Federal Analysis of Economic Development of the Regions of Modern Russia

The purpose of the paper is studying the possibility of economic development of Russian regions in modern federal state. The research is based on a system approach using the methods of descriptive statistics and cluster analysis. The article revealed the incomprehension of federalism as a system tool of development of economy of Russian regions. The federation is related to a political keynote – the moment of power. At that, the priority of merism principles in structure of a state is emphasized, with simplification of national economy and strengthening the role of central authority and dependence of Russia on the technologies of economy capitalization, in favor of budget centralization. The paper shows the place of Russian economy in the world economy in the conditions of acceptance of capitalism as the basis of economic formation of society. Following the results of the federative analysis of economic development of Russian regions the attractor of federative framework – the Republic of Crimea and anti-attractor – the Republic of Dagestan were revealed. The Kaluga Region and Tambov Region were defined as the linking entities of the Federation, while the Nenets Autonomous District and Khanty-Mansy Autonomous Region – Yugra were defined as the separating ones. The results of the research expand the field of knowledge regarding federative framework of the state and point at the possibilities of its integrity maintenance in the course of dynamic economic development of the entities, by forming new competencies for managerial decision making regarding maintenance of stability of the balance of regional interests in internal and foreign policy.

attractor of federal state, balance of regional interests, budget centralization, possibilities of development, capitalistic economic formation of society, moment of power, principles of merism, economy of region

1. Adolfsson A., Ackerman M., Brownstein N.C. To cluster, or not to cluster: An analysis of clusterability methods. Pattern Recognition. 2019. Vol. 88. P. 13–26. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2018.10.026.

2. Ania A.B., Wagener A. Decentralized redistribution in a laboratory federation. Journal of Urban Economics. Vol. 93. May 2016. P. 49–59. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2016.03.002.

3. Asatryan Z., Feld L.P. Revisiting the link between growth and federalism: A Bayesian model averaging approach. Journal of Comparative Economics. Vol. 43. Iss. 3. August 2015. P. 772–781. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2014.04.005.

4. Brownstein N.C., Adolfsson A., Ackerman M. Descriptive statistics and visualization of data from the R datasets package with implications for clusterability. Data in Brief. Vol. 25. August 2019. Article 104004. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104004.

5. Burris A. Federalism. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). 2015. P. 875–877. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.93042-3.

6. Cai H., Treisman D. State corroding federalism. Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 88. Iss. 3–4. March 2004. P. 819–843. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00220-7.

7. Daumal M. Federalism, separatism and international trade. European Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 24. Iss. 3. September 2008. P. 675–687. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2008.06.007.

8. Desai R.M., Freinkman L., Goldberg I. Fiscal federalism in rentier regions: Evidence from Russia. Journal of Comparative Economics. Vol. 33. Iss. 4. December 2005. P. 814–834. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2005.08.004.

9. Evers M.P. Fiscal federalism and monetary unions: A quantitative assessment. Journal of International Economics. Vol. 97. Iss. 1. September 2015. P. 59–75. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2015.05.001.

10. Favero L.P., Belfiore P. Chapter 3: Univariate Descriptive Statistics. Data Science for Business and Decision Making. 2019. P. 21–91. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811216-8.00003-3.

11. Favero L.P., Belfiore P. Chapter 11: Cluster Analysis. Data Science for Business and Decision Making. 2019. P. 311–382. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811216-8.00011-2.

12. Hatfield J.W. Federalism, taxation, and economic growth. Journal of Urban Economics. Vol. 87. May 2015. P. 114–125. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2015.01.003.

13. Janeba E., Wilson J.D. Optimal fiscal federalism in the presence of tax competition. Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 95. Iss. 11–12. December 2011. P. 1302–1311. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.029.

14. Jin H., Qian Y., Weingast B.R. Regional decentralization and fiscal incentives: Federalism, Chinese style. Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 89. Iss. 9–10. September 2005. P. 1719–1742. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.11.008.

15. King A.P., Eckersley R.J. Chapter 1: Descriptive Statistics I: Univariate Statistics. Statistics for Biomedical Engineers and Scientists. 2019. P. 1–21. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102939-8.00010-4.

16. Lazar J., Feng J.H., Hochheiser H. Chapter 4: Statistical analysis. Research Methods in Human Computer Interaction (Second Edition). 2017. P. 71–104. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805390-4.00004-2.

17. Lee T.V. Democracy and Federalism in Greater China. Orbis. Vol. 48. Iss. 2, Spring 2004. P. 275–283. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2004.01.009.

18. Marx K. Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Erster Band. Buch I: Der Produktionsprocess des Kapitals. Hamburg Verlag von Otto Meissner. Nexv-York: L.W. Schmidt, 24 Barclay-Street, 1867. 784 p.

19. Ross C. Federalism and democratization in Russia. Communist and Post-Communist Studies. Vol. 33. Iss. 4. December 2000. P. 403–420. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-067X(00)00013-1.

20. Ross C. Putin’s federal reforms and the consolidation of federalism in Russia: one step forward, two steps back! Communist and Post-Communist Studies. Vol. 36. Iss. 1. March 2003. P. 29–47. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-067X(02)00057-0.

21. Schofield S. Impressive statistical analysis. Science and Public Policy. 1993. Vol. 20. Iss. 3. P. 214–215. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/20.3.214.

22. Siggelkow B.F. Tax competition and the implications of national tax policy coordination in the presence of fiscal federalism. Regional Science and Urban Economics. Vol. 73. November 2018. P. 17–29. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2018.07.004.

23. Tanzi V. The future of fiscal federalism. European Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 24. Iss. 3. September 2008. P. 705–712. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2008.03.001.

24. Urlacher B.R. Complexity, Causality, and Control in Statistical Modeling. Vol. 64. Iss. 1. P. 55–73. Article first published online: July 13, 2019; Issue published: January 1, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219859641.

25. Weingast B.R. Second Generation Fiscal Federalism: Political Aspects of Decentralization and Economic Development. World Development. Vol. 53. January 2014. P. 14–25. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.003.