Interregional Structural Factor of Labour Productivity Growth in Russia
https://doi.org/10.26794/2220-6469-2019-13-4-90-102
Abstract
In the article, we consider changes in the arrangement of the subjects of the Russian Federation in terms of labour productivity for the period 2000–2017. We show that currently in Russia, there is an extremely high differentiation of regions in terms of labour productivity, and over the past two decades, there has been an increase in it. The figures that allow us to conclude about the unique territorial structure of Russia we give in the text, namely: part of the Russian regions belong to the group of core countries in terms of technological development; the other part — to the countries of the semi-periphery; the third — to the countries of the periphery. We showed that in the periods of 2000–2010 and 2010–2017 characterised completely different structural schemes of the country’s development. The share of so-called “between effect” in the growth of the total labour productivity in Russia in the second period increased more than ten times as compared to the first period. It means that in the second decade of the XXI century the country’s regional labour overflows accelerated. It simultaneously contributed to the growth of productivity and even more entrenched concentric model of development, increasing the differentiation of subjects of the Russian Federation.
Keywords
labour productivity,
technological border,
regional differentiation,
economic semi-periphery,
innovation and imitation strategy
Supporting agencies: The article is based on the results of research carried out at the expense of budget funds of the state task of the Russian Government for Financial University in 2019, on the theme: “Formation of a system of methodological and organisational support of professional productivity” (AHH-A19–119062790090–2).
About the Authors
E. V. Balatsky
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evgeny V. Balatsky — Doctor of Economics, Professor, Director of the Center for Macroeconomic Research
Moscow
N. A. Ekimova
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia A. Ekimova — Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor, Leading researcher of the Center for Macroeconomic Research
MoscowReferences
1. Gubanova E. S., Kleshch V. S. Methodological aspects in analyzing the level of non-uniformity of socio-economic development of regions. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. 2017;1(10):1:58–75. DOI: 10.15838/esc.2017.1.49.4
2. Mikheyeva N. N. Workforce productivity in Russian regions: Comparative analysis. Region: ekonomika i sotsiologiya. 2015;2(86):86–112. (In Russ.). DOI: 10/15372/REG20150605
3. Masych M. A., Panichkina M. V., Burova I. V. Territorial and branch aspects of labour productivity of the Russian economy. Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federal’nogo universiteta imeni V. I. Vernadskogo. Ekonomika i upravlenie. 2017;3(69):81–88. (In Russ.).
4. Suvorova V. V., Timarsuev M. V. The regional dimension of the performance review. Regional’naya ekonomika: teoriya i praktika. 2014;46(373):56–65. (In Russ.).
5. Farrell D. Driving growth: breaking down barriers to global prosperity. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press; 2006. 238 p.
6. Martin R., Kitson M., Tyler P. Regional competitiveness. UK: Routledge; 2012. 176 p.
7. Seymour Z. M. The politics of productivity: State and local focus. Public Productivity Review. 1980;4(4):352–367. DOI: 10.2307/3379976
8. Rastvortseva S. N. Labour productivity and capital to labour ratio in ensuring the economic growth of the Russian regions. Sotsial’noe prostranstvo. 2018;1(13). URL: http://sa.isert-ran.ru/article/2545/full (аccessed on 15.08.2019). (In Russ.). DOI: 10.15838/sa/2018.1.13.1
9. Kolomak E. Uneven spatial development in Russia: Explanations of new economic geography. Voprosy Economiki; 2013;2:132–150. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.32609/0042–8736–2013–2–132–150
10. Bufetova A. N. Spacial aspects of economic activity concentration in Russian. Prostranstvennaya ekonomika. 2016;3:38–56. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.14530/se.2016.3.038–056
11. Bufetova A. N. Spatial aspects of labour productivity dynamics in Russia. Mir ekonomiki i upravleniya. 2017;4(17):142–157. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.25205/2542–0429–2017–17–4–142–157
12. Kaasa A. Intangible factors and productivity: Evidence from Europe at the regional level. Business and Economic Horizons. 2018;2(14):300–325. DOI: 10.15208/beh.2018.23
13. Mirolyubova T. V. Labour productivity in Russian regions: spatial aspects and interrelation with information resources. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Seriya: Ekonomika. 2016;3(30):120–131. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/1994–9960–2016–3–120–131
14. Skripkin K. G. IT productivity paradox: present state of research in the world and in Russia. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2015;395:172–178. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17223/15617793/395/29
15. Solow R. We’d better watch out. New York Times Book Review. 12.07.1987. URL: http://standupeconomist.com/pdf/misc/solow-computer-productivity.pdf (accessed on 15.08.2019).
16. Loveman G. An assessment of productivity impact of information technologies. In: Morton M. S.S., ed. information technology and the corporation of the 1990s. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994:84–110.
17. Cardarelli R., Lusinyan L. U.S. Total factor productivity slowdown: Evidence from the U. S. States. IMF Working Paper WP/15/116; 2015. 24 р.
18. Roach S. America’s technology dilemma: a profile of the information economy. New York: Morgan Stanley; 1987. 29 p.
19. Brynjolfsson E., Hitt L. Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence of the returns to information systems spending. Management Science. 1996;4(42):541–558. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.42.4.541
20. Brynjolfsson E., Hitt L. Computing productivity: Firm-level evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics. 2003;4(85):793–808. DOI: 10.1162/003465303772815736
21. Zimin K., Markin A., Skripkin K. It impact on the firm productivity in Russia: Methodology of empirical investigation. Biznes-informatika. 2012;1(19):40–48. (In Russ.).
22. Helpman E., Trajtenberg M. A time to sow and a time to reap: Growth based on general purpose technologies. In: Helpman E., ed. General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998:55–83.
23. Dementiev V. E. Productivity paradox in regional dimension. Ekonomika regiona = Economy of Region; 2019;1(15):43– 56. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17059/2019–1–4
24. Mironov V. V., Konovalova I. D. On the relationship of structural changes and economic growth in the world economy and Russia. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2019;1:54–78. (In Russ.). DOI: 10/32609/0042–8736–2019–1–54–78
25. Mkrtchyan N. V., Florinskaya Yu. F. Labour migration in Russia: international and internal aspects. Zhurnal Novoi ekonomicheskoi assotsiatsii. 2018;1(37):186–193. (In Russ.).
26. Balatsky E. V., Ekimova N. A. The concentric model of Russian market for economic research. Mir novoi ekonomiki = The world of the new economy. 2017;2:82–2. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Balatsky E.V., Ekimova N.A. Interregional Structural Factor of Labour Productivity Growth in Russia. The world of new economy. 2019;13(4):90-102. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2220-6469-2019-13-4-90-102
Views:
685
Email this article 