industrial specialization of regions linked with features of theirnatural resources potential;
burden of federal functions carried by the region (first of all,defense, transit and foreign trade) which causes imbalance in economicstructure which is maladjusted to market;
geographical location that conditions considerable difference intransport costs and the cost of reproduction of labor-power;
political situation and formation features of the new type offederative relations.
On average in Russia industrial output fellin 1994 by half in comparison with 1990 level. Analysis of the industrialproduction dynamics by Russia’s regions for the reform period allows making a conclusion thatthe features of the industrial structure in separate regions exerted a decisiveinfluence on the slump rates (they differ considerably in regions).
This research resulted in regionalclassification in five groups from the point of view of features of stateregulation of regional development directed at overcoming the industrialslump.
First group. Thisgroup consists in “mining” regions (in particular, Tumen, Kemerovo, Magadanregions, Komi republic, Sakha (Yakutia), Bashkortostan). State policy towardsthese regions should part from the fact that they have available the moststable basis for economic development based on their high export potential.Large investments are required for the implementation of their economicpotential. State policy should be directed at stimulating investmentinflow.
Second group. Thisgroup includes mainly regions of the European part of Russia. These regionshave a high share of commercial branches of manufacturing industry (Central,North-Western, Volga regions). In order to overcome production depression inthese regions a state policy of sensible protectionism and stimulation ofdevelopment of market oriented institutions is required.
Third group. Thisgroup includes regions with considerable share of military industrial complexin their industrial structure (majority of the Ural regions, separateterritories of the Far East, Siberia and European part of Russia). Suchstructure predetermines practically complete dependence of production dynamicsfrom the federal sources of resources. At the same time, some regions havefewer possibilities for industrial conversion, which predetermines a high levelof central financing, and a more rigid state regulation in order to prevent apossible aggravation of social and economic situation.
Fourth group. Thisgroup includes northern and remote regions of Siberia and the Far East. Theseregions will confront the most difficulties and require a bigger support fromfederal authorities. State support of these regions should be most efficient inspecial sort-term targeted program design of social and economicdevelopment.
Fifth group. Thisgroup comprises regions where industrial slump first of all was caused bynon-economic factors (first of all, republics of Northern Caucasus). Solutionof political and border problems will determine economic situation in theseregions.
20. Russia’s regions typology according to indices of economicspecialization
In the framework of Russian-Canadianresearch project of Russia’s regional problems a typology of Russia’s regions was constructed by theindices of economic specialization*
20. As criteria for regional economic specialization bothquantitative indices (economic structure of regions, export volumes, its sharein the overall export volume of Russia, etc.) and some qualitativecharacteristics were used for a description of social and economic events whichwere typical of different type regions. Four types of regions have beenidentified:
Type 1. Regions rich in mineral resourceswith developed mining industry and relatively insignificant agriculturalsector.
Type 2. Regions with high concentration ofindustrial enterprises, first of all, machine building (including militaryindustrial complex) with developed transport infrastructure.
Type 3. Regions with average developedindustry and developed agriculture.
Type 4. Regions only specialize inagriculture on fertile soils.
21. A typology of subjects of the RussianFederation according to replacement of chiefexecutives*
Between 1995 and 1997 elections of chiefexecutives took place in 69 regions of the country. Regions were>
Former chief executives have been reelected;
New candidates have been elected with the support of Patrioticforces of Russia (NPSR) - KPRF;
New independent candidates have been elected..
1. First group is the most numerouse. Chiefexecutives were reelected in 36 regions. This group comprises: city of Moscow,the Republics of Adygeya, Kabardino-Balkaria, Kalmykya, Tatarstan, Tyva, Sakha(Yakutiya), Primorskiy and Khabarovsk Territory, Novgorod, Arkhangelsk,Vologda, Moscow, Yaroslavl, Ivanovo, Nizhniy Novgorod, Belgorod, Rostov,Astrakhan, Saratov, Samara, Ulianovsk, Orenburg, Perm, Tyumen, Omsk, Tomsk,Chita, Sakhalin, and Kamchatka regions, the Komi-Permiatskiy, Yamalo-Nenets,Khanty-Mansiysk, Taimyr, Chukotka autonomous okrugs, the Jewish Autonomousregion.
2. Second group.With the help of NPSR new candidates have been elected in 25 regions: Republicof Mari El, Krasnodar, Stavropol, Kaliningrad, Murmansk, Leningrad, Pskov,Briansk, Tula, Kaluga, Ryazan, Vladimir, Kursk, Voronezh, Kostroma, Tambov,Volgograd, Kirov, Chelyabinsk, Kurgan, Novosibirsk, Amur, and Magadan regions,Altai Territory, as well as in Evenk autonomous okrug.
3. Third group.New independent candidates have been elected in the city of St. Petersburg,Republic of Khakasia, Tver and Sverdlov regions, as well as in Nenets, AginskBuryat, Ust-Ordynsk Buryatsk and Koryak autonomous okrugs.
The reference book provides also acomparison of Presidential elections results (3 July 1996) and elections ofchief executives in the subjects of the Russian Federation from September 1996through March 1997 which served as a basis for a typology. The typologyincluded 4 groups from 27 regions where elections of chief executives tookplace. Their comparison with the results of presidential elections resulted in4 groups:
Coincidence of the elections results – a higher per cent of votes castfor Yeltsyn on presidential elections and a higher per cent of votes cast for acandidate of “party in power” on the regional elections. This group includes eight regions: Sakha (Yakutiya), KhabarovskTerritory, Rostov, Samara, Ivanovo, Kamchatka, Arkhangelsk and Permregions.
Coincidence of the elections results – higher per cent of votes castfor Zuganov on the presidential elections and a higher per cent of votes castfor an opposition candidate on regional elections. This group includes ten regions: Altai, Stavropol and KrasnodarTerritory, Bryansk, Kursk, Voronezh, Amur, Ryazan, Volgograd and Pskovregions.
Difference in elections results – higher per cent of votes castfor Yeltsyn on the presidential elections and a higher per cent of votes castfor an opposition candidate on regional elections.This group includes seven regions: Kaluga, Kostroma, Kirov, Vladimir, Tula,Cheliabinsk and Leningrad regions.
Difference in elections results – higher per cent of votes castfor Zuganov on the presidential elections and a higher per cent of votes castfor a candidate of “party in power” on regional elections. This group includes two regions: Saratov and Astrakhan regions.
Other research pays big attention to achange in the influence of various political forces. For example, a research conducted by the Moscow Carnegie center in2000 provided analysis of a change in the electoratepolitical preferences in the regions at 1999 parliamentary elections incomparison with 1995 elections.
Coefficients which determine a correlationof votes cast for this or that party in 1999 were calculated together with theshare of votes cast for the same party in 1995 elections. Regions were rankedand divided into several groups according to the coefficient value.
For instance, comparison of votes cast forthe Communist party in 1995 and 1999 four groups of regions wereidentified.
1 group. Acoefficient higher than 1 demonstrating an improvement in result. This groupcomprises 61 subjects of the Russian Federation: city of St. Petersburg, 11republics out of 20, all 6 Territorys, 34 regions, in 9 national republics andokrugs out of 11.
2 group.Coefficient from 0,9 to 1 – insignificant decline. Insignificant decline in the number ofvotes cast took place in 6 regions, 2 republics (Altai and Buriatia), as wellas in Aginsk Buriat autonomous okrug.
3 group. Thisgroup includes regions with a coefficient between 0,67 and 0,9, which ischaracterized by a considerable decline. Such decline was posted in 14 regions:city of Moscow, the Republics of Dagestan, Karelia, the North Ossetia-Alania,Tuva, in 8 regions and the Evenk autonomous okrug.
4 group. Drasticfall in results (coefficient below 0,67) was posted in the republics ofIngushetia (coefficient 0,35), Adygeya (0,57), Kalmykia (0,57)as well as inKemerovo region (0,60).
22. Political preferences of theinhabitants ofRussia’sregions*
In the basis of the analysis and typologyof regions were placed indices of homogeneous voting which demonstratestability and instability of the ratio between electorate voting forrepresentatives of government and opposition.
Polarization and uniformity of votingserved as a basis for a typology. The first factor is based on premise that thepopulation of a majority of regions are sufficiently stable in their politicalpreferences and divides into two polarized groups: those in opposition to thepresent government, and those loyal to the present government. The authorsanalyzed owing to which group of regions the acting president receives arequired majority under dichotomic voting with a relative minority of governingparty in case of an alternative voting in the majority of the subjects ofRussian Federation at the parliamentary elections. Parliamentary elections of1995 and the first round of 1996 presidential elections were chosen forresearch.
The authors explain this situation byuniformity of voting. Three types of voting constructed regional typology:overwhelming voting for one candidate (monovoting), two-hump voting for twocandidates and divided voting.
Monovoting – an absolute majority of onecandidate (or party blocks in case of alternative voting);
Two hump – relative majority of one of thetwo leading candidates (party blocks);
Divided voting – an even spread of votes betweenthree or more candidates (party blocks).
Classification of regions according to votingpreferences at 1995 parliamentary elections
Arkhangelsk oblast, Yaroslavloblast, Saint-Petersburg city, Kamchatka oblast, Republic of Tatarstan,Republic of Tyva.
* Except Kursk region and PrimorskTerritory where. traditionally won.
Classification of regions was carried outby a difference between 1 - 2 and 2 - 3. A region belongs to monovoting typewhen it got in an interval above 15%. A region belongs to two-hump type when itgot in an interval of 15%. A region belongs to a divided type when it got in aninterval below 15%. See table.
Changes in political preferences wereposted during presidential elections compared with parliamentary elections.(See table)
Classification of regions according to votingpreferences at the 1 round of 1996 presidential elections
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.