fbpx

INTERREGIONAL INTERACTION AS A FACTOR TO REDUCE THE UNEVEN SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECONOMY

by | Dec 5, 2019 | DOI 2018

Julia Dubrovskaya, Elena Kozonogova, Julia Karpovich
​Perm National Research Polytechnic University, 614990, Perm, Russia
​DOI: https://doi.org/10.31410/EMAN.2018.36


​
2nd International Scientific Conference – EMAN 2018 – Economics and Management: How to Cope With Disrupted Times, Ljubljana – Slovenia, March 22, 2018, CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS published by: Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans, Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Management Koper, Slovenia; Doba Business School – Maribor, Slovenia; Integrated Business Faculty – Skopje, Macedonia; Faculty of Management – Zajecar, Serbia, ISBN 978-86-80194-11-0

Abstract​

High interregional differentiation in the levels of the well-being of the population and divergence of territories are urgent problems for many countries including Russia, which has experienced serious problems of economic growth in recent years. Thus, according to official statistics, only 5 of the largest Russian regions form about 40% of the country’s GRP. As it was noted by many researchers, these difficulties are largely determined by the uneven spatial organization of the territories. It negatively affects the level of innovative development of the country, which determines the pace and quality of economic growth in the modern world.
According to the INSEAD calculations, Russia ranks only 45th out of 127 countries present in The Global Innovation Index in 2017. In the experts’ view, the most negative factor in this regard is integral index includes the following subindicators: university/industry research collaboration; state of cluster development; etc.
It is obvious, that the low level of interaction between economic entities has a negative impact on the index of innovation development of our country. Therefore, regulatory influences of the authorities should ensure the development of mutually beneficial ties between the territories.
The purpose of this study is to assess the influence of the intensity of interregional interaction on the uniformity of the spatial development of the economy. Methods of mathematical statistics and cluster analysis, system and hierarchical approaches, methods of visualization of the analyzed data were used to obtain the research results. To assess the strength of interregional interaction, the authors used also a gravitational model.
As the results of the work it is worth to note the following ones: the determination of the factors of the country’s spatial development; substantiation of the possibilities to reduce the uneven spatial development of the economy on the basis of intensifying interregional interaction; development of methods for analyzing the effectiveness of interregional interaction; assessment of the impact of interregional interaction on indicators of spatial development of the economy.

Key words

Interregional interaction, spatial development, the gravity model, interregional differentiation, economic mathematical methods.

References

  1. Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators. (2016) P32 Stat. Sat. Rosstat, Moscow, 1326 p. Available at: <https://www.gks.ru/free_doc/doc_2016/region/reg-pok16.pdf> [Accessed 12 October 2017].
  2. Global Innovation Index rankings 2017 [online]. Available at: <https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/> [Accessed 10 November 2017].
  3. Nikolaev, M.A., Makhotaeva, M.Yu. (2016) Interregional clusters as a tool for the economic development of territories. Scientific and technical statements of SPbSPU. Economic sciences, 1 (235), pp. 47-57.
  4. Petrova, O.S. (2012) Identifying the place and functions of clusters in ensuring effective interregional interaction and innovative development of the economy of regions. Economics and management, 8(93), pp. 119-122.
  5. Moreno, R., Paci, R., Usai, S. (2005) Geographical and sectorial clusters of innovation in Europe. The Annals of Regional Science, 39.
  6. Woodward Douglas P. (2012) Industry Location, Economic Development Incentives, and Clusters. The Review of Regional Studies, 42.
  7. Navarro, M., Gibaja, J.J., Franco, S., Murciego, A. (2011) Territorial benchmarking methodology: The need to identify reference regions [online]. Available at: <https://www.academia.edu/26363206/Territorial_benchmarking_methodology_The_need_to_identify_reference_regions> [Accessed 11 November 2017].
  8. Groenendijk, N. (2010) EU and OECD Benchmarking and Peer Review Compared. In Finn Laursen (ed.), The EU and Federalism: Polities and Policies Compared, Ashgate.
  9. Navarro, M. (2014) Regional benchmarking in the smart specialisation process: Identification of reference regions based on structural similarity. S3 Working Paper Series, 03.
  10. Reid A., Miedzinski, M. (2014) A smart specialisation platform for advanced manufacturing Scoping paper. Prepared at the request of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy.
  11. McCann, P., Ortega-Argilés, R. (2011) Smart Specialisation, Regional Growth and Applications to EU Cohesion Policy. Economic Geography Working Paper 2011, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen.
  12. Regional benchmarking in the smart specialisation process: Identification of reference regions based on structural similarity (2014). Spain: European Commission, Joint Research Centre.
  13. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., 2000. The Dynamics of Innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Research Policy, 29(2), рр. 109-123.
  14. Ageliki, A., Ioannis, P. (2016). Eurasian orientation and global trade international: the case of Turkey. Eurasian Economic Review, 6(2), pp. 275-287.
  15. Karagoz, K., Saray, M. Ozan (2010). Trade potential of Turkey with Asia-Pacific countries: Evidence from panel gravity model. International Economic Studies, 36(1), pp. 19-26.
  16. Suvankulov, F., Guc, Y. (2012) Who is trading well in Central Asia? A gravity analysis from exports from the regional powers to the region. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 5(9), pp. 21–43.
  17. Abramov, A., Gluschenko, K. (2000) The Matrix of the Shortest Distances between Capital Cities of Russian Regions. Novosibirsk State University. [online] Available at: <https://econom.nsu.ru/staff/chair_et/gluschenko/Research/Data/Distances.xls.> [Accessed 22 October 2017].
  18. Shiltsin, E.A. (2010) Evaluation of the convergence and divergence of the regional space of Russia and Siberia. Ph. D. Available at: <https://econom.nsc.ru/ieie/news/zashiti/avtoref/mart10/ shilcin.pdf> [Accessed 30 November 2017].
  19. Rating of innovative development of the subjects of the Russian Federation (issue 5) (2017). [online] Available at: <https://issek.hse.ru/news/206633461.html> [Accessed 21 November 2017].
Dubrovskaya_Kozonogova_Karpovich_INTERREGIONAL INTERACTION AS A FACTOR TO REDUCE THE UNEVEN SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECONOMY_pp_36-42Download
Share this