| ... | 3
This kind of typologies was singled out in a single paragraph, though the budget policy is a component of a regional one, which appears fairly logical, for it is the budget that forms its nucleus, i.e. appears, at the same time, both a factor and an indicator of the socio-economic state.
The typology of RF Subjects by their budget collaboration with the federal center is presented in the paper of the Moscow office of east-West Institute49 (see Annex1).
The main purpose of the typologies provided in the paper was the demonstration of cross-regional differentiation in the country by a number of indicators that characterize financial relations between federal; and regional budgets, and such a differentiation remains fairly substantial by all the indices. Thus in particular, there is a stable situation with regions-donors and regions recipients.
An additional typology is the one on political preferences of the local population in regions-donors and regions-recipients. The typology deals with these two groups of regions.
The research output may become useful for researching into interbudgetary relations in the country and for building a more comprehensive typology of regions, particularly for the computing transfers from the federal budget.
The typology of regions by the level and dynamics of budget sufficiency of the population and typology of the Subjects of the Russian Federation by the level of their budget independence developed in the frame of TASIC project50 (see Annex 1).
These typologies were made for the purpose of evaluation of the regions’ budget sufficiency and budget independence. The output of such an evaluation can be used in further studies into the budget sphere of the RF Subjects as well as for the regulation of financial flows between the center and the regions, as well as for the calculation and allocation of transfers.
* * *
The noted reviews of typologies of regions allow a number of conclusions.
During recent years the researchers and politicians have increasingly demonstrated their growing interest in typologies of Russian regions which is related to a huge and increasing differentiation between their socio-economic state. The politicians at both the federal and regional levels also express their interest in the course of pursuance of regional policy.
The interest is easily traced in the respective papers: thus, the variety of the newly created typologies has grown over the last decade, which is related to the expansion of the spheres of practical application of typologies, primarily in the area of decision making by investors, entrepreneurs, etc.
The review of the typologies shows that the comprehensiveness of the applied indicators does not always solve all the problems, while a narrow targeted typology proves to be more efficient in solving a specific problem. The “narrowness” of a typology does not imply a restriction of the number of indicators – it suggests, primarily, a concrete, sole objective. As long as the noted typologies are concerned, it is the unemployment level that is the most frequently used indicator- in 11 of 31 cases, followed by natural and resource capacity- 9 of 31 and GDP per capita- 9 out of 31, while the expert approach is employed in 8 typologies.
Due to the growing need, the typologization procedure requires improvement related to certain difficulties and directions of their overcoming, as fixed by experts in geography51:
- The difficulties related to the problem of adequacy of the methods employed to the nature and level of strictness of the pre-set tasks – there are attempts to modify the methods of statistical processing of indicators in such a direction, so that to ensure a spatial status, for instance, by using a cartographic method; while attempting to solve the problem, the researchers’ (and not only geographers’) attention is focused on the theory of instruct multitudes and attempts to elaborate>
- the problem of a optimal selection of the system of initial indicators- in addition to the research into the essence of the complex that allows identification of the circle of indicators that reflect that, the experts also suggest an experimental testing of the level of their impact on the final result;
- a different level of significance, importance of the employed indicators for the characteristics of complexes (some of them are so much important that their exclusion would not allow modeling the respective phenomena, while the others just complement the main system)- the experts relate the solution of this problem to the need in “weighing” of indicators that leads to the differentiation of the level of their impact on the final result. There also are attempts to justify the “weighing” system with an expert survey on specialists in the particular subject of the research;
- the majority of the>
- the incompatibility of indicators used to describe any sign in different territories, which is related to both the imperfection of the available data ( for instance, due to the differences in approaches to evaluation of the indicator in different countries) and to the absence of objective methods of their definition ( the example of the latter situation is the concept of economic and geographic position)- at this point, it is recommended to construct artificial indicators.
1 Ermak V.D.>
2 Tikunov V.S.>
3 Analyz razvitia regionov Rossii (typologia regionov, vyvody i predlozhenya). TASIC Project Contract BIS/95/31/057. Moscow, Expert Institute, 1996.
4 Socialno-ekonomicheskaya geographia zarubezhnogo mira. ed. by V.V. Volsky, Moscow, Cronpress, 1998.
5 Bolotin B.M., Sheinis V.L. Economicheskoye razvitie stran v tsifrakh. Opyt statisticheskogo issledovania 1950-80. Moscow, nauka, 1988
6 Typologya nesocialisticheskikh stran. Mosco, Nauka, 1976.
8 World Economic Outlook. IMF. 1994, May
9 Editoril essay:political geography-research agendas for the nineteen-eighties. Political Geography Quarterly, Vol.1, #1, 1982; Morgan M. Values in Political Geography. Processes in Physical and Human Geography. Vol.7, #1, 1983; Kolosov V.A. Politicheskaya geographia.Problemy i Metody. Leningrad: Nauka, 1988.
10 harshthorn R. Politicheskaya geographya. Amerikanskaya geographya. Moscow, 1957.
11 A.M. Natenzon. Vozmozhnosti ispol’zovania mezhdunarodnykh indexov socialnogo razvitia dlya stran SNG i Baltii/The collection of theses of presentations of the International conference of students and postgraduates “Lomonosov-99”. Moscow, 1999
12 Analyz razvitia regionov Rossii (typologya regionov, vyvody i predlozhenia), TACIS Project (contract BIS/95/321/057). Mosco, Expert Institute, 1996.
13 A.S. Martynov, V.G. Vinogradov Medico-ecologicheskaya otsenka usloviy zhizni naselenia. Typologia regionov Rossii po complexu pokazateley zdorovya naselenia i formiruyuschikh ego factorov. 1998
14 Heidenreich M. «The Changing System of European Cities and Regions». (http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/hornton/117/regionew.htm)
15 «Territorial differentiation of Slovakia. The typology of Slovak regions». (http://www.undp.org/bec/nhdr/1996/slovak/chapter10.htm)
16 Оцић Ч. «Основна теориjска и методолошка нитања утврђиваа критериjума и показатеља развиjености». Београд, Институт економских наука, 1985;
17 Оцић Ч. «Развиjеност jугословенских региона: предмет и методи истраживања». Београд, Институт економских наука, 1985;
Оцић Ч. «Економика регионалног развоjа Jугославиjе». Београд, Економика, 1998;
Ocic C. «The Regional Problem and the Break-Up of the State: The Case of Yugoslavia». Slavik Research Center of Hokkaido University. (http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/publictn/acta/16/caslav/caslav-1.htm)
18 «Rural and urban partnership».
19 V.L. Baburin, V.N. Gorlov, V.E. Shuvalov. Economico-geographicheskie problemy razvitia Moscovsskogo regiona v usloviyakh intensificatsii. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Ser.5, geogr. 1986.
20 G. Alexandersen. Economicheskaya struktura gorodov USA. Moscow, 1959.
21 Liu Ben-Chieh. Quality of life indicators in the US metropolitan areas. 1970: a comprehensive assesment. Washington D.C., 1975
22 Boyer R., savageau D. Places rated almanac. Your guide to finding best places to live in America. N.Y., 1989
23 Thomas G.S. The rating guide to life in America’s small cities. Buffalo, 1990
24 Trevart. Japanese cities: Distribution and Morphology, 1934
25 Les regions de la Russie: guide et>
26 Investitsionny climat regionov Rossii: opyt otsenki i puti ulucshenia. Moscow, CCI of RF, Alfa-Capital, 1997;
Indexy investitsionnykh riskov. Analutichesky project “Rossia v tret’yem tysyacheletii”. Moscow, AO “Triada”, 1994;
Tikhomirova I. Investitisonny climat v Rossii: reginalnye riski. Moscow, Izdatcentre, 1997
Akimov M. Dorogaya moya Rus (tablitsa investitsionnoy privlekatelnosti regionov Rossii)- Profil, 1997, # 32;
Kotlyar Z. Invstitsionnalya privlekatelnost regionov Rossii.-Delovoy Mir. 15.09. 1993
Nagaev S., Woergoetter A. “A regional risk rating in Russia. Vienna, Bank Austria, 1995;
Russian regions: Credit Susicce First Credit Rating, 1998;
27 Rating investitsionnoy privlekatelnosti regionov Rossii.-Expert, 1996, #47
Investitsionny rating rossiyskikh regionov 1996-1997.-Expert, 1997, #47
Investitsionny rating rossiyskikh regionov 1997-1998.-Expert, 1998, #38
Investitsionny rating rossiyskikh regionov 1999-2000.-Expert, 2000, #41
28 Royzman I. Climaticheskiye kolebaniya. Regionalnye razlichia.- Investitsii v Rossii, 1995, #3.
29 Predprinimatelksy climat regionov Rossii. Moscow, Nachala-Press, 1997
30 Petrov V.V. Politiko-geographichesky analiz faktorov, vliyayuschikh na provedeniye regionalnykh vybornykh kampaniy v RF./ The collection of presentations of the International conference of students and postgraduates “Lomonosov-99”. Moscow, 1999
31 Markova N., Bedenkov A. Socialno-ekonomicheskoye polozheniye regionov Rossii (obzor).-Voprosy ekonomiki, 1995, #3.
32 Galkin A., Kazakov A. A typology of Russia’s regions and the case study approach. Ch.2, 1998
33 Vybory glav inspolnitelnoy vlasti sub’ectov Rossiyskoy Federacii. 1995-1997. Electoralnaya statistika. Moscow, Ves’ Mir, 1997
34 Analiz tendenciy razvitia regionov Rossii v 1991-1996 gg. Politicheskye orientacii naselenia Rossii. Project TACIS (Contract BIS 96/369/056). Moscow, Expert Institute, 1997.
35 Paddison R. The Fragmented State: the political geography of power. Oxford. 1983.
36 Johnston R.J. Political, Electoral and Spatial Systems. Oxford, 1979
37 Berglund S., Hallin B., Lindstrom U., Ricknell L. Alternative methods of regionalization. Umea, 1979
38 Dogan M. Parties and strata in France and Italy. Glencoe, 1967
39 Rose R., Irwin D.W. «Persistence and change in western party systems since 1945». Political Studies, Vol.18, №3, 1970
40 Rantala O. «The political regions of Finland». Scandinavian political studies, Vol.2, 1967
41 http://tacis.federation.ru/yull.htm, http://tacis.federation.ru/toepel.htm
42 See the Section “International experience in regional policy” in the report “Analyz razvitia regionov Rossii (typologia regionvo, vyvody i predlozhenia)”, TASIC project (contract BIS/95/321/057). Moscow, Expert Institute, 1996
45 Tatsuno Sheridan «Strategia-technopolices» Moscow, Progress, 1989
46 «State of the Regions Report». NIEIR. (http://184.108.40.206/regionlink/state_regions.htm)
47 Borodulin N.A. “O>
48 Lavrovsky B.>
49 Federalny budget i regiony. Opyt analyza finansovykh potokov. Moscow, Dialogue MGU, 1999.
50 Analiz tendentsiy razvitia regionov Rossii v 1991-1996. Project TASIC (contract BIS 96/369/056), Moscow, Expert Institute, 1997
51 Tikunov V.S.>
| ... | 3