WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 18 | 19 || 21 | 22 |   ...   | 23 |

Mono voting

21/19

Republic of North Osetia - Alania,Republic of Adygea, Oryol oblast, Tambov oblast, Penza oblast, ChuvashRepublic, Stavropol krai, Republic of Altai, Belgorod oblast, Volgograd oblast,Voronezh oblast, Lipetsk oblast, Republic of Mordovia, Republic of Mariy El,Orenburg oblast, Ryazan oblast, Saratov oblast, Smolensk oblast, Ulianovskoblast, Bryansk oblast, Ingush Republic.

Sverdlovsk oblast, Moscow city,Khanty - Mansi AO, Saint-Petersburg city, Yamal - Nenetsian AO, Perm oblast,Taymyr (Dolgano- Nenetsian) AO, Koryakian AO, Chukotka AO, Vologda oblast,Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Republic of Tyva, Republic of Karelia, Arkhangelskoblast, Republic of Komi, Evenk AO, Nenetsian AO, Kamchatka oblast, Murmanskoblast.

Two humpvoting

12/14

Kursk oblast,Karach-Cherkesian Republic, Republic of Dagestan, Kurgan oblast, Republic ofKhakasia, Republic of Buryatia, Kaluga oblast, Yevreyskaya AO, Tver oblast,Republic of Bashkortostan, Omsk oblast, Ust’ - Orda Buryat AO.

Komi - Permyak AO,Republic of Kalmykia, Moscow oblast, Irkutsk oblast, Krasnoyarsk krai, Vladimiroblast, Yaroslavl oblast, Udmurt Republic, Kirov oblast, Nizhny Novgorodoblast, Republic of Kabardino - Balkaria, Aguinsky Buryat AO, Samara oblast,Republic of Tatarstan.

Alternativevoting

10/11

Kemerovo oblast, Krasnodar krai,Pskov oblast, Chita oblast, Amur oblast, Novosibirsk oblast, Rostov oblast,Kostroma oblast, Tula oblast, Astrakhan oblast.

Tomsk oblast, Leningrad oblast,Chelyabinsk oblast, Novgorod oblast, Kaliningrad oblast, Khabarovsk krai,Magadan oblast, Primorsky krai, Tyumen oblast, Sakhalin oblast, Ivanovooblast.

RUSSIA

Ratio ofregions: 44 loyal to 43 opposition on the elections give 35% for Yeltsynand 32% for Zyuganov

Analysis of regional >

The authors additionally analyze theresults of the second round of 1996 presidential elections. In the second roundYeltsyn has one with a bigger majority compared to the first round. Analysis ofregional ranking from an alternative voting on 1995 parliamentary elections toa mixed voting on the first round of presidential elections demonstrateregional dynamics in political and ideological preferences of thepopulation (from the opposed ones through centrists to loyalists, andvisa versa). The second round of presidential elections demonstrated, first ofall, political preferences of regional elites. On the whole, one can suppose,that an obtained division into 48 loyal regions to 39 opposed regions gave anadvantage to the acting president in the second round in the amount of 13percent which was by 10 percent more than received on the first round of 1996presidential elections. (44 loyal to 43 opposed regions).

23. >

Research analysis of the politicalsituation became an important aspect in regional>

23 a >

24. >

24

Approaches to the choice and>

  • methodology of selecting a region must be clear andobjective;
  • applied indices should be objective, essential and received fromreliable statistical sources;
  • policy should be carried out towards corresponding integratedunits.

Identification of problem regions becomes acentral task in the development of regional policy. These regions shouldreceive support and means from political programs.

In relation to criteria used for the choiceof regions, one can say the following:

  • Indicators used in EC counties can be divided into six bigcategories: unemployment level, per capita GDP, industrial structure, prospectsfor economic development, demographic indices and location;
  • In such countries as Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,Netherlands and the United Kingdom considerable attention is traditionally paidto the unemployment factor in choosing regions;
  • In less developed EC countries a big stress in put on the percapita GDP (partially due to the fact that unemployment statistical data inthese countries can turn out to be unreliable because of underemployment andhigh level of migration);
  • Remaining criteria pay a lesser role in defining regions, althoughsuch aspects as remoteness from markets, situation on labor market and climaticconditions are rather important for Scandinavian countries;
  • In the majority of cases countries unwillingly explain theirmethodology which they use for defining regions. The United Kingdom, Denmark,Portugal and partially Germany are an exception. They is a pressure in thesecountries to make more transparent the solution of these problems at thefederal level in order to obtain general support.

At present, primary attention is paid tothose regions, which fulfil requirements for receiving support in the frameworkof regional policy. At the same time, in each country the regions are dividedinto types on the basis of used criteria. These types are enumerated in theTable. EC countries can be divided into four big groups according to populationcoverage:

  • Greece, Ireland, and Portugal where the whole country can count onsome sort of support;
  • Spain and Italy where the population of problematic regions comebetween 48% and 61% of the overall number of population;
  • Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Luxembourg, and the UnitedKingdom where between 35% and 43% of the overall population are covered;
  • Denmark, Netherlands, and Sweden where between 13% and 20% of thepopulation reside in the problematic regions.

Types of regions covered by regional policyaccording to the priority level

Country

Types of regions for theregional policy

Cover of population(%)

GREECE

Region D

14.0

Region C

30

Region B

14

Region A

42

All regions receivingassistance

100

IRELAND

Selected regions

28

Unselected regions

72

All regions receivingassistance

100

PORTUGAL

Regions SIR

47

All regions receivingassistance

100

SPAIN

All regions receivingassistance

60,7

GERMANY

Depressed zone (new lands- lessdeveloped regions)

13

Depressed zone B (new lands– more developedregions)

8,7

Depressed zone C (westernlands)

16,2

All regions receivingassistance

38

ITALY

Mezzogiorno: A/B

34,2

Molise

0,4

Abruzzi

2

Central and northern regions(Targets 2/5b)

12,3

All regions receivingassistance

48,9

Burgenland: 40% nge

1,8

Burgenland: 30% nge

1,7

E.Obersteiermark: 25%nge

2,3

: 20% nge

26,4

15% nge

3

,

35,2

BELGIUM

Target 1 (Hainaut)

12,6

Zone 1

9,7

Zone 2

12,6

All regions receivingassistance

35

DENMARK

Regions with prioritydevelopment

4,9

Regions envisaged fordevelopment

15,3

All regions receivingassistance

20,2

FRANCE

Longwy, Corsica

0,4

Target 1 (NorthPale-Kale)

1,5

Zone of maximumassistance

12,1

Zone of normalassistance

26,9

All regions receivingassistance

40,9

Country

Types of regions for theregional policy

Cover of population(%)

LUXEMBURG

Ceiling 25%

34,6

Ceiling 17,5%

7,9

All regions receivingassistance

42,5

NETHERLANDS

IPR – Northern developmentzone

9

Transition: S. Limburg

2,8

Twente

3,8

All regions receivingassistance

15,6

GREATBRITAIN

Northern Ireland

2,9

Development zone

15,5

Transition zone

17,5

All regions receiving assistance

35,9

FINLAND

Development zone 1

12,7

Development zone 2

12,9

Development zone 3

5,4

Zone of structuralregulation

10,6

All regions receivingassistance

41,6

SWEDEN

Zone receiving assistance1

2,3

Zone receiving assistance2

5

Provisional zones

6,2

All regions receivingassistance

13,5

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 18 | 19 || 21 | 22 |   ...   | 23 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .