Given that the paragraph above deals with typologies of countries of the world, the present paragraph focuses on regions within a country. Such typologies are made proceeding from different criteria of socio-economic development selected according to the theoretical tasks to be solved. It is possible to single out two types of criteria and, accordingly, tow types of typologies - comprehensive and narrowly specialized. Whilst the former group comprises typologies developed by the Expert Institute, the latter group comprises all the others. Given that the former group is based upon economic indicators as factors of socio-economic development, the latter one- on social indicators as indices of socio-economic development.
The typology of Russian regions built according to the UN methodology (HPDI- human potential development index) is provided in the paper by A.M. Natenzon11 (see Annex 1)
The typology employs 4 indicators of 3 groups: demographic- 1 out of 7, social-2 out of 7, economic - 1 out of 18, which however, reflect the whole range of the social and economic development characteristics, including those that are not represented in the>
The typology employs 11 main indices of 6 groups: general - 2 out of 6, demographic- 1 out of 7, living standards- 5 out of 10, economic- 1 out of 18, financial-1 out of 18, structural and economic - 1 out of 3.
Whereas the main objective of the typology is the characteristics of territorial differences in socio-economic state and the evaluation of how the regions were adjusting themselves in the conditions of transformation of an economic system, the authors are confident that the current differences are comprehensively enough (in the frame of the operating regional statistics system) and adequately enough are reflected by the indices of the dynamics of industrial output and the population’s income level.
Whereas the typology is oriented to the research into development of the regions, a high proportion of indices of the “living standards” group appears fairly justified: they are indicators of the country’s development level and their characteristic feature is heir clarity.
At the same time, according to the authors, the traditionally used indicator of living standards (the correlation between the income level and subsistence minimum) in this case is not suitable for the basic typology, because it bears an element of the compensatory effect of the local authorities on prices in the local market for goods, and that was used only to ensure comparisons and specification of the final typology.
The authors also followed an additional purpose: that is, the evaluation of “objective” factors that determine conditions of the regions’ socio-economic development in the period of economic transformation.
The output may be used for the decision making on the economy restructuring, industrial policy and structural reform in single groups of regions, and on identification of socially depressive regions and development of their economies.
The typology of Russian regions by the set of indices of the population’s health and the respective factors that forms it is given in the paper by A.C. Martynov and V.G. Vinogradov (see Annex 1). 13
In this paper, the medical and ecological evaluation of the population’s living conditions is based upon the following 10 main indices of 5 groups: general - 1 out of 6, demographic- 3 out of 7, social - 3 out of 7, iving standards indicators - 1 out of 10, those characterizing the labor market - 2 out of 7. There are no purely ecological indicators among them, however the author draws a quite logical conclusion about ecological situation in regions on the basis of theoretical considerations built as conclusions from the evaluation of empirical data rather than on empirical indicators themselves and their interpretations. It is the indicators of the population’s health and living standards that serve as the indicators of the current medical and ecological situation.
The results of this typology and particularly the singling out of depressive regions can become useful for development of a regional policy strategies and tactics.
The typology of economic specialization and functional structure of the EC regions was developed by M. Heidenreich14 in 1997. (See Annex 1)
The author selected 20 regions of EC (NUTS1 and NUTS2) and used 5 indicators of 2 groups: living standards -1 out of 10, and indicators characterizing the labor market - 4 out of 7. All the indicators are related to the labor market, even those from the former group (that is the monetary income level per capita). Obviously, such a typology is significant from the purely practical, rather than theoretical and research, perspective. The advantage of such typologies is their renewal (if needed), for their indicators are always accessible, true and informative.
The typology of regions in Slovakia by the dynamics of GDP indices per capita and unemployment level is regularly provided by the Institute for Forecasting under the National Academy of Sciences15. (See Annex 1).
The>16. (See Annex 1)
This paper used 3 indicators of 3 groups: demographic- 1 out of 7, those characterizing labor market - 1 out of 7, economic - 1 out of 18, which allowed the singling out of 4 regions. The effectiveness of the used indicators is proved by the fact that they allowed a fixing of a substantial differentiation between the regions of the former SFRYU, which is substantially important for decision making processes in the administrative area.
The typology of a group of regions (48) of 14 EU countries (except Austria) is provided in the research conducted in the frame of SPESP program (Study Program on European Spatial Planning)17.
The regions were divided into 5 types:
Type 1 - metropolitan ( 5 regions)
Type 2- polycentric urban ( 7 regions)
Type 3- mostly rural (19)
Type 4- completely rural (11)
Type 5 - peripheral (6),-along with a consequent evaluation of the dependence of the nature of a number of economic and social processes taking place in their territories from the region’s type. The research showed the existence of a regularity with respect to dependence of many processes on the particular region singled out according to the typology.
3) Typology of cities by the level of their socio-economic development.
This paragraph deals with typologies of cities by the level of their socio-economic development that comprises the typologies, which reveal the variety of the cities’ functional structure as an important factor of their socio-economic development. Among the typologies, there are comprehensive ones (mostly with a set of social indicators) as well as specialized (with a minimal set of indicators that, as a rule, are indirect, such as, for instance, the structure of the population’s employment.
The typology “Strong” and “weak” Russian cities” is provided by T.G. Nefedova and A.I. Trayvish (The Urban Institute under the Russian Academy of Sciences)18 (See Annex 1).
The typology comprises 9 indicators of 6 groups: living standards- 4out of 10, those characterizing labor market - 1 out of 7, economic- 1 out of 18, financial- 1 out of 18, transport and communication- 1 out of 5, environmental (the group comprising 1 indicator).
Despite the fact that the selected methodology and indicators are not original, the results of the typology have a practical significance for both researchers and the federal and local authorities, for instance, in the course of their selection of priority directions of the regional policy in the social sphere. In addition, the typology can be useful to city authorities seeking partners for economic and other kinds of cooperation. The typology can also be used in the research related to the evaluation of a socio- economic state and living standards of the population in the cities of RF, for its advantage is its comprehensive nature (the combination of economic and social indicators). Besides, this is the newest typology proposed by urban experts, and this makes it worth noting by all the experts in this particular area.
The typology of cities and districts of Moscow Oblast is of a clearly applied nature, thus being a method of solving the main problem19 (see Annex 1).
The typology employs just 1 indicator- the proportion of the employed population in different sectors, which shows the structure of the employment of the local population. The typology built upon this relative indicator is just the first stage of the work, while at the second stage it should be complemented by an expert evaluation. The typology in question allowed identification of functional specifics of administrative units in the Oblast. The practical significance of this work can be questioned, because it may form the basis of decision making by the Oblast authorities in the course of its implementing an optimal regional policy in Moscow Oblast. This work should also be useful and interesting in terms of making decision on placing production and trade enterprises, as well as in the course of evaluation of investment climate in the districts and cities of the Oblast. The typology allows the singling out of certain cities whose functional structure is similar to the one of Moscow, which may be used in evaluation of their economic capacity.
The comprehensive typology of the US cities by the functional structure is presented by one of the fathers of research in this area Prof. Gunnar Alexandersen20.
The paper employs a whole set of indicators, nonetheless, according to many critics, the main deficiencies of the paper are related to the objective impossibility to apply computerized methods of data processing.
It was the ‘60s when the work in this direction was blooming in the US, due to the development of the automated data processing technologies. While evaluating metropolitan areas, the experts began to use multidimensional analysis, and the whole range of economic indicators was complemented with characteristics from the social sphere.
Since that time, the main approaches and priorities in the field of>
Ben-Chieh Liu21 (see Annex 1) presents a comprehensive typology of the US cities.
The paper employs 6 indicators of 5 groups: demographic- 1 out of 7, social-2 out of 7, living standards- 1 out of 10, those characterizing the labor market- 1 out of 7, environmental situation. At the same time the author also employs the system of polyvariant and multidimensional procedure of a statistical data processing.
The typology of the US cities from the perspective of quality of life is presented in the research papers of R. Boyer and D. Savageau22, and G.S. Thomas23 (see Annex 1)
The authors employ 7 indicators of 5 groups: general- 1 out of 6, social - 1 out of 7, living standards- 1 out of 10, those characterizing the labor market- 2 out of 7, and transport and communication- 2 out of 5.
The latter two papers employed a less complex methodology of>
The important difference between the three papers in question lies in the nature of the subject of their research. While Liu, Boyer and Savageau deals with the quality of life in urban agglomerates, Thomas focused on micropolitan areas (small cities with their outskirts and the population totaled 40,000 to 200,000.
The research papers dealing with quality of life in the cities also focus on cross-regional differentiation of the indicator of quality of life in the cities. Thus, Boyer and Savageau argue that the group of leaders is dominated by a great number of Californian cities, and, on the whole, it is the agglomerates of the Western States that hold the best positions. At the same time the group of the cities with the worst indicators of quality of life is dominated by the cities of the Southern States. The cities are the “nucleus” of the economic and political life of regions, and, accordingly, the situation in the cities and characteristics of them and of their systems also impact the situation in the region. One may single out yet another>
The>24 in the first half of the XXth century (see Annex 1).
The paper employs just a sole indicator - that is, the number of the population in the cities. According to Trevart, the major distinguishing feature of the national centers was the presence of an “alien imprint” in their business life, while the local centers appeared typically Japanese. The territorial “links” appear fairly clearly in Trevart’s>
1) Typology of regions for the evaluation of investment and entrepreneurial climates
All typologies of this kind are comprehensive, which is dictated by the need in taking into account a maximal amount of factors that determine an investment and entrepreneurial climates. Experts of the Harvard Business School conducted one of the first attempts to research in to investment climate in different countries in 1969. The comparisons were based upon an expert scale that comprised: legislative conditions for foreign and domestic investors, a possibility of capital exportation, stability of a national currency, political situation, inflation rate, possibility to use the national capital. That was rather a “narrow” approach, because the criteria were based on expert estimates. In the course of conducting further studies the experts already employed quantitative, statistical criteria, particularly, some macroeconomic indicators (volume of GNP, its structure); in addition, they also began to consider the level of sufficiency of natural resources, state of infrastructure, conditions for development of foreign trade, the level of the government’s participation in the economy. With the emergence of transitional economies in the late ‘80s, the approaches to the evaluation of investment climate have become increasingly complicated. Thus, in particular, the experts began to consider the country’s closeness to the world economic centers the magnitude of institutional transformations, the state and prospects of reform underway, the quality of labor resources.
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.