Assessing the Efficiency of Regional Policy Tools
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/2020-2-2Keywords:
tools, regional policy, spatial development, performance assessment, methods, foreign experience, short-term and long-term effects, exogenous growth, endogenous growth theory, strategy of spatial developmentAbstract
Implementing the Strategy of Spatial Development of the Russian Federation involves various regional policy measures and requires choosing the most appropriate tools. The issue gains importance in case of combining the search for additional sources of growth with an integrated system for assessing the efficiency of the existing measures. Admittedly, such system in the Russian Federation is still in its formation. Therefore, in order to implement public policy, it is crucial to critically analyse the most significant aspects of the methodology for assessing the efficiency. The concept of «efficiency», apart from efficiency itself, includes he performance, impact, and usability of the tool. The assessment of the efficiency varies in different countries, as it is not a single practice that can be applied regardless of geographical and historical context. The paper substantiates the idea that the assessment of the efficiency includes the examination of social, cultural and political elements. The assessment is a flexible management tool, not just an instrument demonstrating the reduction of regional differences. Drawing on the principles of spatial hierarchy, the paper suggests assessing the efficiency of regional policy tools at the macro-, meso- and micro-regional levels. The assessment focuses on solving four large classes of applied problems: provision of public goods, forms of the spatial organisation of the economy, implementation of regional and macro-regional programs, and the development of large projects. The characteristics of the assessment of the efficiency depend on the choice of either endogenous or exogenous growth theory. Additionally, the assessment of the efficiency of a variety of programs (multi-criteria evaluation) specifically differs from the assessment of individual programs of spatial development. It is advisable to consider the practice of assessment in a broader context, not just as a task of financial and management control. The research findings can be used for creating an integrated system that provides feedback, organises the consequences of regional policies and the effects of achieving national development goals.References
Kuznetsova, O. V. (2016). Osobye ekonomicheskie zonyi: effektivny ili net? [Special economic zones: efficient or not?]. Prostranstvennaya ekonomika [Spatial Economics], 4, 129–152. DOI: 10.14530/se.2016.4.129–152 (In Russ.)
Shvetsov, A. N. (2016). «Tochki rosta» ili «chernyie dyry»? (k voprosu ob effektivnosti primeneniya «zonalnykh» instrumentov gosstimulirovaniya ekonomicheskoy dinamiki territoriy) [«Points of Growth» or «Black holes»? (Concerning Application Effectiveness of «Zonal» Tools for Government Boosting of Territories’ Economic Dynamics)]. Russian economic journal [Rossiyskiy ekonomicheskiy zhurnal], 3, 40–61. (In Russ.)
Mikheyeva, N. N. & Ananyeva, R. I. (2011). Instrumenty regionalnoy politiki: otsenka effektivnosti ispolzovaniya [Tools of regional policy: assessing the efficiency of their application]. Region: Ekonomika i Sotsiologiya. [Region: Economics and Sociology], 3, 39–57. (In Russ.)
Bukhvald, E. M. & Valentik, O. N. (2015). Territorii operezhayushchego razvitiya: padenie ili illyuziya? [The territories of advanced development: breakthrough or illusion?]. ETAP: ekonomicheskaya teoriya, analiz, praktika. [ETAP: economic theory, analysis and practice], 2, 72–84. (In Russ.)
Simachev, Yu. V., Kuzyk, M. G. & Ivanov, D. S. (2012). Rossiyskie finansovye instituty razvitiya: vernoy dorogoy [Russian Financial Development Institutions: Are We on the Right Way?]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 7, 4–29. DOI: 10.32609/0042–8736– 2012–7–4–29 (In Russ.)
Limonov, L. E. & Nesena, M. V. (2019). Otsenka vozdeystviya gosudarstvennykh investitsionnykh programm na pokazateli sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya territoriy [Evaluation of the impact of public investment programs on social and economic performance of territories]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 1, 109–123. DOI: 10.32609/0042–8736–2019–1–109–123 (In Russ.)
Gibbons, S., Nathan, M. & Overman, H. (2014). Evaluating spatial policies. Town Planning Review, 85(4), 427–432.
Sharma, S. P., Taneja, R. & Munjal, A. (2015). Current State and Performance Review of SEZs in India: A Survey. FOCUS: Journal of International Business, 2(1), 76–88.
Knop, H. & Straszak, A. (1978). The Bratsk-Ilimsk Territorial Production Complex: A Field Study Report. IIASA Research Report. Austria: IIASA, 379.
Fedorenko, V. (2013). The New Silk Road Initiatives in Central Asia. Rethink Paper No. 10. Washington, D.C.: Rethink Institute, 15.
Fratesi, U. & Perucca, G. (2014). Territorial Capital and the Effectiveness of Cohesion Policies: an Assessment for CEE Regions. Investigaciones Regionales, 29, 165–191.
Bednarz, M. & Broekel, T. (2019). The relationship of policy induced R&D networks and inter-regional knowledge diffusion. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 29, 1459–1481.
Vanthillo, T. & Verhetsel, A. (2012). Paradigm change in regional policy: towards smart specialisation? Lessons from Flanders. Belgeo, 1(2), 1–19. DOI: 10.4000/belgeo.7083
Díez, M. A. (2002). Evaluating new regional policies reviewing the theory and practice. Evaluation, 8(3), 285–305. DOI: 10.1177/135638902401462439.
Bradley, J., Mitze, T., Morgenroth, E. & Untiedt, G. (2005). An Integrated Micro-Macro (IMM) Approach to the Evaluation of Large-Scale Public Investment Programmes: The Case of EU Structural Funds. ESRI Working Paper No. 167, 98.
Bachtler, J. & Wren, C. (2006). Evaluation of European Union Cohesion policy: Research questions and policy chal- lenges. Regional Studies, 40(2), 143–153.
Fingleton, B. & Fisher, M. (2010). Neoclassical theory versus new economic geography: competing explanations of cross-regional variation in economic development. The Annals of Regional Science, 44, 467–491.
Carlino, G. & Mills, L. (1996). Testing neoclassical convergence in regional incomes and earnings. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 26(6), 565–590.
Stough, R. R. (2001). Endogenous Growth Theory and the Role of Institutions in Regional Economic Development. In: B. Johansson, C. Karlsson, R. R. Stough (Eds.), Theories of Endogenous Regional Growth (pp. 17–48). Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978–3–642–59570–7.
Izushi, H. (2008). What Does Endogenous Growth Theory Tell about Regional Economies? Empirics of R&D Worker- based Productivity Growth. Regional Studies, 42(7), 947–960.
Martin, R. & Sunley, P. (1998). Slow Convergence? The New Endogenous Growth Theory and Regional Development. Economic Geography, 74(3), 201–227. DOI: 10.2307/144374.
Gang, L. (2012). The Origin of EU Regional Policy in a theoretical perspective. Working paper. Series on european studies, 6(5). Institute of european studies, Chinese academy of social sciences, 23.
Bagarani, M. (2015). Applying Multicriteria Analysis in On-Going Evaluation of EU Structural Programmes. Yildiz Social Science Review, 1(2), 1–17.
Kline, P. & Moretti, E. (2014). Local economic development, agglomeration economies and the big push: 100 years of evidence from the Tennessee valley authority. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(1), 275–331.
Antunes, P., Karadzic, V., Santos, R., Beça, P. & Osann, A. (2011). Participatory multi-criteria analysis of irrigation management alternatives: The case of the Caia irrigation district, Portugal. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(2), 334–349.
Munda, G. (2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158(3), 662–677.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 A.V. Kotov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
