уровням управления.
Современные проблемы науки и образования 2, 294 с.
Конников Е.А., Панкова Л.В., Федорова Е.Э., 2019. Влияние факторов внешней среды на динамику развития кредитного рынка в
разрезе ключевых групп кредитных продуктов. Экономические науки 172, 37–41.
Кудрявцева Т.Ю., Схведиани А.Е., 2018. Анализ взаимосвязи между кластерной специализацией и валовым региональным
продуктом. Научно-технические ведомости Санкт-Петербургского государственного политехнического университета.
Экономические науки 11(5), 66–73.
Куценко Е., Еферин Я., 2019. “Водовороты” и “Тихие гавани” в динамике отраслевой специализации регионов России. Форсайт
13(3), 24–40.
Куценко Е., Исланкина Е., Киндрась А., 2018. Можно ли быть умным в одиночестве? Исследование инновационных стратегий
российских регионов в контексте умной специализации. Форсайт 12(1), 25–45.
Лукьяненко В.Н., 2014. Факторы развития региональных социально-экономических систем: теоретические аспекты. Вестник
Забайкальского государственного университета 9, 119–124.
Малинин А.М., Чепига П.Н., Горлова Д.Д., 2019. Исследование фактора влияния в контексте развития региональных социально-
экономических систем. Современные аспекты экономики 12-2 (268), 20–29.
Полянин А.В., Макарова Ю.В., Докукина И.А., 2014. Инновационный и экономический потенциалы регионов как приоритет
конкурентоспособности в национальной экономике. Национальные интересы: приоритеты и безопасность 10, 23(260),
7–26.
Полянин А.В., Макарова Ю.Л., 2014. Экономическое развитие региональных бизнес-пространств. Известия Юго-Западного
государственного университета. Серия: Экономика. Социология. Менеджмент 2, 36–48.
Растворцева С.Н., 2018. Экономическая активность регионов России. Экономические и социальные перемены факты, тенденции,
прогноз 11(1), 84–98.
Растворцева С.Н., Куга Я.Т., 2012. Региональная специализация и географическая концентрация промышленности в России.
Научные ведомости Белгородского государственного университета. Серия: экономика. Информатика 23, 13-1 (132),
37–46.
Родионов Д.Г., Баранова И.В., Насрутдинов М.Н., 2019 (a). Идентификация ключевых медиаторов развития социального
потенциала региона. Российский экономический интернет-журнал 3, 69.
Родионов Д.Г., Баранова И.В., Насрутдинов М.Н., 2019 (b). Формирование модели интерферирования показателей социального
потенциала региона. Российский экономический интернет-журнал 4, 119.
Руденко М.Н., 2017. Классификация факторов развития и реализации экономического потенциала регионов с позиции
социокультурного подхода. Российское предпринимательство 18(15), 2215-2230.
Смешко О.Г., 2014. Факторы развития региональной экономики (оценка использования и политика управления): автореферат
диссертации на соискание ученой степени доктора экономических наук, 22.
The article was submitted 13.04.2023, approved after reviewing 21.07.2023, accepted for publication 01.08.2023.
Статья поступила в редакцию 13.04.2023, одобрена после рецензирования 21.07.2023, принята к
публикации 01.08.2023.
About authors:
1. Natalia Viktorova, Doctor of Economics, professor, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Saint
Petersburg, Russian Federation. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7355-3541, viktorova_ng@spbstu.ru
2. Pavel Karpenko, researcher, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Saint Petersburg, Russian
Federation. karpenko_pavel@mail.ru
3. Mariam Voskanyan, Doctor of Economics, Acting Professor, Russian-Armenian University, Yerevan, Armenia.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5417-6648, mariam.voskanyan@rau.am
Информация об авторах:
1. Наталья Викторова, доктор экономических наук, профессор, Санкт-Петербургский политехнический
университет Петра Великого, Санкт-Петербург, Российская Федерация.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7355-3541. viktorova_ng@spbstu.ru
2. Павел Карпенко, соискатель, Санкт-Петербургский политехнический университет Петра Великого,
Санкт-Петербург, Российская Федерация. karpenko_pavel@mail.ru
3. Мариам Восканян, д.э.н., и.о. профессора, заведующая кафедры экономики и финансов РАУ, Российско-
армянский университет, Ереван, Армения. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5417-6648, mariam.voskanyan@rau.
am
Sustain. Dev. Eng. Econ. 2023, 3, 3. https://doi.org/10.48554/SDEE.2023.3.3 47
