Subject. Key indicators of social economic development region (on the example of the Chuvash Republic)

The topic presents the main macroeconomic indicators and socio-economic indicators of the standard of living of the population, the state of the financial system of the region and some indicators of the system of national accounts. Statistical indicators are used in all directions of formation of the development of regions. Their correlation, threshold values, and the use of statistical analysis methods give an idea of ​​the actual situation in the country and its regions.

In modern conditions, statistics should provide authorities government controlled all levels, international organizations, commercial structures and the population with objective, timely and complete information on the socio-economic development of Russia, its regions, industries and sectors of the economy.

Statistical information is used at the macro level to develop economic policy in the country, draft budgets, obtain development forecasts, and analyze the implementation of federal laws and Russia's international obligations. Thus, statistics plays an important role in shaping the information infrastructure of the economy, the social sphere and society as a whole.

To manage modern society, one should monitor the state and interaction of two main areas - economic and social. And although these areas are interconnected and interdependent (for example, the level of economic development is reflected in the standard of living of the population, and human resources determine the course of economic transformations), each of them has a specific separate subject of study and, therefore, requires an adequate system of indicators.

Statistical indicators are printed in special publications based on the data of the State Committee on Statistics - statistical yearbooks, which are formed based on the results of the past year by the middle of the current year. Additional information on regional development statistics can be found in specialized periodicals, the journal "Questions of Statistics", in "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" (for April and September) in the article "Where to live well in Russia".

Statistical yearbooks provide the following obligatory collection of data in their publications:

The main indicators of the standard of living of the population

Actual final consumption of the household sector, million rubles.

Economic activity of the population:

1. average annual number of people employed in the economy, thousand people;

2. number of unemployed, thousand people;

3. the number of unemployed registered with the authorities public service employment (at the end of the year), thousand people.

Incomes of the population and socio-economic differentiation

Average per capita cash income of the population (per month), rubles.

Real disposable cash income of the population, as a percentage of the previous year.

Distribution of total cash income by 20% population groups, percent.

The ratio of cash income of 10 percent of the most and least wealthy population, in times.

Average monthly nominal accrued wages of those working in the economy, rubles.

Real accrued average monthly wages of one employee, as a percentage of the previous year.

Average monthly pensions (1998-2001 - including compensation), at the end of the year, rubles.

Actual size of assigned monthly pensions (1998-2001 - including compensation), as a percentage of the previous year.

Housing conditions of the population

The area of ​​dwellings per inhabitant on average (at the end of the year), m 2.

Number of families (including singles) registered for housing (at the end of the year), as a percentage of the total number of families (including singles).

Medical service

The number of doctors of all specialties per 10,000 population.

The number of nurses per 10,000 people.

Number of hospital beds per 10,000 population.

Public health status

Registered patients with a first diagnosis per 1000 population

Suicide mortality rate (number of deaths per 100,000 population)

Energy value of the diet per capita, kcal per day.

Education

Number of state daytime general education institutions (as of the end of the year), units.

Number of institutions of primary vocational education, units.

Number of state secondary specialized educational institutions (including branches), units.

Number of state higher educational institutions (including branches), units.

Culture and recreation

The number of theater visits per 1000 population.

Number of museum visits per 1000 population.

Publication of books and brochures per 1000 people, copies.

Publication of magazines per 1000 people, copies.

The number of people treated and rested in sanatoriums and recreation facilities, people.

Means of transport

Availability of own cars per 1000 population, pieces.

Demographic situation

Permanent population (at the end of the year), thousand people.

Life expectancy at birth (number of years).

Birth rate (per 1000 population).

Mortality rate (per 1000 population).

Natural increase, decrease (-) population.

Offenses

Number of reported crimes per year.

Detection of crimes, percent

Homicide mortality rate (number of deaths per 100,000 population)

Subject. Development and implementation of regional programs for socio-economic development

Regional development concepts are currently the most dynamic area of ​​theoretical research in the economy. The purpose of these studies is to develop a comprehensive mechanism for solving the problems of regional development, including the alignment of the levels of individual regions, the creation of interregional production complexes, and the efficient use of the internal resources of the region.

Classification of regional programs (according to the Institute of Macroeconomics):

1 Level of significance: interstate, state (federal), actually regional.

2 Territorial affiliation: republican, krai, oblast, krai, autonomous formations.

3 Functional orientation: scientific and technical (innovative), socio-economic, production and technical, investment, organizational and economic, environmental).

5 The scale of the program problem: complex (multi-aspect), highly specialized (mono-purpose).

6 Industry localization: intersectoral, sectoral, subsectoral.

7 The nature of the problem: planned and forecast, emergency, opportunistic.

8 Validity period: long-term (over 5 years), medium-term (from 1 year to 5 years), short-term (up to 1 year).

9 Source of financing: centrally financed, financed from the local budget, other sources of financing, mixed financing.

10 Funding efficiency: self-sustaining, subsidized.

11 Temporal aspect of the implementation of the problem: permanent, limited in time (one-time).

12 Priority: first priority, temporarily postponed.

13 Turn on external relations: internal, external.

14 Status: state, interstate; independent (local).

On the one hand, each region occupies a certain place in the system of social division of labor and should be aimed at implementing a nationwide development strategy, and on the other hand, the development of an effective state strategy should be based both on an initial assessment of the potential and prospects for the development of regions, and on the possibilities of forming interregional research and production complexes. This will help to solve the problems of strengthening the economic integrity of the country, reducing the degree of differentiation of regions in terms of development, accelerating interregional integration and at the same time creating conditions for realizing the development potentials of individual regions. Among the most successful programs of this kind are the federal target programs "Far East", "Kaliningrad", "South of Russia".

Perhaps this way of building state programs for economic development seems more difficult, but the time and money spent is compensated by the opening opportunities for the fullest use of qualified personnel on the ground, the resources of the region, and the improvement of the sectoral structure of the economy at the regional and, as a result, at the national level. Thanks to the development of individual programs of individual subjects of the Russian Federation and their subsequent integration into national programs, there is also a real opportunity for a wider and more detailed information coverage of the current situation, obtaining the benefits of a clear and interconnected system of state programming.

The development of the regional aspect in the course of state programming should include six stages:

Stage 1: the basic resource potential is determined, which has developed under the influence of both natural and climatic factors, and as a result of the political, social and economic transformations carried out. Data on natural, labor, investment

resources, as well as the innovative potential of the analyzed subject.

Stage 2: the priority sectors of the region that make up its specialization are identified, their place and role in socio-economic development at the regional and national levels are considered.

Stage 3: the level of development of specialization industries, their share in export-import operations, the number of employed able-bodied population, the impact on the socio-economic situation of the region and the formation of its market infrastructure are analyzed.

Stage 4: if the industry of specialization is not the only one, but it employs about 50% of all the labor resources of the region, it is advisable to develop a program to support the industry in the financial and scientific and technical fields, and in the case of narrow specialization, it is economically important to develop other areas of the industry structures, which will allow not only to expand the region's opportunities, but also to avoid a structural crisis, total unemployment and, as a result, a fall in the socio-economic level of the subject.

Stage 5: based on the processing of the data obtained at the previous stages, a program for the socio-economic development of the subject is developed, which provides for the attraction of both public and private investments.

Stage 6: the mechanism and tools for the implementation of the regional development program are determined.

With regard to the region, we are talking about four stages of creating conditions for its sustainable development and economic growth.

1. Overcoming the underestimation of the prospects for the economic development of the region by domestic and foreign investors. This situation arises when the authorities of the region pay insufficient attention to promoting its achievements and capabilities.

2. Increasing the attractiveness of the region through the implementation of intra-regional reform programs. Such programs may, for example, include:

· carrying out measures to minimize budget expenditures and on this basis provide tax incentives to the most profitable investors;

· analysis of the structure of the economic complex of the region and the allocation of economically useful (producing positive added value) and economically harmful (producing negative added value) enterprises in it with the aim of subsequent taking measures for the fastest restructuring or liquidation of the latter;

analysis of strengths and weaknesses the economic complex of the region, as well as the opportunities and threats to its development created by the external environment (SWOT-analysis), in order to find on this basis real schemes for the formation in the region of "development clusters" or groups of complementary enterprises capable of jointly producing competitive products;

· implementation of measures to increase the information transparency of the region for business partners, interested enterprises and investors;

· accelerating the training and retraining of managerial personnel for the region.

3. Improving the conditions for the development of the region through the formation of mutually beneficial economic ties with other regions of Russia, CIS countries and far abroad.

4.Optimization of the budgetary system of the region and its preparation for raising funds for infrastructure projects using money market instruments.

The development of the region's infrastructure significantly increases its attractiveness for investors and creates the basis for the inflow of Money and business projects and, as a result, sustainable growth of incomes of the population and the regional budget.

Each region, due to the specificity of natural, economic and social conditions, has its own economic interests, understood as a set of economic interests of the population living in its territory. They express a complex, multi-level system of economic relations that the region (as a subject) enters into with other subjects within and outside the regional system in order to meet the needs of the functioning and development of all subjects of the Federation.

When developing economic development programs, the government is usually interested in depressed areas with an equally low income, that is, homogeneous regions. They usually try to solve the problem of such regions by creating a "common economic space".

The main prerequisite for the formation of substantiated regional development programs is high-quality socio-economic forecasting. The economic bodies of the regions, based on an understanding of the current state and possible changes in the conditions for the flow of reproductive processes in the economy, develop forecasts of sectoral indicators and indicators of the development of areas of economic activity, conduct a meaningful analysis of benchmarks and alternatives for the development of the national economy, identify solutions key issues.

In modern conditions, when economic growth largely depends on the intensification of production based on the introduction of the latest technology, the requirements for the scientific validity of choosing the best scenario for economic and social development from a huge number of acceptable options are sharply increasing. Therefore, it is necessary to highlight a number of regularities inherent in the software mechanism at the present time:

1 Programming of territorial development has become the main form of implementation of regional socio-economic policy in almost all developed and developing countries.

2 Each programmatic mechanism formally recognizes the task of regional development as a joint, coordinated responsibility of all levels of government, but each link plays the specific role for which it has the best means.

3 The programs being developed provide for the attraction of the resources of many participants to achieve common economic development programs. The injection of resources enables the supranational and national levels of power to influence regional development.

4 The development of programs should guarantee equal economic and social rights of participating regional entities (enterprises, organizations, regions), i.e. the conformity of the goals and means of implementing programs with the economic interests of the parties involved must be observed.

5 The goal of the programs should be to ensure the maximum possible increase in the welfare of the population in the planned period, given objectively existing restrictions. The level of people's well-being in the period under review is characterized by a complex of levels of satisfaction during this period of the absolute needs of the population.

6 The maximum growth in the well-being of the population is objectively limited by a number of resources and needs that must be taken into account when developing programs. These include, in particular: material, financial, labor resources available at the beginning of the planning period; the achieved level of development of science and technology; resources for the needs of a national nature (defense, environmental protection, foreign economic relations, etc.) and others.

7 Regional programs one way or another fit into the system of national priorities, they are ranked and hierarchically aligned, barriers are put up for the unrestrained and uncontrolled expansion of government spending under the brand name of programming.

8 Programs developed should be comprehensive. All tasks in it are required and interdependent. They are not ranked in order of importance, since none of them can be excluded from the program without violating its integrity.

9 The activities developed in the program mechanism are planned for several years, and this gives a certain degree of stability for economic entities in terms of financing and other issues.

Subject. Formation of living standards in modern economic conditions

The standard of living expresses the provision of the population with material, cultural (spiritual), social benefits necessary for life, the achieved level of their consumption and the degree of satisfaction of people's needs for these benefits.

The most important task of studying the standard of living is to identify patterns in the formation of the welfare of the population. In particular, it is necessary to consider the following points: a comprehensive review of the structure, dynamics and rates of change in indicators of the standard of living; differentiation of various groups of the population by income and consumption and analysis of the influence of various socio-economic factors on the change in level. Of great importance is the assessment of the degree of satisfaction of the population's needs for material goods and various services in comparison with rational norms for their consumption and the development on this basis of general indicators of the standard of living.

Four living standards of the population: prosperity (the use of benefits that ensure the all-round development of a person); the middle class (rational consumption according to scientifically based standards, providing a person with the restoration of his physical and intellectual strength); poverty (consumption of goods at the level of maintaining working capacity as the lower limit of the reproduction of the labor force, equal to the subsistence level); poverty (the minimum allowable set of goods and services according to biological criteria, the consumption of which only allows maintaining human viability, is equal to half the subsistence minimum).

Three aspects of studying the standard of living are possible: 1) in relation to the entire population; 2) to his social groups; 3) to households with different amounts of income.

From the quantitative side, the standard of living as a socio-economic category is characterized by indicators of the standard of living and socio-economic standards.

Cost indicators include real incomes of the population, nominal and real wages, pensions, allowances, scholarships, the minimum consumer budget, the subsistence minimum budget, etc.

In-kind indicators include the quantity and quality of consumption of material goods and services by the population, the provision of housing, enterprises and institutions of social services. Social ones are determined by the size and structure of free time, life expectancy, and the level of education and culture of the working people.

The following methodology is used to determine the subsistence minimum in Russia. First, dietary norms are taken into account, designed to ensure that each person receives the minimum required number of calories. Then a cost estimate is made for the minimum required food basket. The subsistence minimum is set taking into account the fact that the cost of food in accordance with the “Methodological recommendations for calculating the subsistence minimum by region Russian Federation”, developed by the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation, are for an able-bodied citizen - 61.1%, for a pensioner - 82.9%, and on average per capita - 68.3%.

Specialists of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) have developed a general indicator of the standard of living, calculated as an average of three values: gross domestic product per capita (taking into account the poverty line), life expectancy and education level of the population (25 years and older), related to the highest levels of these indicators achieved in the world

Social standards differ: development of the material base of the social sphere, income and expenditure of the population, social security and services, consumption of material goods and paid services, living conditions, the state and protection of the environment, the consumer budget, etc. They can be level, expressing the absolute and relative value of the norm, respectively, in physical terms or percentages (possible options for standards: momentary, interval, minimum, maximum), as well as incremental, presented as a ratio of increments of two indicators.

Topic Sectoral structure of the regional economy

The sectoral or component structure of the region's economy reflects the relationships, connections and proportions between large groups of industries in the region.

The entire regional economic complex is divided into groups of industries:

1. Branches of material production (industry, construction, agriculture, as well as sectors related to the supply of the population with products, i.e. procurement, logistics, trade and catering).

2. Branches of the non-productive sphere: housing and communal services, consumer services, transport, communications, etc.

3. Social services for the population: health care, science, culture and art, education, management and defense sectors.

For the study of regional economic complexes, the branch functional classification is of great importance. It includes four groups of industries:

1) primary - extractive industry and agriculture;

2) secondary - manufacturing industry;

3) serving production and the population: transport, trade, housing construction, health care;

4) management, science and scientific service.

The development of production leads to the constant allocation of new types of economic activity, especially on the basis of scientific and technological progress. This process should be combined with a decrease in the share of extractive industries due to the growth of knowledge-intensive ones.

At the starting level of the transition to market relations in our country, an irrational sectoral structure has developed. The branches of material production accounted for over 70%, the branches of the non-productive sphere - less than 30%.

The market economy in civilized countries is characterized by other proportions, in most of them over 50% are social, non-productive sectors.

For the modern structure of regional economies, a characteristic feature is the presence of sectoral and intersectoral complexes. Moreover, the process of strengthening production ties and integrating different stages of production is underway to an ever greater extent. Such inter-sectoral complexes as fuel and energy, metallurgical, machine-building, chemical-forestry, construction, agro-industrial, and infrastructural complexes have developed. All these complexes, in turn, have a complex and differentiated structure.

Subject. Territorial aspects of industrial development

Industry is the basic branch of the national economy. It concentrates the maximum number of fixed production assets, employs the largest number labor resources, as well as most taxes are deducted from it both in regional and federal budgets.

The structure of industries includes: a fuel and energy complex, a machine-building complex, a complex of structural materials (ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, a chemical complex, a timber complex), a complex for the production of consumer goods and a service sector.

In the process of locating production, and in particular industry, various forms of territorial organization have developed in the regions. Allocate large economic zones, industrial areas, industrial agglomerations, industrial hubs, industrial centers.

To analyze and synthesize the territorial economic proportions of the development of the economy, as well as to identify the main directions for the distribution of productive forces throughout the country, large economic zones are allocated for the future period. They are large territorial formations with characteristic natural and economic conditions for the development of productive forces.

There are two major economic zones on the territory of the Russian Federation:

o Western, European, including the Urals,

o Eastern, including the territories of Siberia and the Far East.

The western zone is characterized by a shortage of fuel, energy and water resources, a high concentration of industrial production, and the predominant development of manufacturing industries. The eastern zone is characterized by the predominance of extractive industries, the presence of large reserves of fuel and energy and mineral resources, and poor development of the territory. This allocation of large economic zones is accepted in the analysis and definition of promising territorial economic proportions of the economic complex of the country.

Large economic zones include industrial areas. They are large territories with relatively homogeneous natural resources, conditions, with a characteristic direction in the development of productive forces, with an appropriate existing material base, industrial and social infrastructure.

Industrial agglomerations are territorial economic entities that differ high level territorial concentration of enterprises in various sectors of the economy, infrastructure facilities and scientific institutions, as well as high population density.

An industrial hub is considered as a group of industries located compactly in a small area. Modern industrial hubs are planned and developed not as autonomous industrial centers, but as elements of separated spatial structures of territorial production complexes. Being created on the basis of a consistent combination of production and the formation of key infrastructure facilities, industrial hubs represent a qualitatively new phenomenon in the regulated process of territorial development.

The formation of market relations in Russia leads not only to a variety of forms of ownership, but also to new forms of industrial integration.

The formation of a comprehensive innovation policy in the regions and specific mechanisms for its implementation will create conditions not only for accelerating economic development, but also for targeted management of the process of commercial use of science and technology.

To increase the innovative potential of the Russian industry in the regions, it is necessary to:

Creation of innovation and technology centers and regional innovation funds, providing a favorable organizational, financial and economic environment for the development of innovation processes;

Creation of a network of technology centers, parks, business incubators and other innovative firms in the regions of Russia, where there are appropriate conditions for this;

Development of the information support system for innovative entrepreneurship;

Development of intellectual property protection mechanisms;

An increase in the number of new science-intensive industries and enterprises - innovators.

It seems that such an approach will ensure the alignment of the development of industry on the territory of Russia.

At present, the territorial features of the dynamics of the development of industrial production in the regions are characterized by:

Not only directly between the regions of the Russian Federation, but also within the framework of a united Europe. In our opinion, the possibilities of such cooperation in the course of the formation and implementation of programs for the socio-economic development of regions and regional investment policy and in attracting investment resources are comparable to the opportunities and significance of small business development. After all, if the sphere ...

In Russia 122 111 184 137 General patterns and trends Table 15 shows the share of federal districts in absolute terms in 1996 and 1999. The dynamics of the development of the federal districts reflects the existing disproportions in the socio-economic development of Russia: - the share of the Ural Federal District in industrial production is almost 2 times higher than it ...

It is effective to the extent that a compromise has been reached and stabilized between the regional interests of the state and the local interests of the regions themselves. The result of state regulation of the socio-economic development of regions should be sustainability, stability of inter- and intra-regional relations. The leading, vital interest of Russia has now become the prevention of an irreversible ...

Socio-economic development and indicative planning of the economy of the Penza region 2.1 Medium-term forecasting of the socio-economic development of the Penza region (until 2010) The development of any socio-economic forecast of the territory begins with an analysis of the current situation in the region and data for the reporting period. Assessment of the socio-economic situation of the Penza ...

2.3 Regional development

The federal structure of Russia, as well as the natural-geographical, demographic, national-cultural, and economic differences between the regions of Russia determine the leading role of regional policy in ensuring the economic integration of Russian territories and creating an optimal system of economic federalism.

The transition to a market economy and real federalism is accompanied by the fact that each region - a subject of the Federation - becomes an economic subsystem, characterized by a strong interconnection of its main elements. The influence of income and effective demand on regional production, consumption and investment, the development of the social sphere, as well as the impact of production on employment and income is growing significantly. Interregional exchange is carried out on a market basis, and therefore the region as a market is influenced by external competing and complementary markets for goods, labor and capital.

Regional economic policy is an organic part of the general socio-economic policy of the state, synthesizing its regional aspects. It is aimed at the full use of favorable factors and limiting the impact of negative regional factors to achieve the overall strategic goals and objectives of the country's socio-economic development. At the same time, this is part of the general regional policy that creates the economic foundations for the integrity of the Russian state, all vital directions in the development of Russian society.

The integrated development of the economy of economic regions involves a combination of market specialization sectors of national importance, industries that complement the territorial complex, and infrastructure. The task of regulation in this case is to ensure the proportional development of all three groups of industries, strengthening the ties between them, so that each region is a territorial production complex and strives in its development to solve its intra-regional tasks for the fullest possible provision of goods and services to the population this region. Aligning the levels of social and economic development of regions is a permanent and promising task of state regulation of territorial development. Due to natural-geographical, historical, economic, socio-demographic and other differences, regions have different conditions for self-sufficiency. Therefore, the main guidelines in improving the state territorial development should be taking into account the specifics of the regions in the implementation of the all-Russian structural, financial, social, foreign economic policy in the transition period to market relations, the need to develop and implement special development programs, especially for regions with particularly difficult, extreme conditions.

The region as a subsystem of the national economy has economic ties with federal regulatory systems (the federal center), with other regions and the outside world.

State regulation and selective support for regional development is carried out through two channels - direct and indirect. Direct transfers include transfers from the federal budget, as well as federal regional programs. Indirect types of state support for the regions can be considered the receipt of federal financial resources for the socio-economic development of the territories through the channels of support for the sectors of the national economy.

As part of the overall strategy and tactics of the country's socio-economic development, it is envisaged to ensure the solution of a number of regional problems:

Accounting for the specifics of the regions and the peculiarities of the socio-economic situation in them;

Development of economic federalism and interregional integration;

Support for problem regions (lagging behind, depressed, crisis, as well as regions of special strategic importance);

Transferring a number of reform areas mainly to the regional level (especially in promoting the development of small business, the social sphere, nature conservation and the use of natural resources);

Elimination of the uneven socio-economic development of various districts and regions (or reduction of the gap between them).

The social division of labor is an objective process of the development of productive forces, in which various types of labor activity are isolated, production units are specialized, and the products of their activity are exchanged between them. The social division of labor predetermines the subsequent integration and establishment of links between its individual structural elements. We can say that the level of maturity of social production is determined by the degree of development of the social division of labor.

Territorial division of labor is a process of industrial specialization, isolation of economic regions, development of interregional cooperation, exchange of products and services. The territorial division of labor is a spatial manifestation of the social division of labor, due to the natural, economic, social and national-historical characteristics of the regions. As a result, the industries and industries that emerged in the process of the social division of labor are located in areas with the most favorable prerequisites for their development. The territorial division of labor opens up additional opportunities for increasing the efficiency of regional reproduction both through the advantages of industry specialization and through the use of natural resource and socio-economic opportunities of the regions.

A rational territorial division of labor between regions and within their territories is a necessary condition for territorial development in a market economy. State regulation of territorial development should take into account that each region can form its own unique market specialization of the economy and, on the basis of economic ties, exchange products with other regions, each region should have its own regional market and at the same time go with the products of leading industries to the all-Russian and world markets.

Sectoral division of labor is a process that marks the emergence of new industries, in which manufacturers professionally specialize in the manufacture of finished products and services or their components, there is a fragmentation of production, the allocation of specialized links, the emergence of new professions.

The combination of sectoral and territorial division of labor forms the regional reproduction process.

To characterize interregional relations, indicators of product and resource flows are used both in natural and in generalized cost measurement. The most characteristic are natural indicators that reflect the movement of specific types of products between regions: raw materials, food, machinery and equipment, as well as labor resources (in individuals Oh).

The main forms of interregional relations are the exchange of goods and services, population migration, financial and information flows.

The methodological basis of the system of state regulation of territorial development is regional policy. In the current conditions of strengthening market relations, carrying out reforms, and centralizing the subjects of the Federation, a well-defined regional policy is needed that takes into account the specifics of the regions while observing all-Russian interests and, at the same time, is aimed at the comprehensive development of local self-government and the solution of regional problems on the ground. With the strengthening of the regional focus in the implementation of market reforms, regional policy should also be aimed at the spatial integration of the Russian economy, pursuing a strict federal tax policy, developing unique natural resources in a number of regions at the expense of the state, drawing up and implementing the most important regional target programs, for the management of which there should be created special state bodies.

Growing economic inequality during the transition period resulted in the growth of regional differences in living standards, the state of the labor market, and the availability of basic services. The depth of regional disproportions in Russia inevitably poses the task of equalizing before the state. The federal authorities use the simplest mechanism - the centralization of resources and large-scale redistribution - in order to reduce inequality and smooth out the accumulated contradictions in interbudgetary relations. The concentration of budgetary resources at the federal level has become an addition to political centralization, and the social consequences of such a policy are highly controversial.

According to the Center for Fiscal Policy, the maximum redistribution was noted in 2002, when the federal authorities had to transfer additional funds to the regions after a decision was made to raise wages for state employees. In 2004-2006 financial assistance (gratuitous transfers) to lower budgets stabilized at the level of 13-14% of federal budget expenditures (without transfers to off-budget funds).

So, in more than twenty subjects of the Federation, from 50 to 90% of the income of the consolidated budget of the region is various types of federal financial assistance. The figure shows the dynamics of the subsidized component of the budgets of regions (the so-called recipient regions), in which the share of federal deductions exceeds 40%.

For the most general characteristics relationships between regions, such an indicator as gross regional product (GRP) is used. It is defined as the sum of gross value added produced during the reporting period by institutional units - residents of the regional economy. At the same time, the methodology for calculating gross value added in most cases is identical to that used at the federal level. The unity of the methodology for calculating GRP makes it possible to conduct interregional comparisons and determine the rating of regions for this indicator. The value of GRP is an objective indicator of the contribution of each region of the country (both subjects of the Federation and federal districts).

In terms of per capita GRP, Russian regions range from developed to underdeveloped countries, and inequality is growing. The per capita GRP of each region must be adjusted for the cost of living in the region. For comparison, in the dynamics of per capita GRP, adjusted for the cost of living, is recalculated in constant prices, and the following figure shows the ranking of regions by this indicator for the period 2000-2006 (in 2005 prices):

When comparing the extreme points, it can be seen that over the period under review, even with an adjustment for the cost of living, the differences in the per capita GRP of the Tyumen region and Ingushetia increased from 20 to 34 times.

If we compare not the number of regions with different levels of GRP, but the share of the population living in them, then the ratio will be noticeably better: almost a quarter of the Russian population lives in relatively prosperous subjects of the Russian Federation with per capita GRP above the national average, 2/3 - in the regions of the middle group with indicators from half to the average, and 14% (in 2004 it was 10%) - in the weakest subjects of the Russian Federation with per capita GRP indicators 2-8 times lower than the national average (see the following figure):

Comparison of regions with national average per capita indicators also confirms that regional inequality is growing. And most of the relatively developed regions, on the contrary, have come close (due to the lack of special advantages) to the average Russian indicators.

The main goal of regional policy should be to preserve the integrity of Russia, to prevent its disintegration into sovereign territories. For this, it is especially important to ensure a balance of all-Russian and regional interests. It is also necessary to overcome the depressive state of individual regions of the country, restore the lost living environment in a number of rural areas, stabilize the socio-economic situation in the regions of the North and areas with extreme natural conditions, and restore the habitat of small peoples. In the distribution of productive forces, one of the main tasks is the development of unique natural resources in northern and eastern regions. Respecialization of new border regions, arrangement of borders with new states of the near abroad, creation of free economic zones and technopolises are coming.

Depressed areas are territories with sufficient economic potential, but as a result of a structural crisis, are covered by a steady decline in production and real incomes of the population and growing unemployment. This category of territories should include not only the subjects of the Federation, but also specific parts of the regions, territories or republics within Russia, which makes it possible to provide targeted assistance to depressed areas without extending it to the developed centers of the subjects of the Federation.

The main form of support for depressed regions is the concentration of methods and mechanisms already provided for by regulatory and legislative acts to support entrepreneurship, attract private (including foreign) investment, promote investment activity, restructure enterprises, retrain personnel, etc.

The national economy of Russia cannot develop normally without the natural resources of the Far North. The priority importance of state support for the fuel and energy and mining complexes remains. The problems of restructuring the industry of the North in the direction of liquidation of non-core, unprofitable and environmentally "dirty" enterprises require an immediate solution, development transport infrastructure, including the improvement of transarctic navigation. The special geopolitical position of the Far East and the Kaliningrad region predetermines the need for the adoption of special targeted federal programs for the socio-economic development of these regions, strengthening their transport links with central Russia, and strengthening their role in foreign economic relations.

The regions bordering the republics of the former USSR require attention. The new border area of ​​Russia is deeply integrated with neighboring foreign territories in economic, cultural, ethnic and demographic terms.

Strengthening the single economic space of the country is the most important task of the regional policy of the Russian Federation, the solution of which is possible through the creation of a capital market: the development of a system of joint-stock companies, stock exchanges, commercial banks, funds of commodity and raw materials. Macroeconomic regulation should be supplemented by microeconomic regulation, which implies the decentralization of reform management processes, the intensification of local economic activity, especially in relation to the development of entrepreneurship, the creation of a variety of forms of ownership, and a competitive environment.

Thus, the main tasks of Russia's regional policy today are to ensure a decent level of well-being for the population in each region, to gradually equalize living standards, and overcome excessive contrasts in social conditions.

economic provisions on which we can rely in the long-term socio-economic development. Therefore, conducting scientific research and developing an integrated system of state regulation of the Russian economy as a fundamental, strategic basis for the development of society in the context of the transition to market relations is an important, extremely relevant scientific and practical...

Currency exchange. Such regulation pursues the goals of upholding the economic interests of the country, increasing the efficiency of foreign economic relations, and ensuring economic security. As can be seen from the above enlarged list, state regulation of the economy extends its influence to various sectors of the economy, economic life. However, it should not be assumed that...

Crisis deformation of the economic space. Range of regional levels of economic and social development. Typological groups of problem regions.

The collapse of the USSR, the transition without sufficient preparation for a new model of political and economic structure and the destabilizing factors of the inherited economy (as a result of directive planning, which previously played a huge positive role, but turned into a brake on development) gave rise to a severe economic crisis in Russia. It resulted in a deep decline in production and a sharp deformation of its structure (an increase in the share of trade and intermediary and other services, the fuel and energy complex, a decrease in the share of industry and construction, machine-building and light industries, etc.), which caused a serious deterioration in the social situation. Destructive processes in the economy prevailed over constructive ones.

In 1995, industrial output fell to 49% of the 1990 level, agricultural output to 65%, and capital investment to 25%; real income per inhabitant was 34%; unemployment covered 8% of the economically active population.

According to some estimates, the economic potential of Russia (GDP) has decreased to 40% of the potential of the USSR against the previous 60%.

At the very end of the 1990s, there were trends in the improvement of the economic situation. Under the influence of export growth, the acceleration of import substitution, the relative reduction in production costs, etc., a positive trend in industrial production and GDP was established, and the financial condition of the real sector of the economy improved. However, the positive processes have not yet assumed a sustainable, irreversible and long-term character. Production is growing without a significant reduction in the tax burden and on the basis of extremely worn-out technological equipment. There is no noticeable improvement in the standard of living of the population, and the narrowing of consumer demand is still the main brake on economic recovery. In 1999, industrial production increased by 8%, in 2000 - by 9%, but from the level of 1990 it was only 54%; The difficult economic and social situation in Russia caused by the crisis is very heterogeneous in different regions and is characterized by sharp territorial fluctuations. So, if the Irkutsk, Tyumen, Lipetsk regions reduced industrial production to 47-61% of the volume of 1990, then the Ivanovo region and the Khabarovsk Territory - up to 22-27%, and Dagestan - up to 17%. Almost all regions have become problematic.

The most objective idea of ​​the current situation, the analysis of which is used in the development of regional policy, is provided by the characteristics of the regional levels of economic and social development.

The levels of regional development of the economy are usually determined by indicators of the average per capita production of the national income, gross domestic (or regional) product, gross industrial and agricultural (or total) output and the corresponding territorial indices, where the average Russian level is the base.

The current levels of economic development of the regions, calculated on the basis of the per capita volume of the gross regional product (GRP) as a percentage of the average Russian indicator, differ by economic regions by 3.4 times (Western Siberia - 167%, the North Caucasus - 49%), and based on the gross industrial products - 4.5 times. In the context of the subjects of the Federation, the gap in levels (in terms of GRP) reaches 40.5 times (Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region - 770%, Ingushetia - 19%). Above average indicators have 2 economic regions, average - 6, below average - 3 (Fig. 3.1).

Western Siberia and the European North are in the lead mainly due to the forced growth of the export-oriented oil and gas industries, the North Caucasus fell into the category of severely depressed and backward regions as a result of acute interethnic conflicts that destabilized the economy.

Rice. 3.1. Levels of economic development of Russian regions by economic regions (GRP per capita)

It should be noted that by the mid-1980s in Russia the gap between economic regions in terms of the total gross output of industry and agriculture was 1.5 times, and in industry - 1.8 times. For both indicators, the highest group included the North-Western, Central and Ural regions. Convergence of levels of economic development took place, on the one hand, by increasing the indicators of less developed regions, especially rapidly since the 60s of Western Siberia, Eastern Siberia and the Volga region, on the other hand, by reducing the indicators of the more developed Central and North-Western regions (the Urals retained above average) 1.

1 Statements about the "utopian" alignment of levels are refuted by the reduction of their gap in the USSR with developed countries - from 4.5 to 1.4 times and between Soviet economic regions - from 30 to 1.5-2 times. Due to the significant regional specifics, of course, we can only talk about relative, and not absolute, equalization.

With the beginning of the reforms, a significant change in the previous trends affected the North-West and the Center, which experienced a strong decline in levels due to the crisis in engineering, especially the military-industrial complex, as well as North Caucasus, which changed from an increase in the level to a sharp decrease. Western Siberia's indicators jumped up.

The shifting of regions according to the degree of economic development confirms the irrational, raw-material orientation of the economy. True, the high rates of the eastern and northern regions are strongly influenced by rising costs (transport, fuel, energy, etc.).

A group of regions below the average level - the Volga-Vyatka, Central Black Earth and North Caucasian economic regions - concentrates almost 1/4 of the population of Russia, but gives only 1/7 of the gross regional product and the same amount of gross industrial output. A low level of economy has a number of republics, territories and regions included in the economic regions of medium and high rates - Kalmykia, Tyva, Buryatia, Altai region. Chita region, etc.

The economic situation of the "prosperous" regions is largely associated with the use of the benefits of their specialization, which allows them to raise prices for their products, and not with the improvement of economic activity. The distressed regions are affected by the difficult conditions of adaptation to the market due to the low starting level and low resources.

The economic condition of the regions determines their social position. A general idea of ​​this is given by comparing the income received with the subsistence minimum, that is, the purchasing power of cash income. According to this indicator (Russia - 2.01), the leaders are the Center (3.21), the North-West (2.45) and Western Siberia (2.14) and there is a very strong differentiation of regions (Fig. 3.2).

The "rich" include 4 regions - a subject of the Federation with a high income security of the population (more than 5 living wages on average per person) - Moscow, the Tyumen region and its constituent Khanty-Mansiysk and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrugs (the main oil and gas producing regions of Russia) .

Regions relatively "prosperous" (2-3 living wages) include large industrial areas in the North-West and the European North - St. Petersburg, Novgorodskaya,

Rice. 3.2. Levels of purchasing power of monetary incomes of the population by regions - subjects of the Russian Federation

Murmansk, Vologda region, Republics of Karelia and Komi; in the Center and on the Volga-Vyatka - Smolensk, Kaluga, Tula, Oryol, Yaroslavl, Kirov regions; in the Central Chernozem region - Lipetsk, Belgorod regions; in the Urals and Siberia - Perm, Sverdlovsk, Omsk, Tomsk, Kemerovo, Irkutsk region, Krasnoyarsk Territory, as well as 2 regions of the North Caucasus - Rostov region and Stavropol Territory.

Most of the regions belong to the "unfavorable". Especially in a difficult situation are the "poor" regions (less than 1.5 living wages per person), which include the republics of the North Caucasus - Dagestan, Adygea, Karachay-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Ingushetia; Volga - Kalmykia and Mari El; a number of regions of Southern Siberia - Altai Territory, Khakassia, Tuva, Buryatia, Chita Region, as well as the Far East - Jewish Autonomous Region, Sakhalin Region and Chukotka Autonomous Okrug.

All other regions form a group of “low income” (from 1.5 to 2 subsistence minimums), among which were industrial areas that were largely affected by the curtailment of the military-industrial complex - Moscow, Leningrad, Bryansk, Voronezh, Volgograd, Nizhny Novgorod, Chelyabinsk, Novosibirsk oblasts, etc. The last two groups of regions especially experienced the blows of inflation and social stratification.

In regions - subjects of the Federation, the range of per capita money income exceeds a twelvefold value (Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug - the Republic of Ingushetia). Similar values ​​of characteristics are observed in terms of per capita indicators of retail turnover (the gap between economic regions has almost doubled since the 1980s). At the same time, Moscow and St. Petersburg, which concentrate a large interregional trade turnover, are not taken into account here. A very strong differentiation - 25 times - is found in the volume of paid services per inhabitant (Yamalo-Nenets and Ust-Ordynsky Buryat AO).

The difference in the provision of the population with total living space is much less pronounced: from 20.3 (Center) to 17 (Eastern Siberia), with an average provision for the country of 18.1 m2 per person. Among the subjects of the Federation, it is larger: from 22 m2 (Pskov region) to 12.1 m2 (Tyva), not to mention the difference in the quality of housing, especially between urban and rural areas.

Two more indicators are important indicators of regional social conditions. The first is the state of the environment (air and water pollution). The largest emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere from stationary sources are observed primarily in the largest industrial centers, concentrating powerful thermal power plants, metallurgical and chemical plants. So, in terms of polluting emissions, the regions of the Urals, Eastern and Western Siberia (4.4-3.3 million tons) are in the first place, the regions of the European North, Center and the Volga region are in the second place (2.6-1.2 million tons).

The second indicator is the criminogenic situation. In terms of the number of registered crimes per 100 thousand inhabitants, the first five places are occupied by the regions of the Far East and Transbaikalia - the Sakhalin Region, Buryatia, the Jewish Autonomous Region, the Magadan Region and the Khabarovsk Territory. An increased level of crime is observed in some areas of Siberia (Krasnoyarsk Territory, Tomsk Region, Tyva, etc.) and the Urals (Kurgan and Perm Regions), as well as in Primorsky Territory. The smallest number of registered crimes falls on the republics of the North Caucasus, apparently limiting them in their environment according to ancient traditions, but given the general situation, these data should be treated very carefully. It is more reasonable to consider Moscow, the Penza and Belgorod regions, Bashkiria and Chukotka a.o. as regions of the lower limit of the spread of crime.

The social state in Russia, proclaimed by the Constitution, does not yet exist, the standard of living has become 3-4 times lower than in the Soviet years. While in the West the incomes of the richest 10% of the population exceed the incomes of the poorest 10% by no more than 6-7 times, in our country this gap has increased from 4.5 times in 1991 to 14-15 times, and in many regions - much more. IN former USSR regional social differentiation was much less pronounced, although by the 1990s the economy was in a difficult position. The crisis situation caused a sharp drop in the standard of living and its large territorial gaps, and one cannot deny the influence of objective factors - regional differences in labor productivity, features of the sectoral structure of the economy, etc., affecting the level of wages, or high costs in the East and North for creating social infrastructure.

The growing transformation of the economic space during the reform period - the strengthening of its socio-economic heterogeneity (breaks in regional levels) and the growth of disintegration trends (especially the weakening of interregional ties) - poses a serious threat to the territorial integrity of Russia, its economic and national security. It is possible to overcome these destructive processes by bringing regions closer together (primarily by strengthening the economic base and actively engaging lagging regions in the market), as well as speeding up integration measures within the framework of a new territorial development strategy (among them, the already implemented one is the creation of macro-regional complexes in the form of federal districts ).There are warnings against the illusion that economic growth will automatically reverse the trend of inter-regional differentiation of living standards from divergence (divergence) to convergence (rapprochement). For the growing attractiveness of regions with increased competitiveness and mobility of labor and capital can lead to an even greater separation of the leading regions from the rest in terms of socio-economic development.

In the new environment, the influence of different starting conditions of the regions upon entering the market and the ambiguous possibilities of adapting to it have a strong impact and will remain for a long time. Hence the need for a differentiated approach in regional policy.

In order to develop and implement a targeted regional policy and territorial economic mechanism, in particular, budget transfers and state regional programs, as well as regular monitoring of the socio-economic state, there is a need to determine various types problem regions, i.e. regions that require special attention of the state due to strategic importance or distress.

According to the signs of the scale and frequency of problem solving, an integral typology of a tactical and strategic nature is distinguished. The first can be used to develop practical measures, including a regulatory mechanism for overcoming crisis situations, stabilizing the economy and the social sphere, etc. for the coming years. In this regard, it is advisable to single out areas that are supportive, depressive, underdeveloped, self-supporting, etc. The strategic typology of regions is intended to develop a long-term policy for their socio-economic development. For these purposes, it is necessary to distinguish between regions of the old industrial (post-industrial), transitional (“middle generation”) and mastered types. The use of a mixed tactical-strategic typology is not ruled out.

Regions can also be distinguished according to other features, depending on the goals of the typology (see subsequent chapters). An important direction of typification is the definition of regions in relation to the solution of individual tasks of economic reform. For example, according to the forms of resource and commodity exchange, regions are distinguished that carry out predominantly natural (barter) ties of a continuous and selective nature, or according to the state of the financial and budgetary base, regions with sufficient and stable financial resources in general and their deficit, especially budgetary funds. Thus, there is no universal typology of regions; there is a target typology.

Taking into account the territorial differentiation of the socio-economic situation, it is advisable to pursue a regional policy in relation to 5 groups of rather pronounced problem regions of Russia: developed, depressed, underdeveloped, special and new development. In addition, regions of particularly important strategic importance represent a separate type.

Each of these types of regions is distinguished by its own set of problems, which, taking into account the specialization of the corresponding large economic region, require federal and territorial authorities to apply differentiated approaches to stimulating economic activity and providing state support.

The basis of the typology is the already considered three-tier grouping of regions according to the levels of economic and social development (above average, average and below average), which generalizes the features of their differentiation. The second typological grouping details the first and corresponds with it.

Determining the composition of regions of developed, depressed and underdeveloped types is carried out by special methods of qualitative and quantitative analysis in a certain sequence, for example, identifying and quantifying for each region the factors-features of a regional type, ranking the regions according to the indicators of each feature and subdividing them into several characteristic groups with assigning them scores, summation of scores, ranking of all regions by the total score and the allocation of a typological group.

3.2. Regional aspects of economic, social and environmental policy

Strategy for the long-term development of the country. Regional policy of the state and its main goals. Economic, social and environmental policy of regional development. Strengthening federal relations. Federal and regional levels of policy implementation. Adjustment of the regional development strategy.

State policy expresses the strategic and tactical orientation of the diverse activities of the state, establishes its main goals, objectives and directions (economic, social, technical policy, etc.).

The global goal of the strategy of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation, arising from the Concept of long-term development, puts forward a radical improvement in the quality of life of the population. To achieve it, it is planned to ensure acceptable living standards for all categories of citizens, the formation of a democratic state, the creation of an effective competitive economy and a worthy place for Russia in the world community.

At the first stage (2000-2003), the economic course is aimed at deepening structural reforms, strengthening the market principle in the economy, overcoming imbalances and completing the transition period. One of the important directions of the course remains active assistance to the socio-economic development of the regions, including the reduction of differentiation in the standard of living of the population in the regional context.

The second stage (2004-2007) should be characterized by accelerated development based on the achieved structural shifts in the economy. First of all, we are talking about the fastest possible renewal of the material and technical base, a sharp increase in the efficiency and competitiveness of production.

In order for Russia to reach a position adequate to its potential in the world economy, it is necessary to achieve economic development rates at least twice the world average.

At the third stage (2008-2015), the priority is to ensure long-term economic balance, characterized by stable growth rates and constant renewal of the technological and production structures of the economy. It is assumed that this will become the basis for achieving the main goal - the accelerated growth of the living standards of all segments of the population.

The implementation of these radical guidelines will undoubtedly require a combination of traditional, "gradual" market mechanisms with active "breakthrough" methods of state regulation of the economy, including at the regional level.

Regional policy is understood as a system of goals and objectives of public authorities to manage the political, economic and social development of regions and the entire regional system, as well as the mechanism for their implementation.

The scientific basis of the regional policy is the system of objective laws and factors of the territorial formation of the economy, combined with the scientific principles of management. The policy is implemented by the methods of legislative support, analysis, forecasting and programming, budget planning, state support of the regions.

The main provisions of the regional policy in the Russian Federation (1996) put forward its following main goals: ensuring the economic, social, legal and organizational foundations of federalism, the creation of a single economic space; guaranteeing the social rights of citizens, ensuring uniform minimum social standards, regardless of the economic opportunities of the regions; leveling the conditions for regional socio-economic development; priority development of regions of particular strategic importance; maximum use of natural and other features of the regions.

For market conditions, it is especially important to strengthen, through regulatory and legislative means, equal budgetary and tax relations between the Federation, regions and localities.

In the field of regional economic policy, the activities of the federal and regional authorities are focused on promoting:

Development and deepening of economic reform, the formation of a favorable market environment in all regions, a multi-structural competitive economy, the formation of regional and all-Russian markets for goods, labor and capital;

Reduction of excessively deep differences in the levels of socio-economic development of regions, the gradual creation of conditions for strengthening their own economic base in them, increasing the people's well-being;

Achieving an economically and socially justified level of regional complexity, rationalizing the structure of the economy;

Establishing close ties between the regions of Russia and the CIS member states;

Improving the economic zoning of the country.

The ultimate goal of regional economic policy is to achieve a balance between economic and social performance in the development of regions. The main task is to create a sustainable competitive economy in each region.

In the field of regional policy in the social sphere, the state provides in the regions:

Counteracting the deterioration of the demographic situation;

Preventing the impoverishment of the population and minimizing the negative consequences of unemployment, curbing the process of property stratification;

Preservation of relative stability in the field of employment, creation of new jobs in developing industries, in the consumer sector and market infrastructure;

Promoting the development and improvement of education and

The most important tasks of regional policy are the creation of a solid foundation for raising the standard of living of the population in all regions and state support for the poor, especially in regions and centers that are deprived of the opportunity to implement it on their own. The social market is possible only with state regulation of the economy. Capital cannot have a "social orientation", it is always focused on profit, although part of it is forced to give up (under state influence) to increase social spending.

The achievement of these goals is ensured by the implementation of three main mechanisms: equalization of the conditions for budgetary financing of socially significant expenditures; support for the social development of problem regions; adaptation of social reforms to the conditions of extreme regions, especially the zone of the North.

Budget equalization is the main tool for the implementation of regional social policy, the use of which is carried out within the framework of the general mechanism of interbudgetary relations based on the principles of budgetary federalism. Through budget equalization, such problems are solved as: delimitation of responsibility between the Federation and its subjects for financing socially significant expenses; assessment of the real needs of the regions in budgetary resources based on a system of social standards and regulations; development of criteria for determining the amount of federal assistance for current social spending; determination of the forms and conditions for providing financial support.

Support for social reforms and social development of problem regions, including extreme ones, is supposed to be carried out by granting these regions a special status and providing assistance, as a rule, within the framework of special federal programs (for more details, see § 3.3).

In the field of regional environmental policy, the following are put forward as priority areas:

Environmentally sound distribution of productive forces;

Environmentally friendly development of industry, agriculture, energy, transport and public utilities;

Rational use of natural resources;

Prevention of contradictions in ecologically unfavorable regions between the development of productive forces and the preservation of ecological balance;

Ensuring the natural development of ecosystems, the preservation and restoration of unique natural complexes;

Improving management in the field of environmental protection.

The main task is to maintain the normal state of the natural environment.

Market conditions, which exacerbate the contradictions between the interests of society and economic entities, require special attention to the most important area of ​​such contradictions - environmental safety and environmental protection.

The economic mechanism of environmental protection consists in: planning and financing of environmental protection measures; in setting limits on the use of natural resources, emissions and discharges of pollutants into the environment and waste disposal; in approving payment standards and amounts of payments for the use of natural resources; in providing enterprises, organizations and citizens with tax, credit and other benefits when they introduce low-waste and resource-saving technologies and non-traditional types of energy, the implementation of other effective measures to protect the natural environment; in compensation in accordance with the established procedure for harm caused to the environment and human health.

Regional policy in our country is inextricably linked with federal relations: protecting and ensuring the interests of the Russian Federation as a whole, maintaining the unity and territorial integrity of the state; decentralization of power, expansion of the powers of the authorities of the regions; while strengthening the federal center; equalization of real rights and competencies of subjects of the Federation; a combination of state support for individual regions with the stimulation of economic activity in them by the state, which ensures their true independence.

Taking into account national and ethnic characteristics, regional policy is designed to form a model of a federal structure that meets modern socio-economic, political realities and the historical experience of Russia and is aimed at ensuring the territorial integrity of the state and its security.

A special strategic problem for Russia, which is acquiring a pronounced not only legal, but also a regional character, is the strengthening of the economic foundations of a federal state. In its solution, the central place is given to the factor of economic interest of all subjects to be part of the Federation, which is facilitated by the stimulation of integration processes and the realization of their benefits.

All of these political guidelines are taken into account and refined in the process of practical activities of authorities at the federal and regional levels. In the first case, the emphasis is on the strategy and pace of transformation of the country's socio-economic structure in the course of economic reform, in the second - on the justification of the direction of development of the economy and the social sphere in the regions - subjects of the Federation of various types and types: depressive, pivotal, etc.

In regional analysis and forecasting, the development of regional development programs, criteria and indicators arising from regional policy are laid down:

Priority areas of regional development in various areas and areas (economy, social sector, ecology, etc.);

Regional features of the economic reform in regions that differ in the genesis and state of the economy according to the developed typology.

Market relations cause significant changes in the traditional strategy of regional development.

While maintaining the priority of military-strategic interests and optimizing the nationwide effect in the current geopolitical situation, meeting the market demand and ensuring the competitiveness of various industries are put forward as new guidelines for the specialization of regions. In the development of entrepreneurship, especially investment, an increasingly active role is given to areas with good infrastructure, located near stable markets, provided with a skilled workforce. These primarily include the central, northwestern and Volga-Ural regions, which also have high technologies at their defense enterprises.

With regard to the eastern and northern regions, the reduction in their range of competitive industries is taken into account, with the exception of mining, as well as highly energy-intensive industries that process mineral raw materials and wood.

Most of the territory of Russia is located in high and middle latitudes. Therefore, the program for the development of the regions of the North remains one of the focal points of Russia's regional strategy. The focus on strengthening transport and economic ties with the entire country, including remote areas with a favorable geopolitical position, is gaining particular relevance. This is primarily the Far East and the Kaliningrad region, which need the development of infrastructure systems that ensure Russia's access to the world market.

The transition to a market economy has sharpened attention to problem regions and has necessitated their strong state support. Thus, for depressed regions (generated by the crisis, but having sufficient potential), it is directed primarily to attract investment in order to restructure the economy. The state intends to ensure the priority development of regions of major strategic importance.

In addition to the general principles of regional policy, in the work on developing measures for the development of each region, the most important requirements related to the corresponding regions of a higher rank (large economic regions) or zones (the Far North, Siberia, etc.) are taken into account. However, the general goals and objectives of regional policy cannot equally apply to all regions and must be specified according to their problematic types.

In connection with the delay in the country's exit from the crisis and the insufficient effectiveness of the implemented measures of economic and social development, the issue of adjusting the course of economic reform is becoming increasingly important. Correction or change of the course (model) of the reform is connected with the strengthening of state management of the economy up to the active combination of market mechanisms with indicative plans. Without this, it is impossible to radically improve the situation in the regions and strengthen the security and integrity of the country.

To accelerate the rise of the regions and the entire country, "breakthrough technologies" with Russian specifics are needed. These can be measures in the form of government regulation (combining the advantages of the plan and the market), the widespread use of a unique geographic location (for commercial transit communications between the world's centers of industry and trade), and much more. Moreover, we have valuable domestic experience in such “breakthroughs” in the economy (NEP, industrialization), defense (achieving military parity with the United States), etc.

(Published in the journal "ECO", 2014, No. 4, p. 7-27)

Relations between the center and regions in Russia have undergone dramatic transformations over the past twenty years: from the anarchic decentralization of the 1990s to the over-centralization of government and the budget system in the 2000s, from the election of heads of regions to their appointment, as well as the transition to fully controlled elections of mayors in most regions. The federal authorities have benefited from over-centralization, but the political risks and costs are mounting. In recent years, there has been a turn towards a new cycle of decentralization, so far barely noticeable, but inevitable.

The influence of the "political pendulum" affected the development of the regions indirectly, through the over-centralization of tax revenues and management systems, as well as the growth of the scale of interbudgetary redistribution. The influence of other factors is more significant. An external factor is macroeconomic cycles - periods of economic growth and crisis recession, which affect the space in different ways. Internal factors - competitive advantages and barriers to the development of territories.

Space Development Factors and Regional Policy Priorities

In regional science since the second half of the XX century. there was a stable consensus in the understanding of spatial development - it cannot be uniform. This is due to two concepts that have stood the test of time.

First - center-peripheral model of spatial development. Centers of different levels always draw resources (human, financial, natural) from their periphery. Due to the concentration of resources, innovative transformations of the centers themselves take place, and then innovations spread to the periphery, stimulating its development, albeit with some lag. Between the centers and the periphery there is a mobile zone - a semi-periphery, which is more active and, with a sharp change in the conditions of development, can intercept the functions of the center. This model works at all levels - from world cities and large agglomerations to regional and local centers.

Diffusion of innovations from the centers to the periphery occurs in two ways. First, according to the existing hierarchical system of city centers (from the most major cities to smaller ones in size and status), i.e. throughout the entire country. Secondly, to the suburbs adjacent to the city centers, i.e. "spreading" to neighboring territories, which occurs especially intensively within the largest agglomerations. The center-periphery model shows how important a role cities play in the development of the country: they are not only the "support frame" of settlement, but also the "motors" for the dissemination of modernization impulses to the surrounding periphery. Underdeveloped and resource-limited cities inevitably become a brake on the diffusion of innovations.

Second concept - a description of the processes of spatial concentration of the economy, including within the framework of the "new economic geography". The fundamental cause of economic inequality is the process of concentration of economic activity in those places that have comparative advantages, which reduces the costs of business. Among such competitive advantages, P. Krugman singles out factors of "first nature" (rich in natural resources, advantageous geographical position), which are little dependent on humans, and "second nature" (agglomeration effect, human capital, institutions), which are most associated with the activities of the state. and society.

Advantages, especially "first nature", are not eternal. Factors of "first nature" dominated at the stage of industrial development, and as the transition to a post-industrial economy, the role of factors of "second nature" sharply increases. It is they who play a key role in the modernization of the economy, while the reliance of regional development on resource advantages slows it down.

For all countries of the world, regardless of level of development, tendencies of territorial concentration of the economy in regions with competitive advantages are typical. Nowhere is it possible to noticeably smooth out spatial economic inequality, since it is formed under the influence of objective factors (it should be emphasized that we are talking here about economic, not about social inequality). In developed countries, already focused on factors of "second nature", the growth of regional economic differences is weakening, the peak of increasing inequality occurred at the beginning of the 20th century. In countries of catch-up development, the economic inequality of the regions is rapidly increasing, repeating the trend of Western Europe a hundred years ago. Russia belongs to the countries of catching-up development, therefore, during the transition to a market economy, the growth of the economic inequality of the regions was an objective trend.

Studies of regional science make it possible to identify the most important areas of spatial development for Russia:

• support for city centers and large agglomerations; spreading innovations to the periphery;
• improving human capital and institutions;
• development of infrastructure to reduce economic distance;
• use of resource advantages to attract new technologies for the extraction and processing of raw materials.

Given the limited financial and human resources and the enormous inertia of the Russian space, institutions play a special role. It is effective institutions (political, financial, etc.) that make it possible to reduce the objective barriers to the development of regions and cities and to maximize the use of existing competitive advantages. For effective management of spatial development, the principle of subsidiarity is important: if two hierarchical levels of management can perform the same function, it is transferred to a lower level, i.e. closer to the population. This makes it possible to take into account the needs of residents, and they can control the quality of governance through democratic procedures. Regionalism and the development of local communities have become mainstream in the EU countries, a new term has emerged - glocalization(globalization and localization at the same time).

Spatial development institutions are part of the country's institutional system; they depend on its general structure and on inherited factors (path dependence). In Russia, throughout almost its entire history, a rigid super-centralized system of government was reproduced, which seemed optimal for maintaining the territorial integrity of a huge country. But now it is more and more obvious that over-centralization is becoming an institutional barrier to development.

Another aspect of regional policy is the ratio of stimulating and equalizing components. The stimulating policy is aimed primarily at reducing institutional barriers to the development of territories with competitive advantages, so that the entire country develops faster due to their accelerated growth. Stimulating regional policy dominates in the countries of catch-up development.

The policy of mitigating spatial social inequality is more typical for developed countries, especially for the EU. This policy also prevails in Russia, which is not a developed country. It is inherited from the past and, in addition, is aimed at reducing the risks of socio-political instability in the conditions of space polarization. Of course, less developed regions need to be helped, but with a clear understanding of the limits of opportunities and with the help of adequate mechanisms.

State investments in the economy are most often ineffective; an official cannot assess the risks of developing certain industries and industries in the region better than business. Joint infrastructure projects between the state and business are more effective (for example, in the form of a public-private partnership), but only if the business has its own interest in them, and does not participate "under pressure" under the slogan of the need to develop a peripheral or politically problematic region.

State investments in infrastructure are essential for the development of regions, but it is important to determine where they are most needed in the first place, and this is always a conflict of interest and the possibility of lobbying for irrational decisions. Moreover, infrastructure investments do not guarantee a leveling effect. The construction of new transport links can accelerate the outflow of the population, as the economic distance is reduced not only for businesses, but also for local workers gaining access to better-paid markets. As a rule, these are the most mobile and skilled workers; their migration outflow reduces the human capital of problem regions.

Financial assistance to the regions ensures the implementation of the social obligations of the state: the development of social services, the payment of wages to state employees and social transfers to the population. However, there are pitfalls in this direction, which is the most important for the modernization of human capital. Large-scale financial assistance to underdeveloped republics forms a dependent subsidized economy, represented mainly by the sector of public services, and the corrupt redistribution of budget funds is growing.

Nevertheless mitigation of social inequality of regions is the most important task. It contributes to the growth of human capital, social and territorial mobility, the modernization of values ​​and lifestyles. It is necessary to help people, not regions, therefore leveling policy is primarily social, not regional. The priorities are state investments in human capital and targeted support for vulnerable groups of the population.

Regional Development: Trends and Barriers

Russia's habitable and economic space is shrinking and will shrink further. Depopulation, the depopulation of the peripheries and the pulling of the population to large centers are of a sustainable nature. According to the 2010 census, out of 156 thousand rural settlements in Russia, 13% did not have a population, another 23% had less than 10 inhabitants, all of them will disappear in the coming decades. Only in a third of rural settlements the number of inhabitants exceeded 100 people, they are relatively viable. A stronger barrier is the small number of cities, especially large ones. There are 1090 cities in Russia, of which with a population of more than 200 thousand people. - only 93. As a result, the role of large cities as centers for the development of the surrounding territory is limited. The scale of the economically backward periphery is enormous, according to T.G. Nefyodova, more than 40% of municipal districts belong to it, even in the more densely populated European part of the country.

Between the 2002 and 2010 censuses The population of 82% of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (68 regions out of 83) has decreased, while in almost half - by more than 5%. The stimulation of the birth rate had an effect (in 2012 and 2013 the country's population did not decrease), but it is short-term and is largely due to the peculiarities of the age pyramid. In the mid-2010s, the small generations born in the 1990s will enter childbearing age, and the large generation of the post-war surge in the birth rate will grow old, so the natural decline in the population will intensify. Migration increases the concentration of the population: in 2008-2012. 55-60% of net migration (the difference between arrivals and departures) was received by the Moscow metropolitan agglomeration, another 20% - St. Petersburg with the Leningrad region, in other regions the migration inflow is small. Both Russian migrants and migrants from the CIS are sent to big cities where there is work, increasing the polarization of space.

The development of regions is mainly determined by their competitive advantages(resources, geographical location, agglomeration effect, human capital), and not the regional policy of the state. In terms of the dynamics of the gross regional product (GRP), during the period of economic growth, the largest agglomerations and new oil and gas producing regions were in the lead, the remote and poorly developed regions of the Far East with the migration outflow of the population developed more slowly. Competitive advantages also determine the geography of investments. The leaders in terms of investment are oil and gas producing regions, the largest agglomerations of the country, individual regions with a favorable geographical position on the paths of global trade. Outsiders are semi-depressive machine-building regions, underdeveloped republics and remote regions of Transbaikalia and the Far East with insufficient infrastructure. The only exception is Primorsky Krai, where state investments were directed during the preparation of the APEC summit.

The huge inequality of the regions of Russia is partly a myth. Regional inequality in Russia is higher than in Brazil, India and China, but only if we count with the autonomous regions. At the same time, Russian regions with extreme values ​​are small in terms of population and significantly less regions other large countries of catching up development. Comparison of per capita GRP of the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, where 15 million tons of oil are produced per 43 thousand people. population, and the Republic of Ingushetia, whose economy is represented in statistics almost exclusively by the public sector, and everything else is in the shadows, make a huge difference by 80 times. Adjusting for price differences between regions immediately reduces inequality by almost half. At the same time, 2/3 of Russian regions differ insignificantly in terms of the level of economic development.

The economic inequality of the regions as a whole has intensified in the 2000s. This trend is typical for the countries of catching up development. However, since the second half of the 2000s, regional differences in per capita GRP began to decrease due to the large-scale redistribution of oil super-profits in the form of sharply increased transfers from the federal budget to less developed regions. In 2008 - 2009 an additional leveling factor was a stronger recession in relatively developed regions. Economic leveling is not a positive trend, it means that the more developed regions with competitive advantages have grown more slowly than the underdeveloped ones living off transfers.

Interregional differences in living standards have been declining since the first half of the 2000s. Regular salary increases for state employees are not part of the regional policy measures, but they work to mitigate regional disparities, since the share of public sector employment is highest in underdeveloped regions. The second leveling factor was slower wage growth in large and medium-sized private businesses, which are concentrated in more developed regions. In the conditions of market competition, private business could not keep up with the public sector, where part of the state's oil super-revenues is redistributed, which makes it possible to increase the salaries of state employees faster. The trend of mitigation of regional differences in the incomes of the population is generally positive; it stimulates the growth of human capital and the mobility of the population of lagging territories.

Regional inequality in terms of employment changed in accordance with market laws and reflected the problems of creating new jobs. During periods of economic growth, these inequalities increased as jobs were created faster in regions with competitive advantages, and during periods of crisis, they declined as the crisis hit more developed regions harder. Unemployment rates are steadily higher in the underdeveloped republics, as new jobs are few and the influx of young people into the labor market is growing.

Interregional inequality does not capture the whole picture of spatial differences. They are the largest in Russia at the intra-regional level - between large city centers and depressed peripheral rural municipalities. This inequality is habitual and very stable.

Institutional factors in Russia have little or negative influence on the development of space. Stimulating regional policy does not have enough effect on the development of regions: special economic zones are small in size and scope of benefits, state investment programs are underfunded, numerous development strategies and programs remain on paper. Institutional advantages, as a rule, are not directly related to regional policy. For example, the share of Moscow and the Moscow metropolitan agglomeration in many economic indicators is extremely high relative to its share in the population of Russia. This is a consequence of not only the agglomeration effect (scale effect), but also the over-centralization of power and the economy, which leads to an over-concentration of tax revenues in the capital and a significant separation of the incomes of its population from the average Russian ones. Moscow receives a huge rent due to its capital status. Foreign studies show that in countries with an authoritarian regime, the capital city, ceteris paribus, is larger in size and more strongly attracts business, which is forced to closely interact with the authorities. As a result of super-centralization, the objective agglomeration effect is enhanced and a hypertrophied center is formed, which draws in the resources of the entire country.

The special institutional advantages of some republics are generated by political factors. Per capita revenues of the Chechen budget due to transfers are 15% higher than the average for the country, with minimal own tax revenues. Tatarstan did not pay taxes to the federal budget until the end of the 1990s, and then annually received maximum support in the form of transfers from the federal budget. The political projects of the federal authorities are the most important institutional factor. The tradition of "special relations" with Tatarstan was strengthened in preparation for the millennium of Kazan and the Universiade. In 2011, in preparation for the APEC summit, Primorsky Krai received 12% of all investments from the federal budget directed to the regions, and in 2013, 23% of all investments from the federal budget went to Krasnodar Territory for the preparation of the Olympics in Sochi. Political projects have actually become the main direction of stimulating regional policy.

It is becoming more and more obvious that Russia's main problem is not in regional inequality, but in institutions that are not capable of stimulating the development of competitive territories.

Regional Policy: Budget Mechanisms

Budgetary federalism is a complex and flexible system. There is no general canon of interbudgetary relations in federal states. World experience demonstrates diversity, each country develops its own model of budgetary federalism. More generally, one can distinguish between competitive and cooperative federalism. For example, in the United States, each type of tax is assigned to a certain level of the budget system, states compete to attract investors in order to have more revenue sources, and redistributive mechanisms do not play a significant role. In Germany, the more developed lands transfer funds to support the less developed, the mechanism is enshrined in law.

The assignment of taxes to different levels of the budget system is also varied, but there are several general rules:

• the most unstable or territorially differentiated taxes (for example, raw material rent) go to the central budget;
• taxes on real estate of citizens and small businesses are directed to local budgets, which stimulates the municipal authorities to create more comfortable environment living conditions and improve conditions for entrepreneurship, otherwise the population and business "vote with their feet";
• it is possible to split one tax between the levels of the budget system, but "one tax - one level" is considered the best practice;
• the distribution of tax and non-tax revenues by levels of the budget system should be correlated with the powers of each level, i.e. there is no rule "all taxes down" or "all taxes up", there is the concept of an optimum that can change flexibly;
• there should be no unfunded mandates (there are powers, but there is no money for their implementation);
• assistance to regions and municipalities should be provided according to transparent criteria.

The rules are simple and rational, but it turned out to be difficult to follow them. The Russian system of interbudgetary relations was built with great difficulties, the political and macroeconomic problems of the 1990s, the difficult state of the federal budget, and interest groups that received income from the unformalized system of redistribution interfered. A more fundamental problem is the strong differences in the tax potential of Russian regions and, especially, municipalities. The problem is objective and has no solution in the coming decades, especially for the municipal level: peripheral municipalities cannot exist on meager taxes from penny real estate and underdeveloped small businesses, limited by low effective demand. The strong differentiation of the revenue base imposes serious restrictions on the reform of interbudgetary relations in Russia.

The first task that was solved in the 1990s was the streamlining and institutionalization of financial relations between the center and the regions. The Fund for Financial Support of the Regions (FFSR) and a formalized equalization methodology were created, more or less taking into account the tax potential and budgetary needs of the regions. The main instrument - subsidies for equalizing budgetary security from the FFSR - began to be distributed transparently, according to a formula. An index of budget expenditures was developed that takes into account differences in the cost of public services in the regions. In general, the institutional framework of the system of interbudgetary relations was built up by the beginning of the 2000s.

The second task is the centralization of rental income and the elimination of internal offshore companies. It was solved in the first half of the 2000s. Gradually, the main rent tax was centralized - on the extraction of minerals (MET), previously distributed between the center and the regions in the ratio of 50:50. In the early 2000s, this tax provided more than a third of all budget revenues for the oil-producing Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, which stood out sharply for its budgetary security. In 2003-2004 a ban on domestic offshore companies was introduced: the bar for income tax benefits received by the regional budget is limited to 4%.

In the mid-2000s, the task of eliminating unfunded mandates was being tackled. The populist laws adopted by the State Duma and regional parliaments in the 1990s accumulated liabilities that exceeded the country's budget revenues by 2.5 times. In 2005, the last major reform of interbudgetary relations was carried out - the so-called "monetization of benefits." Its goals were rational - to deal with the opaque system of benefits and unfunded mandates. However, the federal government tried to do it by proxy - to throw on the regions the solution of the difficult political task of reducing unrealizable social obligations. When implementing the reform, the motive for saving budgetary resources dominated. This led to the protests of the urban population, who lost the most from monetization. I had to solve the problem with money. It was precisely this reform that began the return to informal interbudgetary relations, and "manual management" began to be introduced more and more widely, reaching its peak during the crisis of 2009 and in subsequent years.

At the same time, during the implementation of the "law on monetization", the law on the delimitation of powers between the levels of state power and other legislative acts, a distinction was made between revenue sources and expenditure powers between the levels of the budget system, including both municipal levels. Reforms have also begun in health care and education, which are changing not only the system of financing, but also the provision of services, stimulating the gradual phasing out of the network of small schools, feldsher-midwife stations and small district hospitals in regions with a declining population. The enlargement of social institutions makes it possible to optimize the expenditures of the regional budgets, but worsens the territorial accessibility of services for residents of the periphery.

The last decision of the federal authorities is to increase the wages of state employees. The main burden of its implementation fell on the budgets of the regions, which led to an increase in their deficit (in 2013, 60% of the regions had a budget deficit) and debt, the volume of which by the end of 2013 reached 27% of own (tax and non-tax) revenues of the consolidated budgets of the regions .

In general, the reforms of interbudgetary relations solved a two-pronged task: maximum centralization of financial resources and increased control over spending in the regions, as well as fiscal optimization, including by dumping social obligations on the regions. If in the early 2000s the proportions of revenues to the federal budget and the consolidated budgets of the regions were close to 50:50, then in the second half of the 2000s they amounted to 62:38 in favor of the center. The dependence of regional consolidated budget revenues on federal transfers increased from 11–13% in the early 2000s to 19% in 2008, and in the crisis year of 2009 the share of transfers reached 27% and only in 2013 decreased to 19%. In 2013, in 12 regions it exceeded 50% of budget revenues, and in Chechnya and Ingushetia it approached 90%. The level of subsidization of Russian municipalities is even higher: on average, for urban districts it is 48%, for municipal districts - 73%, for settlements - 66% (settlements have few powers, so less money is needed). As a result, the system of interbudgetary relations poorly stimulates the development of regions and municipalities.

Arguments in favor of centralization are usually cited as the need to concentrate resources at the center for faster reform of the country, as well as the controlled distribution of transfers in order to increase the efficiency of spending by regional and local authorities. But there are serious grounds for a critical assessment of the policy of centralization. First, regional development tools in the form of national projects funded primarily from the federal budget, federal targeted programs, and others have shown extremely low efficiency. Large-scale redistribution has led to increased dependency and passivity of regional and local authorities.

Secondly, control over the distribution of hundreds of types of targeted subsidies to the regions is impossible; this system has become a source of corruption in federal departments.

By the end of the 2000s, an opaque system of "manual control" had formed in Russia. The share of subsidies for equalization, calculated according to the formula, decreased in 2005-2012. from 50% to 27% of all transfers. Other federal transfers are most often allocated on a non-transparent basis and differ in some obscure way across regions. Chechnya and Tatarstan are the leaders in terms of additional funding according to non-transparent criteria, with the Tyumen region added to them through subsidies for balancing, covering shortfalls in revenues from the centralization of the mineral extraction tax. Transfers from the federal budget for investment purposes (federal targeted programs and budget investments) were particularly generous in supporting the budgets of Chechnya, Primorsky Krai, Tatarstan, and the Kaliningrad Region. Krasnodar region received special transfers for the development of Sochi (more than 7% of the regional budget revenues), St. Petersburg - for the construction of a high-speed railway(more than 2% of budget revenues), and then the metro.

The paradox is that the Russian system of interbudgetary relations has been continuously reformed, and very often towards improvement. But there are no good interbudgetary relations in non-democratic political systems Therefore, opacity and "manual control" have become the dominant features of financial relations between the center and the regions, despite considerable success in reforming along the lines of developed federations. It is quite possible to remove the veneer of lobbying and corruption "rust", the only thing left to do is to reform the political system.

Relations between the center and regions: administrative and political mechanisms

The centralization trend, which replaced the decentralization of the 1990s, due to the weakness of the federal authorities, began with the creation of federal districts and the institution of presidential plenipotentiaries in the regions (2000). Initially, their functions were mainly rational: control over bringing regional legislation into line with federal legislation (this work was done in two years) and oversight of the structures of federal authorities in the regions, primarily the power structures, which in most regions were controlled by governors. Federal law enforcement agencies began horizontal rotation, moving the heads of these structures to other regions.

The plenipotentiaries of a number of federal districts led the campaign to enlarge the subjects of the Federation, initiated by the federal center in 2005-2007. The small autonomous okrugs of the Volga, Siberian, and Far Eastern okrugs were merged with the "mother" territories. The enlargement campaign was quickly curtailed, meeting resistance from the authorities and the inhabitants of the republics of Altai and Adygeya, who were next in line.

Budget powers and resources were not transferred to the level of federal districts, and the attempts of the plenipotentiaries to manage the economic policy in the regions and the processes of economic and infrastructural integration of the regions did not produce noticeable results. It could not be otherwise in the absence of the interest of the regions, as well as financial resources and qualified managers in the embassies.

The most radical step taken by the federal authorities is the abolition of the election of heads of executive power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Instead of the former governor, a "Varangian" was more often appointed, at best, one who had once lived in the region. As a rule, following the "Varangian" governor, who did not know or knew the region poorly, came his associates, who were just as far from the needs of the region. In fact, there was a process of "administrative colonization". The opinion of the head of the region on the choice of a successor was taken into account only when the governor left for a promotion, although in some republics the federal center made concessions to the regional elites because of the risk of destabilization. The appointment system was initially not transparent, but in 2010-2012. they became completely unpredictable. The return to gubernatorial elections in 2013 has hardly changed the list of regional heads so far.

The creation of a super-centralized control system inevitably led to the formation of a hypertrophied and ineffective system of control from above, since the control from below (through elections), which was necessary for the balance of any system, was canceled. Since 2008, a system for assessing the effectiveness of the activities of the executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation has been operating as a formalized control tool. Initially, it included more than 320 indicators, gradually reduced to an integral index, in 2011 their number was sharply reduced. The quality of the assessment raises many questions among specialists, and the assessment of the effectiveness of the governors' activities itself has little effect.

Local government also fell victim to centralization. Major cities, with the exception of Moscow and St. Petersburg, are municipalities. The reform of local self-government, carried out in 2005, led to the creation of a two-tier system: the first level - urban districts and municipal districts, the second - settlements that are part of municipal districts. The federal authorities believed that the creation of municipal settlements would bring local authorities closer to the population. As experts had warned, the result was disastrous.

• The number of municipal officials doubled: in 2010 there were 334,000 of them. (officials of regional governments - 198 thousand people, representatives of federal authorities in the regions - 475 thousand people).
• About 15% of the settlements actually do not perform any functions, the funds are spent only on the maintenance of the administration.
• Most regions have granted the status of city districts only to the largest cities. The budgetary and tax powers of other cities that have become urban settlements, and among them there are quite a few quite large ones, have become equal to rural settlements. Some regions resisted the reform in opportunistic ways: for example, in Sakhalin region all districts have become urban districts not to create a second level, in Sverdlovsk region the boundaries of urban districts have expanded dramatically.
• Using the law on the delimitation of powers between levels of government (No. 131-FZ), the regional authorities cracked down on the local self-government of large cities, the mayors of which were in conflict with the governors, transferring them to the status of urban settlements. As a result, these cities have lost many powers, and their budget - the main revenue sources (Rybinsk, Angarsk and many others). In 2010, a provision was introduced into the law on local self-government on the possibility of transferring the powers of an urban settlement-district center to the administration of the entire district, i.e. The district center came under the control of the district authorities.
• The concept of "city" has disappeared from the Russian system of government. The political and financial independence of cities has declined, which has worsened the possibility of modernization. It always follows the hierarchical system of cities - from largest to smallest, but the process is hampered if barriers are high and the urban environment degrades due to a lack of resources.

The last decision, taken in 2013, was to reduce the share of personal income tax received by the budgets of urban districts and municipal districts to 15% and 10%, respectively (previously it was 20%). Everything else goes up to the regional budget, because it is the region that makes the main spending decisions and finances them. Financial resources and spending obligations are better balanced this way, but this is purely a balance sheet.

Institutional changes have strengthened the Russian tradition of getting rid of political competition. Instead of dialogue and finding a compromise, the authorities are looking for a way to get rid of those who are not under their control: the federal center was hindered by governors elected by the population, governors are hindered by the mayors of regional capitals, heads of districts are hindered by the heads of regional centers. This property of Russian political culture has become the strongest barrier to development in all areas, including regional and municipal politics. The government at any level lacks an understanding that the interests of the "part" and the "whole" never completely coincide, and that the search for a compromise is an obligatory component of regional policy.

Regional Policy Opportunity Corridor

Attempts at bureaucratic decentralization of management began in 2011 (the Kozak-Khloponin commission), but gave minimal results. Instead of a transition to real federalism and support for local self-government, the federal authorities choose palliative measures: the transfer of part of federal powers to the regions, along with subventions for their implementation, and a slight redistribution of tax revenues between budget levels. But private measures do not change the structure of the system.

The Russian authorities cannot decide on the main - balance of spatial development priorities. There are three ideological approaches to the allocation of such priorities.

With a market approach, investments should go to more competitive regions in order to accelerate the economic growth of the entire country. Part of the increased tax revenues is redistributed to support lagging territories, but they also stimulate the development of regional centers where human capital is concentrated at a higher level, and other places with local competitive advantages. The function of supporting the population of underdeveloped and depressed peripheries is mainly shifted to social policy.

In the geopolitical approach, the most important thing is to control the borders by investing in their development. Based on this priority, the federal authorities finance long-term development programs Kuril Islands, support a special economic zone in the Kaliningrad region, are trying to resettle compatriot migrants in the east of the country, although the results are not impressive.

The priority of equalization of spatial development is aimed at ensuring more equal access to public goods for people living in territories with different levels of development. Obviously, equalizing and geopolitical priorities are the most costly.

How to find the optimal balance? If alignment dominates, how can you compete with the rest of the world and develop faster? If the bet is placed on competitive territories, will not the growth of regional inequality lead to increased risks of disintegration? If forces and means are concentrated on geopolitical priorities, what will happen to the development of other regions? The questions are complex and require extensive discussion.

The most important tasks of regional development can be formulated in a different perspective - institutional. There are only three such tasks.

First - lowering barriers to the spread of various innovations throughout the country. Any innovation - from new technologies to lifestyle upgrades. The recipes have long been known - this is the development of cities, especially large ones, that are able to spread innovations to smaller cities and to the periphery, as well as the improvement of transport infrastructure to reduce the economic distance between centers. Unfortunately, these areas have not become the priorities of Russian regional policy: cities, being municipalities, are sitting on a starvation budget ration due to over-centralization, and the volume of road construction is minimal.

Second - growth of population mobility. People want to live where it is better for them - a more comfortable climate and living environment, more opportunities to find well-paid jobs, receive high-quality social services, and so on. By moving to more competitive territories, migrants improve their own lives, accelerate the development of the host region and the whole country. To increase mobility, it is necessary to reduce institutional and financial barriers: bureaucratic registration, an underdeveloped housing market, and the high cost of housing loans.

With the growth of mobility, the settlement system inevitably changes, the population is concentrated in cities and suburban areas with better living conditions and greater availability of jobs and services. The process of concentration has been going on since the Soviet years. It has costs: territories that are losing population cannot maintain the existing network of social institutions. Its reduction is inevitable, but not in the way that the federal authorities are doing now - forced and under the threat of punishment for the so-called "inefficient budget spending." The restructuring of the network of public services following shrinking settlement is a matter for the regions themselves, requiring careful consideration of local conditions. In developed countries, regional authorities also take into account the positions of different interest groups, conduct an open discussion to select the optimal solution.

The third task is to stimulate competition between regions and cities for investment and human capital and, at the same time, horizontal interaction to solve common problems. But only those who are interested in the result, have resources and powers, and are responsible for their decisions can compete and interact. Now it is much more rational and efficient to compete for federal transfers.

These three tasks require institutional changes, the most important of which are - decentralization of management and deregulation. Decentralization of resources and powers reduces barriers and promotes the development of more competitive regions, including those that improve the institutional environment for business. Deregulation allows regions to make decisions based on local conditions.

Decentralization has its risks. First, the scale of redistribution from the federal budget will inevitably decrease, since more financial resources will remain in the developed regions. Secondly, there is a risk of degradation of the management system in problem regions, but there are tools federal control, allowing to seize control in case of acute problems and dampen the risks of poor regional management. Decentralization is a difficult transition, but it offers a chance to replace the battle of the regions for federal transfers with policies to improve institutions in the face of competition for investment and human capital.

For interbudgetary relations, it is important to change the system of distribution of federal transfers. Now it creates disincentives for the development of regions, the number of transfers and their "manual" distribution have reached an outrageous level. The recommendations of the updated "Strategy-2020" proposed to begin the "repair" of interbudgetary relations by increasing the share of subsidies to equalize budgetary security (they are transparent, as they are calculated according to the formula) to at least half of all transfers to the regions. The second step is the rejection of hundreds of subsidies distributed by various federal departments according to non-transparent criteria, reducing them to 6-8 broad-based subsidies that the region can use more independently.

It is more difficult to increase the revenue base of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, since the most unevenly distributed taxes (MET and VAT) are concentrated in the federal budget. To understand the scale of the uneven tax base, one example is enough: for three constituent entities of the Russian Federation - two oil and gas autonomous regions Tyumen region and Moscow - account for 55% of all tax revenues from the territories to the federal budget, with the addition of St. Petersburg - 60%. Any decentralization of these taxes would drastically increase the revenues of the budgets of a few rich regions and give almost nothing to the rest. However, the federal part of the income tax (2 percentage points out of 20) is long overdue to be given to the regions, and the system of distribution of excise taxes can also be changed. In general, the huge differences in the tax base of the regions are objective limitations, so there are no simple solutions to tax decentralization.

Decentralization of administration will be ineffective without real democratization, which strengthens control "from below", on the part of the population. The main instrument of control - competitive elections for mayors and governors. The risks of electoral populism are obvious, these will have to be overcome after going through several election cycles. Decentralization and the restoration of competitive elections do not guarantee an improvement in the institutional environment, they only contribute to this, as well as to the emergence of new politicians in the regions.

The collapse of the country is traditionally considered the risk of decentralization, but it is unlikely to be initiated by regional problems. An ineffective policy of over-centralization and "manual control" is a more serious threat to Russia's development.

N.V. Zubarevich, Doctor of Geography, Moscow State University them. M. V. Lomonosov
World development report 2009: Reshaping economic geography. -Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2009.
Nefyodova T. G. Rural Russia at the Crossroads: Geographical Essays. - M.: New publishing house, 2003. - S. 135-141.
Monitoring the development of Russian regions. Independent Institute for Social Policy. URL: http://www.socpol.ru/atlas/overviews/social_sphere/kris. shtml
Treivish A.I. City, district, country and the world: Development of Russia through the eyes of a regional expert. - M.: New Chronograph, 2009. - S. 211.
Zubarevich N.V. Regions of Russia: inequality, crisis, modernization. - M.: NISP, 2010.
Zubarevich N.V., Safronov S.G. Inequality in the socio-economic development of Russian regions and cities in the 2000s: growth or decline? // Social sciences and modernity. - 2013. - No. 6.
Zubarevich N. Rent of capital status // Pro et contra. - 2012. - T. 16, N 6.