DOI: https://doi.org/10.33917/es-5.185.2022.12-21

The purpose of this article is to assess the regions of the Russian Federation by the level of PPP development from the perspective

of their infrastructural and socio-economic development and the impact of PPP on accelerating their economic growth. To do this, the following tasks are being implemented: assessment of the general characteristics of the PPP market for the period 2006–2021, in particular, public and private contributions to PPP projects, distribution of investments in the areas under consideration; analysis of accumulated investments in the PPP market for the period 2006–2021, assessment of their impact on investment attractiveness and economic growth of regions based on the distribution by federal districts and regions of the Russian Federation; analysis of the market of large PPP projects for the period 2006–2021 from the position of influence on the strategic development of regions, its distribution by federal districts and regions of the Russian Federation; based on the results of the study, determining the top 10 most developed regions for the use of PPP mechanisms.

The methodology of the study is an analysis of the distribution of the classical PPP market by regions and districts based on the

construction of tables and diagrams. To characterize the overall economic and infrastructural development of the regions, PPP

projects in the housing, social, transport and IT spheres were considered.

The results of the study are that the assessment of the level of economic and infrastructural development of the regions is given; the strategic importance of PPP projects for the regions (especially large ones) is substantiated; it is determined that the successful implementation of PPP projects is a factor in the economic growth of the regions. Based on the analysis, the 10 most developed regions are identified from the point of view of the use of PPP mechanisms. The perspective of the study is to use its results to expand the PPP market, in particular, in territories in need of economic development. At the same time, in order to expand the territorial coverage of the PPP market, it is necessary to create conditions for the implementation of such projects in order to ensure the economic growth of the regions.

References:

1. Chumakov I.I. Gosudarstvenno-chastnoe partnerstvo kak osnovnaya forma partnerstva gosudarstva i biznesa [Public-private Partnership as the Main Form of Partnership Between the State and the Business]. Aktual’nye problemy i perspektivy razvitiya ekonomiki: rossiiskii i zarubezhnyi opyt, 2017, no 11, 29–32.

2. Sukharev O.S. Instituty regional’nogo razvitiya: kontseptual’no-prakticheskii analiz organizatsionnykh izmenenii [Regional Development Institutions: Conceptual and Practical Analysis of Organizational Changes]. Ekonomicheskii analiz: teoriya i praktika, 2012, no 4 (259), pp. 2–12.

3. Sukharev O.S., Voronchikhina E.N. Tipy tekhnologicheskogo razvitiya regionov: struktura tekhnologii i investitsii [Types of Regions’ Technological Development: Structure of Technologies and Investments]. Investitsii v Rossii, 2019, no 7, pp. 24–36.

DOI: 10.33917/es-6.164.2019.78-89

The purpose of the study is to assess the dynamics of the manufacturing industries in Russia. According to the “structural formula”, the contribution of innovations in various types of activities to the overall dynamics of innovations in manufacturing industries is assessed, which makes it possible to identify the dominant innovations in economic sectors. This approach is useful in order to differentiate the methods of industrial (sectoral) policy, including national projects as an institutional tool for managing the development of the Russian economy, since it identifies those areas that require special incentives for the innovation process. The structure of innovation is heterogeneous, the contribution by different types of activity varies significantly, which indicates the instability of the process of innovative development. Two strategies are considered for the functioning of processing industries: the export of machinery and the substitution of machinery imports. It is shown that these strategies can not be reduced to one another, except for special cases and suggest different possibilities. The parameter of structural independence for the Russian engineering industry has steadily decreased and its dynamics has been stabilized at low values, as shown by the method of phase portraits of the change in this indicator. This suggests that the domestic economy and engineering remain highly dependent on imports of machinery, equipment and technology, and leads to the conclusion that the import substitution policy is not, firstly, sufficient, and secondly, structural internal changes are required in the economy, so that import substitution and the development of export manufacturing industries give a positive systemic result. On the basis of quantitative assessments, a fundamental conclusion was obtained that the import substitution policy itself will certainly not have a high performance (locally limited effect), which it could potentially have when the internal flow of resources changes towards the processing sectors

The study is devoted to comparing the characteristics of the macroeconomic dynamics of the US, Germany, China and Russia, with the goal of establishing not only differences and similar elements of this dynamics, but also identifying the most expedient ways to further implement the instruments of the macroeconomic policy pursued. Counteraction to the economic crisis presupposes institutional corrections, since the standard recipes of macroeconomic policy are weak in changing the situation, since the importance of, for example, financial institutions, the banking system, etc. However, the coherence of macroaggregates needs to be taken into account, moreover, it has its own peculiarities in each country, thus, the general methods of macroeconomic policy require detailed elaboration based on the development task and the current dynamics. The expediency of a moderately expansionary monetary policy for the Russian economy is shown, and the comparative and comparative method of analysis confirms that the USA and Russia demonstrate a similar dynamics of macroaggregates in general properties, Germany and China are also close to each other, although some parameters and connections are different. However, in the US and Russia (Fisher’s growth model), the decline in inflation has little effect on growth, in Germany and China, growth is accompanied by inflation (Schumpeter’s growth). The result of the comparative analysis using the matrix of pair correlations and obtained regressions should be used to correct macroeconomic policy measures in the countries examined. In addition, this comparison will prevent governments from mechanically copying macroeconomic instruments.