Assessment of Regional Development Institutions and Executive Authorities of the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation

Regional development management involves the use of development institutions, which are designed to enhance the functionality in solving the problems of the regions. For Russian regions, it is quite often proposed to borrow such institutions, for example, in the form of agencies and corporations for regional development, which looks very unreasonable. The task of distributing resources between regions, which cannot be considered solved in Russia, involves assessing the effectiveness of regional management, executive authorities, for which a system of indicators (of 20 parameters) and corresponding methods have been developed and approved, which are currently being improved and processed. The unresolved nature of these problems makes us once again turn to the validity of the decisions made and the argumentation of the position on the use of development agencies as institutions. This study provides a critical analysis of the borrowing of development institutions for the regions, demonstrating the importance of the project management method, which involves a comprehensive assessment of the feasibility of new functions, which is difficult to implement without a reliable assessment of the reasons for the negative work of existing functions and institutions at the regional level. Using a comparative survey method of analysis, measurement principles suitable for assessing the effectiveness of management, an alternative methodology for measuring the effectiveness of regional authorities in Russia is proposed. It allows you to assess the economic, social, administrative, budgetary and environmental aspects of the development of the region and the solution to breakdown in these areas by the executive bodies of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation. The advantage of the proposed alternative methodology is the smaller number of indicators, as well as the use of an already established accounting and measurement system, with minimal costs for the creation of new methods and their testing. Like any approach of this type, the assessment is conditional, but the convenience of the methodology, flexibility and simplicity, allow us to give a generalized assessment of both the development of the region and the management of its development. At the same time, the use of private indicators characterizing individual spheres of the region’s functioning can occur within the framework of each of the areas of work of a government body. Thus, the analysis performed casts doubt on the need for regional agencies and corporations as an institutional panacea for development. In addition, it allows us to propose a different institution for assessing the effectiveness of management, on which the procedures for allocating resources between regions will depend, which is especially important in connection with the goals of restructuring regional debts and the implementation of infrastructure loans declared by the Federal government. 

1. Valentei S.D. Napravleniia razvitiia regional’nykh ekonomik v Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Directions of Development of Regional Economics of the Russian Federation], Federalizm [Federalizm], 2019, No. 3, pp. 132–148. (In Russ.).

2. Minakir P.A. Teoreticheskie aspekty issledovaniia prostranstvennykh ekonomicheskikh sistem [Theoretical Aspects of the Study of Spatial Economic Systems], Zhurnal ekonomicheskoi teorii [Journal of Economic Theory], 2017, No. 3, pp. 7–10. (In Russ.).

3. Tatarkin A.I. Vliianie integrirovannykh korporativnykh struktur na sotsial’noekonomicheskoe razvitie regiona [The Influence of Integrated Corporate Structures on the Socio-Economic Development of the Region], Vestnik OGU [Vestnik OSU], 2005, No. 5, pp. 141–144. (In Russ.).

4. Kuleshov V.V., Kriukov V.A. Reindustrializatsiia Novosibirskoi oblasti - uchityvat’ obshchee, razvivat’ osobennoe [Reindustrialization of the Novosibirsk Region – to Take into Account the General, to Develop the Special], EKO [ECO], 2015, No. 10 (496), pp. 5–29. (In Russ.).

5. Suslov V.I. Tekhnologicheskii bazis reindustrializatsii strany i regiona [Technological Basis for the Reindustrialization of the Country and the Region], Region: Ekonomika i Sotsiologiia [Region: Economics and Sociology], 2015, No. 4 (88), pp. 46–64. (In Russ.).

6. Sukharev O.S., Voronchikhina E.N. Tipy tekhnologicheskogo razvitiia regionov: struktura tekhnologii i investitsii [Types of Technological Development of Regions: the Structure of Technologies and Investments], Investitsii v Rossii [Investments in Russia], 2019, No. 7, pp. 24–36. (In Russ.).

7. Sukharev O.S. Elementy teorii samorazvitiia ekonomicheskikh system [Elements of the Theory of Self-Development of Economic Systems]. Moscow, Lenand, 2018, 360 p. (In Russ.).

8. Sukharev O.S. Instituty regional’nogo razvitiia: kontseptual’no-prakticheskii analiz organizatsionnykh izmenenii [Regional Development Institutions: Conceptual and Practical Analysis of Organizational Changes], Ekonomicheskii analiz: teoriia i praktika [Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice], 2012, No. 4 (259), pp. 2–12 (In Russ.).

9. Tatarkin A.I. Instituty samorazvitiia regional’nykh sotsial’noekonomicheskikh system [Institutes of Self-Development of Regional Socio-Economic Systems], Instituty sovremennoi ekonomiki [Institutes of Modern Economics], in four volumes, Vol. 4, edited by A.E. Gorodetskii, Saint Petersburg, Aleteiia, 2015, pp. 87–160. (In Russ.).

10. Sukharev O.S. Instituty razvitiia: neobkhodimost’ i effektivnost’ [Development Institutions: Necessity and Effectiveness], Gosaudit, Ekonomika. Pravo [State Audit, Economics. Right], 2017, No. 2, pp. 8–16 (In Russ.).

11. Elango B., Dhandapani K. Does Institutional Industry Context Matter to Performance? An Extension of the Institution-Based View. Journal of Business Research, 2020, Vol. 115, pp. 139–148.

12. Biesenthal C., Clegg S., Mahalingam A., Sankaran S. Applying Institutional Theories to Managing Megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 2018, Vol. 36 (1), pp. 43–54.

13. Gerber J-D., Lieberherr E., Knoepfel P. Governing contemporary commons: The Institutional Resource Regime in Dialogue with Other Policy Frameworks. Environmental Science & Policy, 2020, Vol. 112, pp. 155–163.

14. Khalil E.L. Lock-in Institutions and Efficiency. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2013, Vol. 88, pp. 27–36.

15. Kıbrıs, Ö., Tapkı, İ.G. A Mechanism Design Approach to Allocating Central Government Funds among Regional Development Agencies. Rev Econ Design, 2014, Vol. 18, pp. 163–189.

16. Lawrence F. The Role of Local Economic Development Agencies in the South African Local Economic Development Landscape. Urban Forum, 2013, Vol. 24, pp. 523–541.

17. Eren E., Koşan N.İ. The Importance of the Cooperation of Regional Development Agencies with Universities Founded in the Provinces in Terms of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Projects. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012, Vol. 41, pp. 363–366. 1

18. Gibbs D. Ecological Modernisation, Regional Economic Development and Regional Development Agencies. Geoforum, 2000, Vol. 31 (1), pp. 9–19.

19. Huggins R. Regional Competitive Specialization. Development Agency Sector Initiatives in Wales. Area, 1997, Vol. 29 (3), pp. 241–252.

20. Salvador R., Julião R.P., Ferreira J. Regional Development Agencies in Portuga. 40 th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Barcelona, 2000, 16 p.

21. Mcmaster I. Czech Regional Development Agencies in a Shifting Institutional Landscape. Europe-Asia Studies, 2006, Vol. 58 (3), pp. 347–370.

22. Young-Hyman T. The Potential for Effective Regional Development Agencies in Turkey: A Comparative Analysis. Regional & Federal Studies, 2008, Vol. 18 (4), pp. 375–402.

23. Toledo R.F., Miranda Junior H.L., Farias Filho J.R., Costa H.G. A Scientometric Review of Global Research on Sustainability and Project Management Dataset, 2019, Vol. 25, p. 104312, DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2019.104312

24. Chofreh A.G., Goni F.A., Malik M.N., Khan H.H., Klemeš J.J. The Imperative and Research Directions of Sustainable Project Management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, Vol. 238, pp. 117810–117819.

25. Hirman M, Benesova A., Steiner F., Tupa J. Project Management During the Industry 4.0 Implementation with Risk Factor Analysis. Procedia Manufacturing, 2019, Vol. 38, pp. 1181–1188.

26. Sukharev O.S. Raspredelennoe upravlenie kak rasshirenie printsipa «tseliinstrumenty» ekonomicheskoi politiki [Distributed Management as an Extension of the Principle of “Goals-Instruments” of Economic Policy], Upravlencheskie nauki [Administrative Sciences], 2021, No. 11 (1), pp. 6–19. (In Russ.).

27. Momeni M.A., Yaghoubi S., Aliha M.R.M. An Optimal Control Model for Analyzing Quality Investment in the Project Management. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2019, Vol. 129, pp. 529–544.