Differentiation of the economic efficiency in the regions of Russia

Purpose. The strategic objectives of sustainable development of the Russian economy include improving energy efficiency and capital efficiency, increasing labor productivity, and reducing the negative impact on the environment. Due to the significant differentiation of the Russian Federation economy, the priorities of these tasks in regions are not the same. There-fore, the analysis of various components of the regional macroeconomic efficiency and the choice of methodical approaches to their composite assessment are being important. The pur-pose of this paper is to test the multidimensional analysis methods of key regional production indicators for measuring the integral indicator – the relative level of economy-wide efficiency of the Russian regions.

Materials and methods. “Per unit” indicators of the gross regional product: energy con-sumption, use of fixed assets, labor, and environmental impact, that are calculated by the ROSSTAT data are the basis for assessing of the regional economy efficiency. The research interest of joint consideration of these regional economy indicators is due to their connected-ness as major components of the latent synthetic property of efficiency. The study used meth-ods of comparative multidimensional analysis: nonparametric method of frontier analysis – Data Envelopment Analysis, methods of the average and taxonomic indicator and principal components.

Results. The tested methods allowed assessing the differentiation, to rank the regions of the Russian Federation by the level of their economic systems’ efficiency and to identify the “lagging” ones and determine the factors that reduce their positions. The specifics of the ap-plication of the considered methods are noted. Attention is paid to the economic interpreta-tion of the integral indicators. The grouping of regions of the Russian Federation has been car-ried out according to the data of 2016. Twenty-eight regions are classified as “high efficiency” (integral index 0,85–1,0), most of which are effective on all four criteria. The “medium-performing” group (0,75–0,84) comprises thirty-three regions with a reduced level of efficien-cy due to one or two factors: high energy intensity, increased emissions or insufficient labor productivity. The “low efficiency” group (0,5–0,74) comprises twenty-six regions, the problem of their efficiency is a complex one, mainly energy-environmental, with critically low efficien-cy indicators for some components.

Conclusion. This article presents an assessment of the differentiation of the regional economy efficiency by using an integral indicator, taking into account the performance of the use of labor, physical capital, fuel and energy resources and environmental impact. Firm con-clusions on the choice of the method for aggregating particular performance criteria into one generalizing indicator have not been obtained. A practical approach is to solve such problems Economic statistics by different available methods to compare results and to obtain consistent conclusions. Four basic criteria of the regional economy efficiency were taken into account, but methodically their number is not limited and can be increased. The results can be used in the system of mon-itoring and strategic planning of regional economy development. The proposed methodical approach is applicable to other practical tasks of multi-factor comparative analysis of regional development.

1. Ayvazyan S.A. An empirical analysis of the synthetic categories of the quality of life of the population. Ekonomika i matematicheskiye metody = Economics and Mathematical Methods. 2003; 39; 3: 19–53. (In Russ.)

2. Goncharenko V.Ye., Korobova V.F. Assessing the uneven development of the regions of the Russian Federation by socio-economic resource components. Statistika i ekonomika = Statistics and Economics. 2019; 16; 4: 54–72. DOI: 10.21686/2500-3925-2019-4-54-72. (In Russ.)

3. Makarov V.L., Ayvazyan S.A., Afanas’yev M.YU., Bakhtizin A.R., Nanavyan A.M. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the regions of the Russian Federation taking into account intellectual capital, characteristics of readiness for innovation, the level of well-being and quality of life of the population. Ekonomika regiona = Economy of the region. 2014; 4: 9–30. (In Russ.)

4. Molchanova Ye.V., Kruchek M.M., Kibisova Z.S. The construction of rating estimates of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation by blocks of socio-economic indicators. Ekonomicheskiye i sotsial’nyye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz = Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2014; 3 (33): 196–208. (In Russ.)

5. Piskun Ye. I., Khokhlov V.V. Economic development of the regions of the Russian Federation. Factor-cluster analysis. Ekonomika regiona = Economy of the region. 2019; 15; 2: 363– 376. DOI: 10.17059/2019-2-5. (In Russ.)

6. Ratner S.V. Dynamic tasks of assessing the ecological and economic efficiency of regions on the basis of basic models for analyzing the functioning environment. Upravleniye bol’shimi sistemami = Management of large systems. 2017; 67: 81–106. (In Russ.)

7. Tret’yakova Ye.A., Osipova M.YU. Assessment of indicators of sustainable development of Russian regions. Problemy prognozirovaniya = Problems of forecasting. 2018; 2: 24–35. (In Russ.)

8. Yudintsev A.YU., Troshkina G.N. The study of the differences in the socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation using multivariate data analysis for 2017 [Internet] Upravleniye ekonomicheskimi sistemami: elektronnyy nauchnyy zhurnal = Management of economic systems: electronic scientific journal. 2018; 6: 11. Available from: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_35167422_72542092.pdf (cited: 20.02.2019). (In Russ.)

9. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD, European Commission, Joint Research Centre. [Internet] Paris: OECD Publishing, 2008. 162 p. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/sdd/42495745.pdf (cited: 15.04.2019).

10. Ayvazyan S.A., Stepanov V.S., Kozlova M.I. Measurement of synthetic categories of quality of life for the population of the region and identification of key areas for improving socio-economic policy (for example, Samara region and its municipalities). Prikladnaya ekonometrika = Applied Econometrics. 2006; 2: 18–84. (In Russ.)

11. Zhou P., Ang B.W., Zhou D.Q. Measuring economy-wide energy efficiency performance: A parametric frontier approach [Internet]. Applied Energy. 2012; 90; 1: 196–200. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.02.025 (cited: 17.04.2018)

12. Porunov A.N. Evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of state environmental safety management in the region by the DEA-analysis method (on the example of the Volga Federal District. Nauchnyy zhurnal NIU ITMO. Seriya «Ekonomika i ekologicheskiy menedzhment» = Scientific journal NRU ITMO. Series «Economics and Environmental Management». 2016; 1: 104– 111. DOI: 10.17586/2310-1172-2016-9-1-104-111. (In Russ.)

13. Apergis N., C.A.Goodness, P.B. Carlos, Gupta R., Wanke P. Energy efficiency of selected OECD countries: A slacks based model with undesirable outputs [Internet] Energy Economics. 2015; 51: 45–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.05.022 (cited: 17.04.2018).

14. Sueyoshi T., Yuana Y., Goto M. A literature study for DEA applied to energy and environment [Internet] Energy Economics/ 2017. vol.62/ pp.104–124. DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.006 (cited: 17.04.2018).

15. Zhou P., Ang B.W. Linear programming models for measuring economy-wide energy efficiency performance [Internet] Energy Policy. 2008; 36; 8: 2911–2916. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508001638?via%3Dihub (cited: 17.04.2018).

16. Plyuta V. Sravnitel’nyy mnogomernyy analiz v ekonometricheskom modelirovanii. Per. s pol’sk = Comparative multivariate analysis in econometric modeling. Tr. from polish. Moscow: Finance and Statistics; 1989. 175 p. (In Russ.)

17. Nadtoka T.B., Vinogradov A.G. Multidimensional estimation of the level of socio-economic development of an enterprise. Biznes Inform= Business Inform. 2014; 1: 184–191. (In Russ.)

18. Fadeyev A.M., Cherepovitsyn A.Ye., Larichkin F.D., Fedoseyev S.V. Assessing the priority of developing deposits in the Russian Arctic as a tool for effective environmental management in modern macroeconomic conditions. Energeticheskaya politika = Energy Policy. 2018; 4: 34–47. (In Russ.)

19. Ayvazyan S.A. On the methodology of measuring synthetic categories of the quality of life of the population. Ekonomika i matematicheskiye metody = Economics and Mathematical Methods. 2003; 39; 2: 33–53. (In Russ.)

20. Zhgun T.V. The study of formal methods for constructing latent characteristics of the quality of systems. Vestnik Novgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya «Fiziko-matematicheskiye nauki» = Bulletin of Novgorod State University. Series «Physics and Mathematics». 2014; 80: 13–19. (In Russ.)

21. Alfer’yev D.A. Application of the method of principal components in assessing the parameters of scientific and technological potential. Voprosy territorial’nogo razvitiya = Issues of territorial development. 2016; 4 (34): 1–9. (In Russ.)

22. Novakovskiy A.B. Interaction of EXCEL and statistical package R for data processing in ecology. Vestnik IB KOMI NTS UrO RAN = Bulletin of Information Security Institute of Komi Scientific Center, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2016; 3: 26–33. (In Russ.)