WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 20 | 21 || 23 |

Ranking of subjects by the level of generalunemployment have demonstrated that 13 identified subjects of the RussianFederation are also leaders in this aspect. To be more precise, 10 regionsout of 13 identified have the worst figures by this indicator. With respect tomoney income, out of 13 identified subjects seven have the worst figures (seetable). As a result, 5 subjects of the Russian Federation (republic ofIngushetia, Dagestan, Kalmykia, Kabardino-Balkaria, and Karachaevo-Cherkessia)by all three ranking criteria are among the most depressed 13 subjects. Sevenmore subjects of RF are among the most depressed 13 subjects by any twoindicators. Finally, only one subject of RF (Tambov region) is among 13 mostdepressed subjects only by one indicator (gross regional product).

Thus, one can ascertain that in thecircumstances of regional differentiation one and the same regions get at thebottom of the list even if different ranking features are used.

In order to substantiate this findingregional raking was done with the help of the same approach as above. Again 13most depressed subjects of RF by the gross regional product were taken.Together with these indicator regional consumer indices of the seven mainproducts was used.

Second group of regions >

Subjects of RF

Per capita GRP (1996),

Rank

Per capita foodstuffs consumption (1997),rank

Meat

Milk

Fish

Sugar

Vegetabl

Bread

Potatoes

Ingush Republic

1

1

7

1


2



Republic ofDagestan

2

4

9





5

Republic ofKalmykia

3



2

13



1

Republic ofTyva

4



3

1

1


2

Republic of North Osetia– Alania

5



5


6

8

7

Republic ofAdygea

6

3


9



9


Republic of Kabardino–Balkaria

7

11


7




8

Karach-CherkesianRepublic

8



6





Republic of MariyEl

9



11





Republic ofAltai

10



4





Tambov oblast

11








Ivanovo oblast

12

12







Yevreyskaya AO

13

7

2



11

7


By per capita meat consumption the Republicof Ingushetia occupies the last place among the subjects of the RussianFederation, i.e. gets rank 1. The Republics of Dagestan, Adygeia, andKabardino-Balkaria, Ivanovo region and the Jewish Autonomous region accordingto this indicator are among 13 most depressed subjects. As a result, out of 13most depressed subjects by the gross regional product eight subjects are amongthe most depressed by at least three consumer indicators. Among them are theRepublics of Ingushetia, Dagestan, Kalmykia, Tyva, the North Ossetia-Alenia,Adygeia, Kabardino-Balkaria, and the Jewish Autonomous region. For example, theRepublic of Tyva took the fourth place from the bottom by the gross regionalproduct. It also occupies leading places by the following consumer indices:fish, sugar, vegetables, and potatoes.

The author thinks that there are reasons toconsider that identified 13 subjects serve as a good basis for selecting fromtheir mix subjects for federal assistance. Out of this group seven most poorsubjects are selected. Thirteen most poor subjects by the gross regionalproduct cover 3.1 percent of the territory of the country with the populationup to 6.2 percent. Out of these thirteen subjects minimum per capita index byGRP amounts to 20.8 percent in relation to the average all-Russia index, andthe maximum – 52.2percent.

In support of applicability of thedescribed above methodology designed for selecting most depressed territories,the author provides data on extended index of investment attractiveness of aregion *

30. In the group with a low index according to these calculationsthe following seven subjects were included: the Republics of Kalmikia, Adygeia,Tyva, the Chukotka Autonomous okrug, the Altai Republic, the Jewish Autonomousregion, the Ingush Republic. Six out of them comprise the group of the mostdepressed 13 subjects.

29>

31

With the purpose of describing budgetrelations between Federal authorities and the subjects of the Federation anumber of regional>

In the analysis of the balance of financialflows between the center and the regions thefollowing typologies were conducted:

  1. By the ration of transfers in the regional budgets and directoutlays of the federalbudget (1998). Into>
  2. By the balance (by the volume of financial assistance) inper capita (1998).
  3. By the balance (including the volume of direct Federal outlays)in per capita (1998).
  4. By the balance (including the volume of extra budgetary funds) inper capita (1998).

Results of the secondround of 1996 presidential elections

Regions – stable donors

Regions – donors in some years

Regions – stable recipients

Share of votes cast forYeltsyn above average all-Russia Level

Saint-Petersburg city, Republic ofTatarstan, Krasnoyarsk krai, Kaliningrad oblast, Leningrad oblast, Moscowoblast, Perm oblast, Sverdlovsk oblast, Tomsk oblast, Tyumen oblast,Chelyabinsk oblast, Yaroslavl oblast, Khanty - Mansi AO, Yamal - NenetsianAO.

Moscow city, Republic of Kalmykia,Republic of Komi, Vologda oblast, Irkutsk oblast, Nenetsian AO.

Ingush Republic, Republic ofKabardino-Balkaria, Republic of Karelia, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Republicof Tyva, Primorsky krai, Khabarovsk krai, Arkhangelsk oblast, Ivanovo oblast,Kamchatka oblast, Magadan oblast, Murmansk oblast, Novgorod oblast, Sakhalinoblast, Taymyr (Dolgano- Nenetsian) AO, Komi-Permyak AO, Koryakian AO, ChukotkaAO, Evenk AO.

Share of votes cast forZyuganov above average all-Russia level

Republic of Bashkortostan, UdmurtRepublic, Belgorod oblast, Volgograd oblast, Voronezh oblast, Lipetsk oblast,Nizhny Novgorod oblast, Omsk oblast, Orenburg oblast, Samara oblast, Ulianovskoblast

Krasnodar krai, Stavropol krai,Vladimir oblast, Kirov oblast, Kursk oblast, Novosibirsk oblast, Ryazan oblast,Saratov oblast, Smolensk oblast,.

Republic of Adygea, Republic ofAltai, Republic of Buryatia, Republic of Dagestan, Karach-Cherkesian Republic,Republic of Mariy El, Republic of Mordovia, Republic of North Osetia - Alania,Republic of Khakasia, Chuvash Republic, Altai krai, Amur oblast, Astrakhanoblast, Bryansk oblast, Kaluga oblast, Kemerovo oblast, Kostroma oblast, Kurganoblast, Oryol oblast, Penza oblast, Pskov oblast, Rostov oblast, Tambov oblast,Tver oblast, Tula oblast, Chita oblast, Yevreyskaya AO, Aguinsky Buryat AO,Ust’ - Orda BuryatAO.

These three >

As an additional one, a typology by thepolitical preferences in regions-donors and regions-recipients is provided,which analyses these two marked types of regions.

The authors tried to check by applying thisclassification whether the financial situation of a regions becomes a factorinfluencing the political preferences of the electorate. The>

2) A number ofsimple typologies is constructed in order to analyze fiscal capacity ofregions.

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 20 | 21 || 23 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .