WHAT REGION IN THE ARCTIC HAS THE BEST CONDITIONS  FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL POLICY MEASURES?

Original article

Download article 

Alexandr N. Pilyasov1,2, Vyacheslav A. Tsukerman1

1Luzin Institute for Economic Studies of the Kola Science Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Apatity, Russia

2Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

pelyasov@mail.ru, http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2249-9351

tsukerman@iep.kolasc.net.ru, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0844-1180

 

Abstract. This article addresses the research question concerning the assessment of current prerequisites for implementing industrial policy within the Arctic territories of Russia through the efforts of local and regional authorities. The research goal required solving methodological problems, including how to evaluate these prerequisites, analytical problems encompassing individual and integrated scoring, and practical problems such as the differentiation of Arctic territories into responsive, neutral, or conservative regarding regional industrial policy measures. The study is based on regional and municipal statistical indicators, legal documents outlining industrial policy within Arctic regions, and data from the monthly monitoring  of the Arctic conducted by the Institute of Regional Consulting. To perform an integrated assessment of the conditions, we employed 17 indicators grouped into five categories: 1) material factors (four indicators reflecting the volume and weight  of the industrial sector in the regional economy); 2) spatial factors (four indicators assessing the degree of dispersion  or concentration of regional industry locations); 3) technological factors (three indicators measuring the Arctic territory’s readiness for the fifth Kondratieff wave); 4) institutional factors (three indicators evaluating the involvement of key actors in industrial activities, the effectiveness of industrial partnerships, and the presence of established regional industrial policy institutions); 5) natural resource factors (three indicators offering a qualitative assessment of the region’s key resource assets). Upon integrating individual scores for five categories, which were derived as the arithmetic mean of normalized scores, four distinct groups of regions were identified. The first group, represented by the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug (YNAO) and the Krasnoyarsk Arctic, has the most favorable conditions for the deployment of new industrial policy measures. The second group, consisting of the well-established industrial region of Murmansk and the Arctic territories of the Arkhangelsk region, has relatively favorable conditions. The third group, comprising the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, and the Arctic territories of the Komi Republic, is characterized by less favorable conditions. The fourth group, which includes the Arctic territories of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) and the Republic of Karelia, ranks as the least favorable in terms of implementing regional industrial policy measures.

Keywords: assessment of industrial policy conditions, quantitative and qualitative assessments, integrated scoring, Arctic region categorization

For citation: Pilyasov A. N., Tsukerman V. A. What region in the Arctic has the best conditions for the implementation  of regional industrial policy measures? Sever i rynok: formirovanie ekonomicheskogo poryadka [The North and the Market: Forming the Economic Order], 2023, no. 2, рр. 22–43. https://doi:10.37614/2220-802X.3.2023.81.002. (In Russ.).

References

  1. Selin V. S. Sovremennyye innovatsionnyye tendentsii v promyshlennom komplekse Severa [Modern innovative trends in the industrial complex of the North]. Sever i rynok: formirovaniye ekonomicheskogo poryadka [North and the market: the formation of the economic order], 2016, no. 1 (48), рр. 47–54. (In Russ.).
  2. Tsukerman V. A. Kontseptual’nyye osnovy innovatsionnogo promyshlennogo razvitiya Severa i Arktiki [Conceptual foundations of innovative industrial development of the North and the Arctic]. Sever i rynok: Formirovaniye ekonomicheskogo poryadka [North and the market: the formation of the economic order], 2012, no. 3, рр. 139–143. (In Russ.).
  3. Nizamutdinov I. K. Regional’naya promyshlennaya politika: osobennosti formirovaniya i realizatsii kand. ekon. nauk. [Regional industrial policy: features of formation and implementation. PhD (Economics) diss.]. Kazan’, 2012, 194 p.
  4. Tatarkin A. I., Romanova O. A. Sovremennyye instrumenty novoy industrializatsii promyshlennykh regionov [Modern tools for the new industrialization of industrial regions]. Ekonomist [Economist], 2013, 8, рр. 21–38. (In Russ.).
  5. Romanova O. A., Starikov Ye. N. Izmeneniye vektora promyshlennoy politiki i vozmozhnosti innovatsionnogo razvitiya industrial’nykh regionov [Changing the vector of industrial policy and the possibility of innovative development of industrial regions]. Ekonomika regiona [Economics of the region], 2015, 3, рр. 322–333. (In Russ.).
  6. Pilyasov A. N. Regional’naya promyshlennaya politika v arkticheskikh territoriyakh: kakaya ona yest’ i kakoy yey byt’? [Regional industrial policy in the Arctic territories: what is it and what should it be?], Sever i rynok: formirovaniye ekonomicheskogo poryadka [The North and the market: the formation of an economic order], 2021, vol. 24, 3, рр. 7–30. (In Russ.).
  7. Rodrik D. Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century. CEPR Disscussion Paper 4767. London, 2004, 38 p.
  8. Rodrik D. Industrial policy: don’t ask why, ask how. Middle East Development Journal. Demo issue. 2008, рр. 1–29.
  9. Rodrik D. The Return of Industrial Policy. Project Syndicate. 2010, April 12. Available at: http://www:project-syndicate.org/commentary/the_return-of-industrial-policy (аccessed 10.07.2023).
  10. Rodrik D. Green Industrial policy. Princeton, 2013, 33
  11. Mayergoyz I. M. Territorial’naya struktura khozyaystva [Territorial structure of the economy]. Novosibirsk, Nauka, 1986, 303
  12. Zamyatina N. Yu., Pilyasov A. N. Innovatsionnyy poisk v monoprofil’nykh gorodakh. Blokirovki razvitiya, novaya promyshlennaya politika i plan deystviy [Innovative search in single-industry cities. Development locks, new industrial policy and action plan]. Moscow, URSS, 2015, 216 p.
  13. Perezagruzka. Poisk novykh modeley funktsionirovaniya monogorodov Rossii v izmenivshikhsya ekonomicheskikh usloviyakh [Monotowns. Reboot. Search for new models of functioning of single-industry towns in Russia in the changed economic conditions]. Moscow, Bazovyy element, 2014, 53 p.
  14. Razvitiye monoprofil’nykh naselennykh punktov v Rossiyskoy Federatsii: sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Development of single-industry settlements in the Russian Federation: a collection of scientific papers]. Moscow, Finansovyy universitet, 2012, 100 p.
  15. Pilyasov A. N. Smelost’ khozyaystvennykh resheniy i sovremennoye osvoyeniye rossiyskoy Arktiki [Courage in economic decisions and modern development of the Russian Arctic]. Arktika i Sever [Arctic and North], 2020, no. 40, doi:10.37482/issn2221-2698.2020.40.82. (In Russ.).
  16. Asheim B. T., Isaksen A., Trippl M. Advanced Introduction to Regional Innovation Systems. Cheltenham. Edward Elgar, 2019, 146 p.
  17. Gal’tseva N. V., Atamanova Ye. A. Ekonomika arkticheskikh ostrovov: sluchay Nenetskogo i Chukotskogo avtonomnykh okrugov [Economics of the Arctic Islands: the case of the Nenets and Chukotka Autonomous Okrugs]. Ekonomika regiona [Economics of the Region], 2017, vol. 13, no. 1, pр. 114–125. (In Russ.).