System for Assessing the Efficiency and Monitoring the Results of Import Substitution Policy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/2019-4-23Keywords:
import substitution, structural technological modernisation, agriculture, food security, economic security, autarchy, restrictions and sanctions, trade liberalization, industrial policy, technological modernisationAbstract
Import substitution is a top priority of Russia's economic policy in recent years. Complex geopolitical conditions, Western sanctions and consequent Russian countermeasures necessitated urgent compensation for the reduced volume of imported goods through increasing domestic production. Despite a significant rise in the number of publications on the problems of import substitution policy, the issues of assessing the efficiency of the ongoing policy are yet to be studied. The analysis of the existing methods for quantitative assessment of import substitution revealed their focus on assessing the potential or expediency of substituting imported products with domestically produced goods. Further, such analysis showed poor applicability of these methods when monitoring the results of the current policy. Thus, we developed a system for assessing the efficiency and monitoring the results of import substitution policy as a component of structural policy aimed at the modernisation of the Russian industries and manufacture of competitive products. The obtained results have demonstrated that, during the study period, the potential of the Russian agriculture was increasing due to a reduced import and accelerated growth of investments in fixed capital, in reconstruction and modernization. The detected rise in innovation potential of agriculture is largely attributable to low base effect. At the same time, the efficiency of using the potential of structural and technological modernisation in agriculture demonstrates a clear trend. However, intensive growth in the potential of import substitution modernisation in agriculture in subsequent periods may provide higher growth rates of modernisation targets. The proposed approach allows identifying the cause and effect relationship between ongoing processes and forecasting the dynamics of the industry development. The obtained method can be used to substantiate decisions related to the development of import substitution projects.References
Manturov, D., Nikitin, G. & Osmakov, V. (2016). Planirovanie importozameshcheniya v rossiyskoy promyshlennosti: praktika rossiyskogo gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [The Russian government approach to import substitution planning in industry]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 9, 40–49. (In Russ.)
Idrisov, G. (2015). Vyigravshie i proigravshie: posledstviya izmeneniya usloviy torgovli dlya rossiyskoy promyshlennosti [Winners and the Losers: the Effects of New Terms of Trade on Russia’s Industry]. Ekonomicheskoe razvitie Rossii [Russian Economic Developments], 4, 62–64.
Kheyfets, B. & Chernova, V. (2018). Importozameshchenie ne mozhet byt dolgosrochnoy strategiey [Import substitution can not be a long-term strategy]. Obshchestvo i ekonomika [Society and Economics], 6, 27–42. DOI: https://doi. org/10.7868/S020736761806002X.
Gnidchenko, A. A. (2017). Importozameshchenie kak dopolnyayushchaya strategiya [Import substitution as a complementary strategy]. Problemy prognozirovaniya [Studies on Russian Economic Development], 6, 27–36.
Kuzmin, E. A. (2013). Teoreticheskoe i empiricheskoe issledovanie ekonomicheskoy bezopasnosti pri liberalizatsii torgovykh otnosheniy. Chast 1. Teoretiko-metodologicheskaya postanovka i reshenie problemy [Theoretical and empiric studies of economic security in liberalized trade relations. Part 1. Theoretical and methodological positioning of a problem and possible solutions]. Natsionalnaya bezopasnost / Nota bene [National Security / Nota bene], 1, 34–50. DOI: https://doi. org/10.7256/2073–8560.2013.01.5.
Fyodorov, M. V. & Kuzmin, E. A. (2013). Agriculture and economic security of Russia: retrospective research. Journal of international scientific researches, 5(1–2), 42–45.
Wilson, R. (1977). Trade and Investment in the Middle East. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 152. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/978–1-349–03299–0.
Kadochnikov, P., Knobel, A. & Sinelnikov-Murylev, S. (2016). Otkrytost rossiyskoy ekonomiki kak istochnik ekonomicheskogo rosta [Openness of the Russian economy as a source of economic growth]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 12, 26–42.
Bessam, H. E., Gadow, R. & Arnold, U. (2012). Industrialization Strategy Based on Import Substitution Trade Policy. In: M. Yülek, T. Taylor (Eds.), Designing Public Procurement Policy in Developing Countries (pp. 53–90). New York: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978–1-4614–1442–1_4.
Borisov, V. N. & Pochukaeva, O. V. (2015). Innovative machine engineering as a factor of developing import substitution. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 26(3), 225–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700715030028.
Fal’tsman, V. K. (2015). Forcing import substitutions in a new geopolitical situation. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 26(1), 15–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700715010050.
Fedorova, E. A., Airapetyan, D. D., Musienko, S. O., Afanas’ev, D. O. & Fedorov, F. Yu. (2018). Influence of Import Substitution Policy on the Industrial Production Level in Russia: Sector-Specific Issues. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 29(2), 167–173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700718020041.
Balassa, B. (1965). Trade Liberalisation and «Revealed» Comparative Advantage. The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33(2), 99–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9957.1965.tb00050.x.
Greenaway, D. & Milner, C. (1993). Part IV. Evaluating Comparative Advantage. In: Trade and Industrial Policy in Developing Countries: A Manual of Policy Analysis (pp. 181–208). The Macmillan Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978–1-349–22782–2_11.
Mityakov, S. N., Mityakova, O. I. & Usacheva, Yu. V. (2013). Metodika otsenki importozameshcheniya produktsii razlichnykh otrasley promyshlennosti [The methodology of evaluation the import substitution un different industry branches]. Ekonomika v promyshlennosti [Russian journal of industrial economics], 4, 19–23.
Lebedev, K. K. (2010). Diversifikatsiya struktury promyshlennogo proizvodstva v usloviyakh eksportnoy ekspansii i importozameshcheniya produktsii vysokotekhnologichnogo mashinostroeniya. Dissertatsiya kandidata ehkonomicheskikh nauk [Diversification of the structure of industrial production in the conditions of export expansion and import substitution of hightech engineering: Thesis of PhD in Economics]. Moscow: CEMI RAS, 123.
Persky, J., Ranney, D. & Wiewel, W. (1993). Import Substitution and Local Economic Development. Economic Development Quarterly, 7(1), 18–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/089124249300700103.
Feser, Е., Renski, Н. & Goldstein, Н. (2008). Clusters and economic development outcomes: An assessment of the link between clustering and economic growth in Appalachia. Economic Development Quarterly, 22(4), 324–344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242408325419.
Nurhaliq, Р. & Masih, М. (2016). Export orientation vs import substitution: which strategy should the government adopt? Evidence from Malaysia. MPRA Paper No. 821137. Germany: University Library of Munich, 20.
Adams, S. (2009). Foreign direct investment, domestic investment, and economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Policy Modelling, 31(6), 939–949. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2009.03.003.
Irwin, A. D. (2002). Did Import Substitution Promote Growth in the Late Nineteen Century? NBER, Working Paper 8751. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w8751.
Ershova, I. G. & Ershov, A. Yu. (2016). Otsenka effektivnosti mer gosudarstvennogo regulirovaniya politiki importozameshcheniya [The effectiveness evaluation of the state regulation measures of import substitution policy]. Fundamentalnye issledovaniya [Fundamental research], 3, 375–379.
Kadochnikov, P. A. (2006). Analiz importozameshcheniya v Rossii posle krizisa 1998 goda [Analysis of import substitution in Russia after the crisis of 1998]. Moscow: IEТP, 2006.
Matveeva, L. G., Chernova, O. A. & Klimuk, V. V. (2015). Otsenka effektivnosti politiki importozameshcheniya v promyshlennosti: metodicheskiy instrumentariy [Import substitution policy effectiveness assessment in industry: methodological tools]. Izvestiya Dalnevostochnogo federalnogo universiteta. Ekonomika i upravlenie [The bulletin of the Far Eastern Federal University. Economics and Managemen], 3, 3–127.
Kleyner, G. B. (2002). Effektivnost mezoekonomicheskikh sistem perekhodnogo perioda [Efficiency of the mesoeconomic systems of the transition period]. Problemy teorii i praktiki v upravlenii [Problems of theory and practice in management], 6, 35–40.
Sukhotin, Yu. V., Dementev, V. E., Petrov, A. P., Ovsienko, Yu. V. & Shukhov, N. S. (1986). O dvukh aspektakh effektivnosti obshchestvennogo proizvodstva [About two aspects of the efficiency of social production]. Ekonomika i matematicheskie metody [Economics and mathematical methods], 4, 35–51.
Kuzmin, E. A. (2018). Data on empirically estimated corporate survival rate in Russia. Data in Brief, 16, 850–864. DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2017.12.011.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Boris Aronovich Kheyfets, Veronika Yurievna Chernova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
