ISSN 20799705, Regional Research of Russia, 2013, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 123–130. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2013. Original Russian Text © V.V. Kuleshov, V.E. Seliverstov, V.I. Suslov, S.A. Suspitsyn, 2012, published in Region: Ekonomika i Sotsiologiya, 2012, No. 2(74), pp. 3–23.
SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT
Siberian School of Regional Studies in the RAS Presidium Program “Fundamental Problems of the Spatial Development of the Russian Federation: Interdisciplinary Synthesis” V. V. Kuleshov, V. E. Seliverstov, V. I. Suslov, and S. A. Suspitsyn Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences email:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected] Received March 15, 2012
Abstract—A concept is proposed for devising a strategy for the country’s spatial development, including the levels of the country as a whole, federal districts, and federal subjects. A new version of the optimization inter regional interindustry model is presented, as well as longterm scenarios of the postcrisis development of Rus sia and Siberia based on the model. Scenarios are based on two possible paradigms of the world’s develop ment, i.e., (a) assuming that “what goes around comes around” (everything will resume its natural course) and (b) implying that the world will be fundamentally different and its development will be mainly innovative. Within the first paradigm, the economic development of Russia and Siberia as its part assumes a stable inertial character. The possibility of development according to the second type will arise if the Russian government proceeds to practical policies, stimulating economic growth, technological renewal and innovations, and economic development, and development of Russia’s Asian and Arctic territories. Predictive estimates are discussed for the development of the Russian Federation and its macroregions within these two scenarios. An original method is presented for measuring spatial transformations based on the computational SIRENA2 complex, including simulation and normative models at different levels of the spatial hierarchy. Keywords: spatial development, development strategy, model and procedural complex, macrofinancial bal ance sheets, spatial transformations, regional clusters DOI: 10.1134/S207997051302007X
The basic research program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Fundamental Prob lems of the Spatial Development of the Russian Fed eration: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis,” performed in 2009–2011, is the last brainchild of the Academician A.G. Granberg. In 2007–2008, he managed to con vince the top management of the Russian Academy of Sciences of the need for such a program and to rally together a creative team of economists, geographers, sociologists, demographers, geologists, science theo rists, lawyers, historians, and experts in the transporta tion and power industry. The team proved to be effi cient; it set up to work with great enthusiasm, and as early as by the end of the third year came up with an impressive set of important scientific results of both fundamental and applied character. This article will cover some of the results obtained at the Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences (IEIE SB RAS), in collaboration with other research organizations. The IEIE SB RAS conducted six projects within the framework of the program, i.e., “5.3. Measuring the Sustainable Transformation of the Socioeconomic
Space” (project coordinator S.A. Suspitsin, Dr. Sci. (Econ.)), “8.2. Formation of a Single Transport Space” (project coordinator V.Yu. Malov, Dr. Sci. (Econ.)), “10.3. Mechanisms Providing Incentives for Innova tions in Mesoeconomic Systems of Siberia” (project coordinators L.S. Markov, Cand. Sci. (Econ.) and V.I. Suslov, Corresponding Member, Russian Acad emy of Sciences), “11.2.1. Socioeconomic Develop ment of Siberia in the System of Russian and World Eco nomic Relations” (subprogram director V.V. Kuleshov, Corresponding Member, Russian Academy of Sci ences; project coordinators, V.Ye. Seliverstov, Dr. Sci. (Econ.), V.I. Suslov, Corresponding Member, Russian Academy of Sciences, and S.A. Suspitsin, Dr. Sci. (Econ.)), “11.6.1. Analysis and Prediction of the Spa tial Structure of the Russian Economy in the System of Interregional and Intersectoral Linkages” (project coordinator V.I. Suslov, Corresponding Member, Rus sian Academy of Sciences), and “13.3. Development of a Multilevel System of Strategic Planning: Method ology, Tools, and Institutions (Case Study of Siberia)” (project coordinator V.Ye. Seliverstov, Dr. Sci. (Econ.)).
123
124
KULESHOV et al.
The obtained results can be grouped into three sec tions (the transportation and innovation issues call for a separate consideration, and those will not be our pri mary focus in this paper), i.e., theoretical and meth odological, model and procedural, and applied results. In each of this section, three vertically connected sce narios are considered. 1. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL RESULTS 1.1. The successful transformation of the Russian socioeconomic system and its transition to a new posi tion that meets the challenges of the 21st century are impossible without the development and implementa tion of strategic management, the most important function of which is strategic planning at all levels, i.e., federal, interregional, regional, and local. Currently, Russia does not have any integrated theory and meth odology for regional strategic planning. Many strate gic decisions about the spatial organization of the Rus sian economy and Russian society are only made by trial and error. That is why creating scientific founda tions for regional strategic planning, integrating its methodological, institutional, and instrumental aspects and testing out the developed approaches, are an extremely important task. Within the framework of implementing this pro gram of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sci ences, an extended concept of regional policy, goals, and objectives was formulated and justified, being fully consistent with the objectives to develop Russian fed eralism. A general description is given regarding the state of affairs in this area. Thus, the importance of implementing regional policy in the format of “coop eration federalism” rather than “competitive federal ism” is emphasized. It is pointed out that the integra tion of the country’s economic space requires getting rid of excessive politicization in the bidding for federal support for specific regions in exchange for their polit ical loyalty and ethnonational stability. In developing strategies and programs for socioeconomic develop ment, Russian regions often face a lack of welldefined interests and priorities of the state in the spatial policy it pursues in the country. These national priorities and interests should be clearly expressed. The conceptual apparatus for regional strategic planning and management has been rethought and refined, new formulations are given towards their object and subject, and a new categorical unit is intro duced, i.e., a “subject of regional strategic planning.” At the national level, such a subject is regional policy; at the level of federal members and cities, this subject is the socioeconomic policies implemented by author ities in cooperation with business and the general pop ulation. New definitions are given for the concept of regional strategic planning and management. The object of regional strategic planning is the sus tainable socioeconomic development of a regional
system, integrating its human, natural resource, and production potentials and the institutional environ ment. The actor of regional strategic planning is the regional community (population), delegating man agement rights to regional authorities and directly involved in the strategic decisionmaking process, using institutions of civil society and representatives of the federal government, as well as management and business structures that have strategic interests in the region. The regional community is the ultimate actor of strategic planning, and regional authorities are its direct actor. Regional strategic planning is the process of justify ing and choosing strategic priorities and directions of sustainable and efficient development of a region based on a comprehensive consideration of the socio economic, scientific, technical, environmental, and institutional factors and conditions and designing management policies and implementation mecha nisms on its basis that enhance the competitiveness of the socioeconomic system of the region and its adap tation to changing environmental conditions. Regional strategic management is the activity of public authorities in a region based on strategic plan ning, providing for the involvement of civil society and business entities and taking into account the internal and external institutional conditions and constraints, and focused on fulfilling the core mission, accom plishing the strategic objectives, addressing the issues of the sustainable socioeconomic development in the region, strengthening its human potential, and enhancing its role in the national and world economy. Based on a critical analysis of the genesis of man agement systems and different schools of strategic planning, we have formulated new requirements for the system of regional strategic planning in the context of globalization, “information revolution,” and the formation of a “network society” and “network econ omy.” We proved the hypothesis about the increasing effect of modern transformation processes on the implementation of regional strategic planning in Rus sia both in the context of the state and “public” gover nance (i.e., administration system, under which social institutions and individuals can act both as objects and subjects of control in their relations with regulatory and management bodies), which suggests the involve ment of the public in this process in the form of online communities acting in interactive online mode. 1.2. Another important theoretical and method ological result consists in providing a new representa tion (description system of notations) of an optimiza tion intersectoral interregional (multiregional) model (OIIM). Of particular importance, along with the usual variables (output, capital investment, final con sumption, interregional traffic, exports, imports, and international transit) and constraints (balance of resources and production, balance of productive capacities, foreign trade balance, and quotas) of the
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 3
No. 2
2013
SIBERIAN SCHOOL OF REGIONAL STUDIES
primal problem are the variables (prices of products and resources, income and sales tax rates, exchange rates, and import and export duties) and constraints (current account and investment activity balances, household and government consumption, and interre gional and foreign trade transportations) of the dual problem. The possibility of a “price” interpretation of the so called objectively determined valuations (dual vari ables) of production balances is due to the fact that in the model with open foreign trade (and it is now the basic version of the model) domestic prices (dual esti mates of production, which are exactly those objec tively determined estimations of production balances) differ from the external (global) ones by the value of export and import duties (owing to which they are “meaningfully tangible”; i.e., for exported produc tion, they are lower than the external prices by the amount of the export duty and for imports they are higher by the amount of the import duty. At the same time, the external prices in the model are “semiexog enous”; i.e., they are predetermined but are character ized by a slight elasticity to the volumes of Russian exports and imports. As a result, the variables and constraints of the pri mal and dual OIIM problems create an integral theo retical and methodological concept of the national spatial economy in the world economic system. Herein, an important role is played by macroaggre gates determined by the variables of both primal and dual character, which form macrofinancial balance sheets. The latter show the relationships between the “contribution” of some regions to the national con sumption and actual regional consumption. These relationships are balanced by cash macroaggregates of interregional and foreign trade exchange. The execu tion of these macrofinancial balances is guaranteed by a complementary slackness property inherent in the optimal design of linear programming problems. Of general theoretical significance is also the devel oped concept of a conditional smallsize economy. This tentative example (as a set of information arrays and software) was used in different projects to illustrate the theoretical concepts and the testing of new theo retical and methodological, as well as procedural, pro posals in spatial analysis (in particular, for comparing different concepts of economic equilibrium, devel oped by L. Walras, J. Nash, and F. Edgeworth, and the fuzzycore concept). In this case (in the considered program of the RAS Presidium), the very concept of this conditional economy is important. This economy includes three regions, located from the west to the east (the first and third regions do not border each other), two external markets, i.e., western and eastern, and five products, of which only two are transportable. A.G. Granberg considered this to be of fundamental importance for providing graphic illustrations of inter regional trade in the plane. REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 3
No. 2
125
One should be very cautious in drawing meaningful analogies between this conditional economy and the economy of Russia. Yes, production is concentrated in the east and processing is in the West, but the eco nomic potential is distributed across the territory much more evenly. Most importantly, the regional dif ferentiation of technological possibilities is expressed in the conditional economy much more vividly. The purpose is to make “pictures” illustrating various the oretical concepts and the results of experimental cal culations more vivid. Should this differentiation be comparable with the real one, the Pareto boundary, for example, in different spaces would be almost linear and, therefore, inexpressive. Serious prospects seem to be opening up for the already launched efforts for embedding the OIIM in procedures for working out strategies and longterm programs for the socioeconomic development of terri tories. So far, work with large applied models, includ ing the adaptation of those to the solution of a partic ular problem, scheduling of calculations, analysis of results, and the definition of the set of actions for the formation and implementation of practical recom mendations based on the results of model calculations, is still a kind of craft mastered by the development team and the “users” of these models. It has not yet been possible to include the results of basic research in the field of spatial analysis based on large applied models in the routine procedures of economic man agement and regulation (at the level of government agencies or large corporations), much less to commer cialize them. In the course of implementation of the RAS Presidium program, this problem was recognized and accepted for solution. Nevertheless, that is all there is to it. It has long been understood that it is not the authors of applied models that are central to the work with these models but rather experts and groups who have their own ideas about the possible course of events in their field (expert information and local fore casts). While working with a model, these experts actually coordinate their original opinions and judg ments by adjusting them and eliminating the emerging contradictions and inconsistencies. This process can be defined as a kind of a formal ized foresight project. What is new here is just the understanding of the possibility to employ sufficiently welldeveloped foresight procedures. Unlike any ordi nary foresight, involving the harmonization of assess ments made by different experts with respect to the same object of study, this foresight project coordinates and makes consistent experts’ opinions about different objects forming some system. Such estimate opinions must be consistent within a given system, while the instrument of coordination (which determines the measure of discrepancy) is a large applied model; in our case, it is the OIIM. 1.3. Spatial transformations of the economy are a process of change in the indicators of the longterm 2013
126
KULESHOV et al.
sustainable multiregional development system of the Russian Federation cleared of national trends. As their measurable characteristics, the time series of consoli dated regional indices can serve, generalizing the diversity of individual indicators of the socioeconomic situation in individual regions. The transformation of Russia’s economic space can be considered within a normative approach, i.e., as a movement towards a given territorial structure of the economy, or within the traditional positivist one, i.e., studying the evolution of the spatial distribution of economic activity and identifying its causes, factors, and constraints. The real constraints of spatial trans formations can be expressed in the stability of general izing characteristics (composite indices) of regions’ development due to multiple causes, i.e., inertia of regional economies; insufficient measures of the gov ernment’s socioeconomic policy (priorities, objec tives, mobilized resources, etc., have not yet achieved a “critical mass”); in the longterm perspective, pres ervation of the motivations of key regional investors in the spatial distribution, etc. 2. METHODOLOGICAL, MODEL, AND PROCEDURAL INNOVATIONS 2.1. Based on their practical experience in the development of various regional strategic planning documents, the team of authors formulated proposals on the composition and structure of a typical develop ment strategy of a federal member, taking into account the reliability and feasibility of strategic decisions, as well as the need to create mechanisms for implemen tation and monitoring and appropriate institutional conditions. A typical scheme for the development of a regional strategy should include the following: —strategic analysis of the prevailing trends in the region and identification of its key competitive advan tages; —mission statement for the longterm develop ment of the region; —substantiation of the main strategic objectives, priorities, and tasks for implementing these goals and priorities; —implementation of the forecast for the long term socioeconomic development of the federal sub ject and elaboration of different scenarios for its long term development; —designing a portfolio of major investment projects aimed at the implementation of the strategic priorities of longterm development; —preparation of proposals for the formation of basic management policies that realize the mission and key strategic objectives in the region; —development of proposals for institutional con ditions and mechanisms for the implementation of the strategy;
—monitoring and control over the implementa tion of strategies and systematic adjustment of strate gies based on the principles of a “rolling plan” (which actually falls within the scope of strategic manage ment). Proposals have been worked out on the content, structure, and relationships of key documents for regional strategic planning at various levels of the ter ritorial hierarchy (federal, interregional, regional, and local). It is concluded that two program documents must be worked out at the federal level, i.e., a strategy of the territorial (spatial) development of the Russian Federation for 20 years and a settlement pattern and territorial planning of the Russian Federation for 20 years. 2.2. Over the last 10–15 years, the OIIM has been used in applied calculations as a tool for constructing two or three variants of plausible scenarios for eco nomic development through the introduction of an excessive number of “tuning” limitations on individ ual variables (mainly production volumes). This is an “easy” way to work out development scenarios, mak ing it impossible to use the model apparatus as an instrument for analyzing broad areas of possible pros pects for development and effectiveness evaluation (national economic) for different variants of perfor mance, different states of the economic system, and various projects that have a national or interregional significance. The introduction of “tuning” limitations in the model has two highly negative consequences (exclud ing the possibility of its use); i.e., first, the dual aspect of the model loses its meaning, which leads to an exactly twofold reduction in the analytical potential of the model, and, secondly, it becomes necessary even for a slight change in the conditions (variant) of system development to completely revise the entire set of “tuning” limitations (and their number is hardly less than that of the output volume variables). Another aspect is even more important, i.e., the reliance on “tuning” with respect to individual variables precludes the comparative analysis of different development variants of the common basis. There are no longer any foundations for the comparison of those development variants (different scenarios and equilibria, within var ious coalitions, and under different foreign trade regimes). Comparative economic analysis loses its meaning. On the other hand, a model without “tuning limi tations” due to its linearity generates ultrahigh elastic ity of solutions for the input parameters. Even a small change in them can lead to significant substantively unexplainable changes in the optimal plans. Such a model is also meaningless for economic analysis. Now, nonlinear elements have been introduced into the model: • falling cost effectiveness. Each additional unit of output growth is provided by increased investment
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 3
No. 2
2013
SIBERIAN SCHOOL OF REGIONAL STUDIES
costs (it is known from microeconomics that, even though cost effectiveness usually decreases, it can increase in some production types or in some situa tions; in this case, however, the point is different as we imply expanding production through new construc tion and the declining cost effectiveness is due to the limited efficiency of investment projects); • declining effectiveness of external market seg ments. Every additional unit of export is sold for a steadily decreasing price, and every additional import unit is purchased for a steadily growing price. We should comment on the last statement. Russia is a large country and, therefore, world mar ket prices in trade with it are elastic with respect to the volumes of Russian exports and imports. Introduction of such dependences in the model results in requiring that all Russian macroregions should join the customs union. In essence, this is normal as long as Russia is a single country. However, in some procedures of coali tion analysis such a limitation can be (and proves to be) cumbersome. After the introduction of these nonlinear elements (since these nonlinearities are convex they are easily linearized and do not create additional computational problems), it becomes possible to adjust the model to represent broad areas of potential options for the development of the spatial system. Within this research program, this possibility is illustrated by numerous calculations on a hypothetical example of a smallsize economy and by already launched experi ments on a large application model of Russia. Over the past two to three years (within the frame work of this program), a transition to calculations in the following mode has been performed: • sectoral breakdown taking into account 40 types of economic activity (AllRussian Classifier of Types of Economic Activity); • territorial breakdown; i.e., federal districts are considered while in the Ural Federal District Tyumen oblast is singled out and in the Siberian Federal Dis trict the Baikal region (Irkutsk oblast, Republic of Buryatia, and Zabaikalsky krai) is specially treated; • direct recursion in time; i.e., first, a calculation is carried out for the period 2010–2020; then, for the period 2021–2030 with a subsequent adjustment (by different interpolation methods) for 2015 and 2025. Only the IEIE SB RAS is capable of carrying out computations providing such sectoral and territorial breakdowns. Interindustry balances of the USSR republics were last drawn up in the late 1980s and for the economic regions of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic such balances had been produced even earlier. A full interindustry balance of the Russian Federation was for the first (and last) time prepared for 1995. There is no coherent statistics of the transport interregional relations either for the Soviet Union or (even less so) for modern Russia. Only the IEIE has managed to create and regularly (without interrup REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 3
No. 2
127
tions during the systemic crisis of the 1990s) to update the relevant databases using all possible sources of information. 2.3. For regular forecasts of regional indicators, measuring spatial transformations, the SIRENA2 model and procedural complex designed at the IEIE SB RAS have been applied. Its core is simulation mac roeconomic models of regions, federal districts, and the country as a whole, as well as procedures and algo rithms providing for the performance of systematic calculations. These models allow us to calculate vec tors of regional indicators, depending on the chosen values of scenario parameters. The latter are inter preted in terms of specific regulators of socioeconomic policy, i.e., investment (investment growth, deprecia tion rates, and rates of disposal and utilization of fixed assets), price (increase in the appreciation indexes of factor costs, i.e., salaries, material costs, etc.), fiscal (tax rates and their splitting between the levels of the budgetary system), etc. Making use of such parameters can enable an operational description of scenario con ditions for the possible development variants of the country and its regions and will consequently yield sets of regional indicators providing the basis for calculat ing estimates of spatial changes. A method has been developed for the successive refinement of the specifying (scenario) conditions and basic nationallevel parameters consisting of system atized procedures for “topdown” hierarchical pre diction covering four levels of the territorial hierarchy of the Russian Federation, i.e., Russian Federation– federal districts–macroregions–subjects of the Rus sian Federation. At each level, standard macromodels are used for the calculation of the basic indicators of regional development in conjunction with procedures of successive refinement aggregation for interlevel transfers. The specifying conditions of the top level (develop ment of the country as a whole) can be formed both in the mode of exogenous forecasts (use of external eval uations of the possible development of the country, such as consolidated forecasts of the Ministry of Eco nomic Development and Trade of Russia, longterm development plan LTDP2020, variants of calcula tions using interregional crosssectoral optimization models, etc.) and in the mode of endogenous forecasts based on the consolidated RF model available in the SIRENA2 model complex. The constructed regional indicators (reported and predicted) fill certain domains in the space of regional indicators. The “mass center” of such domains is sim ilartype indicators of the national level. If regional indicators are normalized to the national level and we deal with relative changes in the socioeconomic situa tion of regions, the geometric image of the studied ter ritorial shifts will be the changes in the size and config uration of this space around the point with coordinates of 100%, which represents the relative national level. 2013
128
KULESHOV et al.
Central in this approach is the concept of a cluster of regions with average characteristics of development. Such a cluster includes regions with indicators close to the average for Russia, while its total population should be at least half of the country’s total popula tion, so that the exclusion of any region would violate the rule of qualified majority (at least 50%). Such a cluster may be inserted into a neighborhood (a multi dimensional cube) in the space of indicators with the center at the point of the national average values of indicators being considered (either symmetrical or asymmetrical). The minimum neighborhood of the national average parameters describing the cluster will be referred to as a normal neighborhood. Its notable feature is the personification of the boundary values (edges of a hypercube of the maximum dimensional ity), each of which has on its surface a set of indicators for at least one of the regions in the neighborhood. Other methods for interregional comparisons usually do not possess such properties. The continuation of the normal neighborhood boundaries to the boundary hyperplanes uniquely identifies five more zones in the indicated space, nat urally ordering the regions with respect to one another (disadvantaged; no better than the average; regions of concern, i.e., such that according to some indicators they are worse than the average and according to oth ers they are better; not worse than the average; and prosperous). For the singled out zones, a natural order can be introduced, reflected in their names. It is natu ral in the sense that for every point in zone i there is an element in zone i + 1 majorizing it with respect to all components (maybe not precisely) and there are no such majorants in the preceding zones. In this case, the resulting structure of the indicator space is deter mined not only by the size of the normal neighbor hood but also by the position taken in this space by the “mass center,” i.e., the point defined by the average values of the indicators for the considered set of regions. 3. APPLIED RESULTS 3.1. Much of the research within one of the sec tions of the RAS Presidium Program was based on the experience accumulated by the team of authors in developing specific strategic documents of interre gional, regional, and municipal development. The selected objects of research were Siberia and the Sibe rian Federal District (SFD), and at the subfederal and local levels those were Novosibirsk oblast, Krasno yarsk krai, and larger cities of the SFD. A critical anal ysis of the findings of these extensive studies enabled us to conclude that a strong scientific school had been established in Siberia specialized in investigations into the Siberian economy and society and meeting world standards in the field, which had yielded a wealth of meaningful results, laying the potential foundation of regional strategic planning. We also analyzed some
conclusions made by foreign authors about the devel opment of Siberia and its role in the system of world economic relations. The geopolitical and resource advantages of the prospective development of Siberia as a pilot site of strategy development were identified, and problems and threats were formulated. Scenarios have been worked out for Siberia’s longterm develop ment; proposals have been prepared suggesting a new major center of concentration of Russia’s economic activity to be established in the centralsouthern area of Siberia. A comparison of the strategies and mid and long term programs of socioeconomic development of the federal members situated in Siberia provided a basis for drawing conclusions about the level and quality of strategic planning in the SFD. The methodology for strategic analysis included the following stages: (1) analysis of the time horizons, legal status, and the structure of the strategies; (2) elementwise analysis of strategies; (3) consolidation of the expected results obtained through the implementation of strategies with respect to the volumes of gross regional product, capital investment, and employment; and (4) verifica tion of the consistency of the consolidated forecast for the SFD based on regional strategies with a similar forecast made at the IEIE SB RAS on the basis of the OIIM. A comparison of the consolidated economic devel opment forecast for the regions of the SFD and the integrated spatial forecast of the Russian economy carried out at the IEIE SB RAS using calculations for the interregional interindustry model showed that the investment expectations reflected in the regional strat egies were inflated and insufficiently resourced. This fact has confirmed the need for all regional strategies to be subject to interregional expertise in order to reveal unrealistic expectations, overly ambitious or duplicate projects, inconsistencies between the strate gic directions of regional development, and the avail able or prospective resources. An analysis of the strategies pursued by Siberian regions revealed two distinct trends and two types of strategies corresponding to those. The first type is a strategy as a document oriented “outside,” i.e., aimed at attracting federal funding or external investors; enhancing the image of the region for the top echelons of power; or attracting skilled workers, tourists, etc. The second type is a strategy as a key element for the improvement of the regional management system and a document of “social consensus” between the govern ment, business, and the public on key issues of regional development. The assumed approach and, consequently, the type of a strategy inevitably deter mine the choice of organizational developers, the pro cedure of development, discussion and adoption of strategies, and their support and end use. The results have been generalized concerning working out the federal target program “Siberia” and the “Strategy for the Socioeconomic Development of
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 3
No. 2
2013
SIBERIAN SCHOOL OF REGIONAL STUDIES
Siberia” as examples of devising program documents for the development of Russian macroregions. The process of working out various versions of the “Strat egy for the Socioeconomic Development of Siberia” with the participation of the IEIE SB RAS was consid ered. This was of interest from the viewpoint of analyz ing the participation and interaction of various “play ers” in the field of regional strategy development (fed eral departments and agencies, the office of the plenipotentiary representative of the RF president in the SFD, regional governments, experts, and business structures) and their existing contradictions. In working out the “Strategy for the Socioeco nomic Development of Krasnoyarsk krai for the Period up to 2020,” special attention was paid to the solution of the main problem, which significantly hin ders the efficient and harmonious development of the region. This is the deindustrialization of the krai’s industrial districts in the zone of continuous economic development adjacent to the TransSiberian Railway, accompanied by the simultaneous switching of the main attention to the raw materials segment of the economy, which is still characterized by piecemeal development and does not allow one to localize the economic and social effects in the territory of the krai. A new strategic development direction, which will greatly strengthen the positioning of Krasnoyarsk krai in the domestic and world economies, should be the adoption of the functions of an interregional industrial and transport “integrator” by the krai, bringing together the system of intersectoral and interregional relations in the Asian part of Russia. 3.2. The ideas of the postcrisis world order are still highly uncertain. Greatly simplifying the situation, the whole set of possible scenarios of global development can be concentrated around two extreme ones, i.e., scenario A, assuming that everything will resume its natural course, and scenario B, implying that the world will become fundamentally different. The world order is determined by four basic char acteristics, i.e., the role of the dollar, the role of oil, the role of the state, and the role of innovations. The “nat ural course” implies that the US currency is used as the world’s (almost) universal money, oil remains the main product behind the world’s major financial flows, the state is liberal, and innovations are insuffi cient as decision makers are focused on current short term problems. The RF development scenario within global sce nario A can be called inertial or oriented to energy and raw materials. However, it assumes a lower growth rate than the energy and raw materials–oriented scenario provided for in the longterm concept of Russia’s development up to 2020, produced by the RF Ministry of Economic Development, i.e., slightly higher than the average for the world economy. The share of the mining sector in the total output will be slightly reduced, and the share of Siberia will continue to REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 3
No. 2
129
decline, which will be accompanied by a just token increase in the share of the Far East. Such a scenario is inevitable if the Russian govern ment is going to retain its passive, i.e., observed until recently, policy when there is a great gap between the words about economic growth, innovations, and the development of the country’s eastern regions and the practical deeds, which are really scarce. Under this scenario, the economic development of Russia and Siberia as its part assumes a stable inertial character. Even in the long term, Russia will retain its undistin guished “average” position, gradually losing its national sovereignty. We can assume that in this situa tion the innovative development scenario can also be implemented provided the government policy is dras tically revitalized. A completely different situation arises if scenario B is implemented. Russia can find itself in an unstable position. If no adequate measures are taken, in the long run, it will undergo destruction and disintegra tion (catastrophic development scenario). The main reason for this is a considerable reduction in the demand for natural resources and accelerating world development based on a hightech scienceintensive platform. However, if certain very serious actions are taken, Russia’s development prospects can prove more than favorable (innovation scenario). Under the catastrophic scenario, the growth rate will drop and stay below the world average, macroin dustrial proportions will not change, and Siberia’s share in the total output will significantly shrink, while the proportion of the Far East will remain the same. Russia will have to abandon its hopes for the role of one of the world’s leaders. The Russian state, which advanced in the 16th–17th centuries from the Volga River to the Pacific Ocean and beyond, will have to return to its old borders in just 20–40 years and the postRussian space will become a set of pseudostates, depending to varying degrees on developed countries and transnational capital. The innovation scenario is possible if the Russian government moves from slogans to action, stimulating (1) economic growth, resulting in an increased share of savings in GDP from today’s 18–19% to a mini mum of 25–30% (in China, the ratio is above 40%); (2) research and development, including corporate R&D, technology upgrading, and innovation, which will ensure growth in R&D expenditures in relation to GDP up to 3–4% (4–5 times), and a share of high tech knowledgeintensive industries and innovative companies in the range 25–40%; (3) economic devel opment and territorial improvement of Asian and Arc tic areas of Russia. There is nothing surprising or new in the list of required actions, including adequate laws, prioritiza tion, direct state funding, and tax incentives. They are wellknown and readily reproducible if there is a polit 2013
130
KULESHOV et al.
ical will and a perceived success of anticorruption and antitrust policy. In this scenario, GDP will be doubled in 12– 14 years, the share of the mining sector will signifi cantly reduce, and the share of Siberia and the Far East will rise perceptibly. The spatial architecture of Russia will change dramatically, because the country will acquire another point of support, i.e., the South east Asia. In the second half of the 2020s, the scale of Russia’s economy (in terms of the ruble PPP) will be among five leading countries; by economic develop ment in terms of GDP per capita (also in terms of PPP) Russia will rise to the upper quartile in the list of world countries. This innovation scenario is more opti mistic than the one provided by the “LongTerm Con cept of Russia’s Development up to 2020,” presented by the RF Ministry of Economic Development. 3.3. According to the aboveoutlined method for hierarchical projections of spatial transformations, calculations were performed using the country’s breakdown into 30 macroregions for the period up to 2030. As specifying conditions for federal districts as a whole, forecasts were used based on the OIIM. Changes in the spatial structure were estimated by six component vectors of regional indicators, i.e., GRP, capital investment, goods production, the production of services per capita, labor productivity (in terms of GRP), and the average salary. The indicators are nor malized to the RF national average level. Regional appreciations are partially offset by coefficients calcu lated on the basis of fixed costs of fixed consumer bas kets as of 2007. The general conclusion from these calculations is that the identified clusters evolve slowly toward a reduction in interregional disparities as the power of the extreme clusters will somewhat reduce by 2030 as compared to 2020 and, especially, to 2010 (both in terms of the number of included macroregions and the population size). *** The research carried out in 2009–2011 by a team of authors representing the IEIE SB RAS within the framework of the RAS Presidium program “Funda mental Problems of the Spatial Development of the Russian Federation: Interdisciplinary Synthesis” were
formulated in publications contributing to the dissem ination of the obtained results. Among these publica tions, we can name, in particular, the monograph The Economy of Siberia: Strategies and Tactics of Modern ization, published in Moscow; the monographs Opti mization of Territorial Systems and Formation of Favorable Environment for Life in Siberia, published in Novosibirsk; the treatise by V.E. Seliverstov Strategic Development and Strategic Planning in Siberia: Experi ence and Challenges*. Both in Russia and abroad, there are dozens of scientific publications on the prob lems of the completed projects. The research results were reported on international and domestic forums, conferences, and seminars. They were also used in the syllabus and programs of different courses at the Fac ulty of Economics, Novosibirsk National Research State University. The objectives of the new program of the RAS Pre sidium for 2012–2014 “Role of Space in the Modern ization of Russia: Natural and Socioeconomic Poten tial,” headed by Academician V.M. Kotlyakov, have been somewhat modified. For the IEIE SB RAS, these problems, while maintaining their continuity, still have a new focus. It consists in improving the methods and models for forecasting and strategizing the devel opment of the economic space, addressing institu tional issues of the development and formation of the economic space, and analysis and forecasting of the socioeconomic development of Siberia in the system of Russian and world economic relations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the RAS Presidium program “Fundamental Problems of the Spatial Development of the Russian Federation: Interdisci plinary Synthesis.” * See The Economy of Siberia: Strategies and Tactics of Moderniza tion, Ed. by A.E. Kontorovich, V.V. Kuleshov, V.I. Suslov (Ankil, Moscow–Novosibirsk, 2009); Optimization of Territorial Sys tems, Ed. by S.A. Suspitsin (Izd. IEIE SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 2010); Formation of Favorable Environment for Life in Siberia, Ed. by V.V. Kuleshov (Izd. IEIE SB RAS, Novosibirsk, 2010); V.E. Seliverstov Strategic Development and Strategic Planning in Siberia: Experience and Challenges (Izd. IEIE SB RAS, Novosi birsk, 2010).
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 3
No. 2
2013
