Potential of Reindustrialization of Federal Districts of the Russian Federation: Assessment Issues and Practical Results

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 140-147

J. Environ. Treat. Tech.

ISSN: 2309-1185

Journal weblink: http://www.jett.dormaj.com

Potential of Reindustrialization of Federal Districts

of the Russian Federation: Assessment Issues and

Practical Results

Ivan P. Danilov*, Nataliia V. Morozova, Tatyana I. Ladykova, Inessa A. Vasileva

State and Municipal Management and Regional Economics Department, Chuvash State University, Cheboksary, Russia

Received: 04/05/2019

Accepted: 01/10/2019

Published: 30/02/2020

Abstract

The article analyzes the proposed index "fixed assets and investments" in the aspect of the potential of reindustrialization processes

in the economic systems of the Federal districts of the Russian Federation, which allows to ensure the comparability of the used absolute

and relative statistical indicators. This work is the result of a study of the theory and practice of reindustrialization aimed at improving

the efficiency-cy and competitiveness of the Russian economy in the face of negative external influences. The main theoretical

approaches to the study of the concept of reindustrialization and its potential, its role and importance in ensuring the economic

sovereignty of the country and economic growth are considered. The reindustrialization potential was estimated on the basis of 14

indicators and normalized indices calculated on their basis. The study of the dynamics of these indicators for 2005-2017 indicates the

presence of certain positive changes in this area, but the structure of fixed assets and the nature of investment processes in the Russian

Federation do not allow us to conclude that the predominance of the reindustrialization vector in this sphere of social production. At

the same time, the economic policy currently being implemented in the Russian Federation does not promote reindustrialization, namely

the renewal of fixed assets on a qualitatively new, modernizing basis. Based on the analysis of the integral index "fixed assets and

investments" it can be concluded that the distribution of Russian Federal districts this index shows a certain stability, growth, analyzed

the integral index was noted in all Russian Federal districts, except Urals FD, which indicates a certain improvement in the status and

dynamics of basic assets and investments in the Russian economy. The approved methodology can be used to assess the potential of

reindustrialization in individual regions, the totality of all Russian regions, as well as indicative planning of regional and Federal socio-

economic development.

Keywords: reindustrialization, reindustrialization potential, fixed assets, investments, Federal districts, linear scaling method, integral

index, state policy of reindustrialization, dynamics of fixed assets and investments, components of the index

E.V. Kotov (2017) identifies the following fundamental

Introduction

prerequisites of

when

considering the

concept

In the economic literature, it is noted that the term

reindustrialization": 1) the Decisive importance of the state in

reindustrialization was first proposed in 1984 in relation to the

policy of restoring the us manufacturing sector (14, 16, 25). At

the same time, reindustrialization was understood as

combining the efforts of the state, business and the education

system in order to develop and implement a coordinated

industrial policy aimed at restoring the country's industrial

potential. In the EU countries reindustrialization is considered

as a necessary condition for sustainable growth (4, 17). The

reindustrialization strategy is also used at the municipal level

the processes of formation and implementation of

reindustrialization policy; 2) the Manufacturing industry as the

locomotive of reindustrialization; 3) Innovation as the basis of

reindustrialization processes; 4) the Special role of science and

education

the

effective

implementation

reindustrialization processes (13). In turn, A.A. Maltsev, C.

Mercier-Suissa and A.E. Mordvinova (2017) distinguish the

following approaches to the analysis of reindustrialization, in

which it is considered as a process (14):

(

3, 18).

Corresponding author: Ivan P. Danilov, State and Municipal Management and Regional Economics Department, Chuvash State

University, Cheboksary, Russia. E-mail: dip41@yandex.ru.

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 140-147



Preservation of the traditional structure of the regional

economy (10);

formation in the region of a segment of creative industries; 4)

the formation of the regional spatial structure of the dominant

active-active structures (22). E.V. Sumina (2015) justifies

priority in terms of re-industrialization, industrial and

technological updates aimed at diversifying regional

Economics (23). In modern conditions the policy of re-

industrialization must take into account the peculiarities of

regional development and conducted with the participation of

the state (8). At the same time, the role of regions as "actors"

of reindustrialization policy is increasing (26). In modern

conditions, it is objectively necessary to carry out the processes

of reindustrialization in order to maximize the realization of

their positive effects purposefully and systematically within

the framework of strategic and indicative planning. At the

same time, long – term goals should be set as part of strategic

planning, and specific indicators should be set as part of

indicative planning.

Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to identify the

features of the analysis of the potential of reindustrialization

processes at the level of Federal districts and the Russian

Federation as a whole using the index "fixed assets and

investments" proposed by the authors, provided that the

absolute and relative statistical indicators used in the study are

comparable, which can and should serve as the basis for

effective indicative planning.



Restoration of the integrity of the Russian economy,

broken as a result of falling volumes and reducing the range of

industrial production (15);



The increase in the share of the manufacturing sector

in the GDP structure as a result of the implementation of state

policy in industry, energy and Finance, as well as the return of

previously withdrawn production to other countries (9);



Development of manufacturing industries due to the

advanced development of industry (2, 14, 24);

Restoration of production, technological systems,



industries and individual enterprises, together with the solution

of the main tasks of socio-economic development aimed at

creating competitive national goods and services (20).

Of course, it was noted that reindustrialization should

become a paradigm of the developing, not stagnating Russian

economy, and its main goal is to restore the role and place of

industry in the economy as its basic component on the basis of

a new technological order and the solution of complex

economic, organizational and other problems (2). Hence, the

new objects of industrial policy should be the so-called related

areas, that is, associations of people, things, technologies in the

industrial system, structures based on such a special kind of

business models as technological platforms, as well as human

needs. The subject of the new industrial policy in the

conditions of the fourth industrial revolution is the system of

interaction of Federal and regional authorities with business

associations and civil society institutions. And all this is

realized in the conditions of rapid development of the digital

economy (20). With regard to the personnel component of the

process of re-industrialization was proposed the term

2 Research Methodologies and Methodology

To analyze the potential of re-industrialization in the

Federal districts of the Russian Federation was based on the

official statistical data of Goskomstat of the Russian

Federation for 2005-2017. This time interval allows to make

certain conclusions about the state of fixed assets and

investments, the dynamics of their quantitative and qualitative

indicators in the Russian Federation and Federal districts. It

should be borne in mind that the published absolute and

relative statistical indicators do not allow an objective

assessment of the qualitative level of the potential for

reindustrialization, especially when conducting interregional

comparisons (1, 7, 11). Therefore, it was previously proposed

to use for these purposes the methodology for assessing the

potential of reindustrialization in the regions of the Russian

Federation, based on the calculation of its integral index (5, 6).

Based on the analysis of existing approaches to assessing

the potential of reindustrialization of the Federal districts of the

Russian Federation, we propose to use the following enlarged

blocks of indicators characterizing its main components: fixed

assets and investments, manufacturing, social block, computer

technology, science and innovation. This article will analyze

the first component of the potential of reindustrialization. In

the unit " fixed assets and investments" in our view, should

include the following indicators on the basis of which will be

calculated 14 indices: the value of fixed assets per capita – the

index I1; capital productivity of fixed assets – the index I2

(GRP / value of assets); the commissioning of fixed assets per

capita – the index I3; the ratio of fixed assets commissioning –

the index I4 (price entered fixed assets / value of assets);

depreciation of fixed assets – the index I5, investments in fixed

capital per capita – the index I6; the index of physical volume

competence gap", which is manifested in the acquisition of

information competencies of universal character of

multitasking as the main characteristics of the workplace,

multicompetence as worker characteristics, the accelerated

obsolescence of professional competences (12). As the main

vector of reindustrialization processes, the position was

substantiated that it should facilitate the transition to

sustainable inclusive growth, contributing to the country's

entry into new technological, product and service markets,

respond to new global challenges, be environmentally

oriented, reduce social stratification and generally lead to an

increase in social welfare (19).

At the same time, the categories "reindustrialization" and

neo-industrialization" are considered separately, which, in

our opinion, relate to each other as two interrelated stages in

the development of the country's economy (27). The

reindustrialization is aimed at addressing the negative effects

of deindustrialization, and neoindustrialization – the creation

of qualitatively new productive forces Technotronic-level,

interconnected in the system of automated vehicles (21, 22).

With regard to the regional level of O.S. Sukharev (2013)

identifies the following main strategic directions of structural

transformation, contribute to activation of processes of

formation of new industrial spaces: 1) the formation of the

actual neo-industrial segment of the economy; 2) modernizing

traditional industries, especially primary industries; 3)

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 140-147

of investments into fixed capital – the index I7; investments in

machines, equipment, means of transport in the structure of

investments in fixed capital – the index I8; investments in fixed

capital at the expense of own funds – the index I9; investments

in fixed capital at the expense of budget funds – index I10;

gross fixed capital formation per capita – the index I11; gross

regional product per capita – the index I12; spending on

national economy in the structure of consolidated budget per

capita – index И13; spending on the national economy per unit

of GRP – the index I14.

Federal districts only for 2016.Similarly, when calculating the

index I12, the forecast for 2017 of the gross regional product

per capita was used. Indicator I11 was not used in the

calculation for 2017, as Goskomstat excluded the indicator

gross fixed capital formation per capita from the regional

statistics. When calculating the I3 and I4 indexes, the

commissioning of fixed assets indicator has been used since

2010, due to the fact that Goskomstat has been providing this

information in the regional context since 2010.

To ensure comparability of indicators developed technique

was used the formula for linear scaling, the index I5 (degree of

depreciation of fixed assets) determined by the formula inverse

linear scaling when a smaller value of the index corresponds

to a higher index value.

When calculating the indexes I2 and I14, the forecast for

2017 of the gross regional product indicator was used, since

the bodies of the state statistics Committee in 2017 provided

up-to-date information on this indicator in the context of

Table 1: Components of the rating of Federal districts on the value of the integral index "fixed assets and investments" in 2010

Federal

districts

Integral

index

I10

I11

I12

I13

I14

Ural

Far-Eastern

North-

Western

Siberian

Central

Russian

Federation

Southern

The North

Caucasian

Privolzhsky

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 140-147

Finally, the basis for the analysis were taken the following

gradation values of the indices: 1.0 is the highest (maximum)

value of the index; 0.9999-0.9000 – very high values of the

index; 0.8999-0.7000 – high values of the index; 0.6999-

In seventh place is the Southern Federal district (SFD),

which had the value of the analyzed index "fixed assets and

investments", equal to 0.3597. This was due to the maximum

value of the index I7 (1.000), average values of indexes I2

(0.6983), I4 (0.6781), I5 (0.5355), I6 (0.3513), I8 (0.4432), I11

(0.3491), low index values I1 (0.145), I3 (0.1429), I9 (0.2093),

I10 (0.2576), I12 (0.2248) and zero index values I13, I14.

In eighth place was the North Caucasian Federal district

(NCFD) with an integral index of 0.3397. From different

maximum values of the indexes I4 (1.000), I10 (1.000), I14

(1.000), average values of indexes I2 (0.534), I5 (0.3901), I7

(0.500), low value of the index – I8 (0.2703), very low index

values – I9 (0.0271), I13 (0.0337) and zero index values – I1,

I3, I6, I11, I12.

Ninth place was occupied by the Privjlzhsky Federal

district (PFO), an integrated index of "assets and investments"

which was 0.335 and partial indexes were in the following

groups: high values for indices – I8 (0.8324), I9 (0.7054), I14

(0.7129), average values at indexes I2 (0.5413), I13 (0.3288),

low values of the indexes I1 (0.2174), I5 (0.1773), I6 (0.160),

I7 (0.250), I10 (0.2237), I11 (0.1674), I12 (0.2916) and very

low values at indexes I3 (0.0789), I4 (0.0028).

0.3000 – average values of the indexes; 0.2999-0.1000 low

index values; 0.0999-0.0001 – very low indexes; 0.0 is the

smallest (minimum) value of the index.

2.1 Dynamics of Fixed Assets and Investment Indexes in

Federal Districts

The largest integral index "fixed assets and investments"

in 2010, equal to 0.5848, was characterized by the Ural Federal

district (UrFD). The distribution of indexes was as follows

(

table. 1): the highest values were present in indexes – I1

1.000), I3 (1.000), I9 (1.000), I12 (1.000), very high values of

the index – I6 (0.982), I11 (0.9913), high value of the index –

I13 (0.7263), average values for indexes – I4 (0.3647), I7

(

0.3176), I8 (0.054), a low value of the index – I14 (0.2005)

and the lowest values of indexes – I2, I5, I10.

In second place is the far Eastern Federal district (FEFD)

with an integral index of 0.5589, which had the highest values

of the indexes – I5 (1.000), I6 (1.000), I11 (1.000), I13 (1.000).

Very high values have the indexes I2 (0.9734), I14 (0.9229),

high value indexes – I12 (0.7304), the average values of the

indexes – I1 (0.4343), I10 (0.3797), low values of the index –

I3 (0.2683), I7 (0.1149) and the smallest values of the indexes

The maximum index value I1 in 2010 was characterized

by a UrFD, I2 – SibFD, I3 – UrFD, I4 – NCFD, I5 – FEFD, I6

– FEFD also, I7 – SFD, I8 – CFA, I9 –UrFD, I10 – NCFD, I11

– FEFD, I12 – UrFD, I13 – FEFD, I14 – NCFD.

–

I4, I8, I9.

The minimum values of the partial indexes were observed

in the following Federal districts: I1 – in the NCFD, I2 – in the

UrFD, I3 – in the NCFD, I4 – in the FEFD, I5 – in the UrFD,

I6 – in the NCFD, I7 – in the CFD, I8 – in the FEFD, I9 – also

in the FEFD, I10 – in the UrFD, I11 – In the NCFD, I12 – again

in the NCFD, I13 – SFD, I14 – again in the SFD.

The third place was occupied by the North-Western

Federal district (NWFD). Integral index district made 0.5033,

and private indexes settled in the following order: high values

at indexes I2 (0.8515), I7 (0.750), average values of the

indexes – I1 (0.3685), I3 (0.3489), I4 (0.4501), I5 (0.5461), I6

(

0.5453), I8 (0.6703), I11 (0.5496), I12 (0.5925), I13 (0.5597),

The results of the comparative analysis of the components

of the integrated index "fixed assets and investments" by

Federal districts in 2017 are presented in table. 2.

I14 (0.501), a low value at the index of I10 (0.2814), very low

value – the index I9 (0.031).

In fourth place was a Siberian Federal district (SibFD) with

integral index 0.4661, characterized by a maximum index

value I2 (1.000), very high values of the index I8 (0.9838), I9

*In 2017, the materials of the state statistics Committee of

the Russian Federation did not contain data on gross fixed

capital formation per capita in the regional context. Therefore,

the index I11 is not used in the calculation of the index of fixed

assets and investments in 2017.

(

0.9302), a high value for the index I5 (0.7518), the average

values of the indexes I4 (0.4986), I7 (0.6149), I12 (0.3636),

low values of the indexes I1 (0.1966), I3 (0.168), I6 (0.1913),

I10 (0.2034), I11 (0.2114), I13 (0.1948), I14 (0.2164).

The Central Federal district (CFD) with integral index

The highest integral index in 2017 was observed in the

Central Federal district-0.6224 (Fig. 1). In this district the

highest index value is I5 (1.000), very high index value – I13

(0.9478), a high value of the index – I2 (0.8202), I8 (0.8713),

I12 (0.739), I14 (0.8958), the average value of the indexes – I1

(0.4349), I3 (0.3725), I4 (0.587), I6 (0.3032), I7 (0.500), I9

(0.6969), I10 (0.5452) and the lowest value of the index is I11.

In second place is the North-Western Federal district with

the integrated index 0.5866, which had the highest value of the

index I8 (1.000), very high values of the index – I5 (0.9459),

I14 (0.9271), high values of the indexes – I9 (0.7244), I13

(0.7999), average values of the indexes – I1 (0.4444), I2

(0.4719), I3 (0.3912), I4 (0.6356), I6 (0.4587), I7 (0.400), I10

(0.4127), I12 (0.6008) and the minimum value is at index I11.

0.4573, was on the fifth place with the maximum value of the

index I8 (1.000), high values at indices indexes I2 (0.8868),

I12 (0.7769), the average values of the indexes – I1 (0.4813),

I3 (0.3426), I5 (0.6738), I9 (0.438), I10 (0.3932), I13 (0.5602),

low values of the index I6 (0.2329), I11 (0.2948), I14 (0.34), a

very low value of the index I4 (0.0883) and zero value of the

index I7.

The Russian Federation ranks sixth with integrated index

0.3943 was characterized by average values of indexes I1

(

0.3544), I2 (0.6633), I5 (0.4043), I6 (0.3352), I8 (0.6973), I9

0.500), I11 (0.357), I12 (0.5141), I13 (0.4065), I14 (0.3697)

and low values for indexes I3 (0.2749), I4 (0.2536), I7

0.1284), I10 (0.261).

(

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 140-147

Table 2: Components of the rating of Federal districts by value integrated index "fixed assets and investments" in 2017*

Federal

districts

I10

I11

I12

I13

I14

Central

North-Western

Far-Easternt

Ural

Russian Federation

Siberian

Southern

Privolzhsky

The North

Caucasian

high values of the index I6 (0.8055), I12 (0.7169), average

values of the indexes I1 (0.6289), I3 (0.3732), I9 (0.4606), low

values at indexes I2 (0.2247), I8 (0.1345), I10 (0.241) and

smallest values of the indexes I4, I11.

Ural Federal district (0.4781 – 4th place) had the highest

values of the indexes I1 (1.000), I3 (1.000), I6 (1.000), I12

Central FD

I14

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

I13

(

1.000), very high values of the index I4 (0.9514), I9 (0.9173),

I12

average values of the indexes I7 (0.3381), I13 (0.4863) and the

lowest values at indexes I2, I5, I8, I10, I11, I14.

Russian Federation (0.4594 – 5th place) (Fig. 2) had a high

index value – I9 (0.7205), the average values of the indexes I1

I11

I10

(

0.3451), I2 (0.5618), I3 (0.3081), I4 (0.6518), I5 (0.5838), I6

(0.3167), I7 (0.3952), I8 (0.5614), I10 (0.3554), I12 (0.4874),

I13 (0.5092), I14 (0.6354) and zero value of the index I11.

Siberian Federal district (0.4371 – 6th

place) was

Figure 1: Components of the index "fixed assets and investments" in

the Central Federal district in 2017

characterized by the highest values of the indexes I2 (1.000),

I4 (1.000), high index values – I5 (0.800), I8 (0.8421), I9

(

0.8819), the average value of the indexes I12 (0.3057), low

In third place was the far Eastern Federal district (0.5383)

which had the highest values of the index I7 (1.000), I13

index values I1 (0.1519), I3 (0.1807), I6 (0.1512), I7 (0.200),

I10 (0.2349), I13 (0.1475), I14 (0.224) and zero value of the

index I11.

(

1.000), I14 (1.000), a very high value of the index I5 (0.9514),

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 140-147

In seventh place is the Southern Federal district, which had

a value of analyzed index "fixed assets and investments" equal

UrFD, I7 – FEFD, I8 – NWFD, I9 – PFO, I10 – NCFD, I12 –

UrFD, I13 – FEFD, I14 – once the FEFD.

.4084 that was due to the very high value of the index I7

Minimum index values were in the following Federal

districts: I1 – from NCFD, I2 – in the UrD, I3 – NCFD, I4 –

FEFD, I5 – in the UrFD, I6 – NCFD, I7 – have a PFD, I8 – in

the UrFD, I9 – SFD, I10 – UrFD, I12 – NCFD, I13 is also from

the NCFD, I14 –UrFD.

(

0.9667), high index values I5 (0.8919), I10 (0.8373), I14

0.8333), the average values of the indexes I2 (0.3708), I4

0.5587), low index values I1 (0.1826), I3 (0.1542), I6

0.1857), I8 (0.2632), I12 (0.2017), I13 (0.2717) and zero

index values I9, I11.

Results and Discussion

Analysis of the state and processes occurring in the field

Russian Federation

of fixed assets and investments, allows us to draw the

following conclusions.

During the analyzed period (2005 - 2017) the greatest

growth of the integrated index of fixed assets and investments

was observed in the Southern Federal district-0.1471 (table. 3).

Further located: North-Western Federal district – 0.1399, far

Eastern Federal district – 0.0855, Central Federal district –

I14

I13

I12

0,2

.0557, Russian Federation – 0.040, Siberian Federal district –

.0153, North Caucasian Federal district – 0.0151, Privolzhsky

I11

Federal district – 0.0052. At the same time, the decrease in the

analyzed indicator was noted only in the Ural Federal district

I10

–

(-0.0839).

Privolzhsky FD

Figure 2: Components of the fixed assets and investments index in

the Russian Federation in 2017

I14

Privolzhsky Federal district (0.3609 - 8th place) (Fig. 3)

had the highest value of the index I9 (1.000), a high value of

the index I2 (0.764), the average values of the indexes I4

I13

I12

I11

0,2

(

0.5789), I8 (0.6433), I10 (0.3012), I14 (0.4635), low values

of the indexes I1 (0.1767), I3 (0.1515), I5 (0.2865), I6

0.1664), I12 (0.2878), I13 (0.2326) and zero index values I7,

I11.

(

I10

In ninth place is the North-Caucasian Federal district

0.3065) had the maximum index value of I10 (1.000), high

value of the index I2 (0.736), average values of the indexes I4

0.5547), I5 (0.5297), I9 (0.4016), I14 (0.651), low index

(

values – I7 (0.1952), I8 (0.2222) and zero values for the

indexes I1, I3, I6, I11, I12, I13.

Figure 3: Components of the index "fixed assets and investments" in

the Privolzhsky Federal district in 2017

The maximum index value I1 in 2017 was characterized

by UrFD, I2 – SibFD, I3 – UrFD, I4 – SibFD, I5 – CFD, I6 –

Table 3: Indexes of fixed assets and investments in the Federal districts of the Russian Federation

005

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Federal districts

,4194

0,3943

0,4011

0,4368

0,45

0,4888

0,4147

0,4436

0,4594

Russian Federation

Central

,5667

,4467

,2613

0,4573

0,5033

0,4804

0,4758

0,5416

0,5269

0,5622

0,5086

0,5942

0,5478

0,4436

0,5615

0,6259

0,6224

0,5866

North-Western

Sothern

0,3597

0,3397

0,3001

0,2721

0,3799

0,3467

0,4538

0,315

0,3739

0,3455

0,2561

0,3267

0,3013

0,2838

0,4084

0,3065

The North Caucasian

0,2914

Privolzhsky

Ural

0,3557

0,335

0,5848

0,4661

0,5589

0,3195

0,5736

0,4225

0,6835

0,3524

0,5887

0,4616

0,578

0,387

0,5418

0,4381

0,5903

0,4485

0,5958

0,469

0,3963

0,5299

0,3666

0,593

0,3572

0,5473

0,4186

0,5729

0,3609

0,4781

0,4371

0,5383

,562

Siberian

,4218

,4528

Far-Eastern

0,6153

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 140-147

In turn, the relative increase in the analyzed index was

observed in the southern Federal district – 56.3%. It was

followed by the North-Western Federal district – 31.32%, the

far Eastern Federal district – 18.88%, the Central Federal

district – 9.83%, Russian Federation – 9.54%, the North

Caucasian Federal district – 5.18%, the Siberian Federal

district – 3.63%, Privolzhsky Federal district – 1.46%. The

decrease in relative indicators was characterized by the Ural

FD - (-14.93%).

the nature of investment processes in the Russian Federation

do not allow to draw a conclusion about the predominance of

the reindustrialization vector in this sphere of social

production.

There are a number of Federal positive trends in this area,

which are associated with the positive dynamics of financial

indicators of fixed assets and investments and their estimated

values per capita. Taken in isolation from qualitative physical

indicators, they can lead to the formation of a distorted vision

of the state of the Foundation of the economic system and its

transformation, which retains the degradation dynamics and

essence. In this regard, it can be stated that reindustrialization

as a systemic process has not yet manifested itself properly. It

should be noted that a number of enterprises have significantly

upgraded their own fixed assets, and, as a rule, declared

investments are directed to the modernization of fixed assets.

However, a positive vector has not yet been formed in the

General body of statistical information. However, a significant

impact on these indicators has a high inertia of the processes

of updating fixed assets.

The maximum value of the integrated index of fixed assets

and investments was noted in 2017 in the Central Federal

district – 0.6224. Next is the North-Western Federal district –

0.5866, far Eastern Federal district – 0.5383, Ural Federal

district – 0.4781; Russian Federation – 0.4594; Siberian

Federal district – 0.4371, Southern Federal district – 0.4084,

Privolzhsky Federal district is 0.3609, North Caucasian

Federal district – 0.3065.

By the way, in 2005, the maximum of the analyzed

indicator was noted as the same in the Central Federal district

0.5667, followed by the Ural Federal district – 0.562, far

Eastern Federal district – 0.4528, North-Western Federal

district – 0.4467, Siberian Federal district – 0.4218, Russian

Federation – 0.4194, Privolzhsky Federal district is 0.3557,

North Caucasian Federal district – 0.2914, Southern Federal

district – 0.2613.

,45

0,35

,25

During the analyzed period (2005-2017), the growth of the

occupied place was noted in the NWFD-by two positions

(

from 4 to 2 place), the SFD – also by two positions (from 9 to

place) and in the Russian Federation as a whole – from 6 to

place. The decrease in occupied space occurred in such

,15

0,1

,05

districts as North Caucasian Federal district (from 8 to 9

place), PFD – 7 to 8 place SibFD – from 5 to 6 place, and UrFD

–

2 in 4th place. The position remained unchanged at the CFD

(

1st place) and the FEFD (3rd place).

In the first quadrant (an increase in the absolute figure –

2005

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

the growth in occupied space) was part of the Russian

Federation – 0.040 and 1, respectively, of the CFD – 0.0557

and 0 NWFD – 0.1399 and 2, SFD – 0.1471 and 2, FEFD –

Integral indexof fixed assets and investments

Rating

Figure 4: Integral index of fixed assets and Russian rating of the

Privolzhsky Federal district

0.0855 and 0. In the second quadrant (the increase of the

absolute indicator of the decline in occupied space) was

included NCFD – 0.0151 and -1, and SibFD – 0,0153 and -1.

In the third quadrant (decrease in absolute value – decrease in

occupied space) was UrFD (-0.0839 and -2). In the fourth

quadrant (absolute decline – increase in occupied space), there

were no districts

PFD during the analyzed period was located in the second

quadrant, since in the Volga region there was an increase in the

absolute value of the integral index and a decrease in the

occupied place (0.0052 and -1) (Fig. 4).

Based on the analysis of the integral index of fixed assets

and investments, the following main conclusions can be

drawn. First, the distribution of the Russian Federal districts

according to this index demonstrates a certain stability. The

North-Western and Southern Federal districts rose by two

positions, the Russian Federation as a whole – by one. On the

other hand, the North Caucasian, Privozhskyl and Siberian

Federal districts fell by one position, and the Ural Federal

district fell by two positions. The Central and far Eastern

Federal districts retained their first and third places,

respectively. Secondly, the growth of the analyzed integral

index was observed in all Russian Federal districts, with the

exception of the Ural Federal District, which indicates a certain

improvement in the state and dynamics of fixed assets and

investments in the Russian economy.

Conclusions

The assessment of the potential of reindustrialization of the

Russian Federation, carried out on the basis of the analysis of

4 indexes obtained by rationing the basic indicators

characterizing the state of fixed assets and investments for the

period 2005-2017, indicates the presence of certain problems

in this area. At the same time, the structure of fixed assets and

Thus, the economic policy currently being implemented in

the Russian Federation does not yet fully contribute to

reindustrialization, namely, the renewal of fixed assets on a

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages: 140-147

qualitatively new, modernization basis. The approved

methodology can be used to assess the potential of

reindustrialization for individual Russian regions and their

totality.

14. Maltsev AA, Mercier-Suissa C, Mordvinova AE. Interpretation of

the term “reindustrialization” in the conditions of globalization.

Economy of Region. 2017;13(4):1044-1054.

5. Mazur OA. Reindustrialization of the Russian economy as a

condition of expanded reproduction of the total employee. Theory

and philosophy of economy. 2012;1(73):14–20.

Acknowledgements

16. Miller J, Walton T, Kovacic W, Rabkin J. Industrial policy:

reindustrialization through competition or coordinated action?

Yale Journal on Regulation. 1984;2(1):1–37.

The article has been prepared with the support of the Grant

of the Russian Foundation for Humanities in the framework of

the research and development project «The integrated

development potential reindustrialization of the territories of

the Russian Federation in conditions of the adverse effects of

environmental factor » No. 17–02–00401.

7. Mlody M. Reindustrialisation of the European Union member

states in the context of reshoring. International Business and

Global Economy. 2016;35(1):455-467.

8. Nawratek K. Urban Re-indastrialization. California: Punctum

Books. 2017.

9. Pakhomova NV, Rikhter KK, Malyshkov GB. Inclusive

sustainable growth: priorities, indicators, international

experience, potential for alignment with the reindustrialization

model. Problems of modern economy. 2014;3(51):15-24.

0. Romanova OA. Industrial policy priorities of Russia in the context

of challenges of the fourth industrial revolution. P.2. Economy of

Region. 2018;14(3):806-819.

References

Akberdina VV, Korovin GB. The trajectory of the new

industrialization of the Russian regions. Regional Economy:

theory and practice (Rus.). 2016(1):424.

Borunov SD. Russian economic system: the future of high tech

material production. Economic Revival of Russia. 2014;2(40):5-

1. Silin YaP, Animitsa EG, Novikova NV. Regional aspects of new

industrialization. Economy of Region. 2017;13(3):684-696.

2. Sukharev OS. Reindustrialization of Russia. Opportunities and

restrictions]. Economist. 2013;3:6–12. (In Russ.).

3. Sumina EV. Innovative advantages of a region under re-

industrialization. Actual problems of economics and law.

City of Allentown. Re-Industrialization Strategy. 2014; URL:

https://www.allentownp-

a.gov/Portals/0/files/Planning_Zoning/MetalworksReuseStudy.p

df. (Date of access: 10.05.2019)

Communication from the commission to the European parliament.

Communication from the commission to the European parliament,

the council, the European economic and social committee and the

committee of the regions. For a European Industrial Renaissance.

Brussels, 22.1.2014. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0014&from=EN.

Danilov IP, Mikhajlova SYu. Methodological aspects of

determining the regional potential of re-industrialization. Bulletin

of Chuvash State University. 2016;3:28-31.

015;2:109–117.

4. The Reindustrialization of the United States. Euler Hermes

Economic Outlook. Paris: Euler Hermes. 2013.

5. Willy C. The Re-Industrialization of the United States?

Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter. 2013;60(2):297–312.

6. Zhidkikh AA. The regions and the policy of re-industrialization

of the Russian economy. ETAP. 2016;2:18-33.

7. Zhironkin SA. Kolotov KA. Research methodology of neo-

industrial import substitution in the Russian economy. Bulletin of

Baikal State University. 2016;26(5):713–722.

Danilov IP, Ladykova TI, Morozova NV, Krasnov АG. Problems

in the assessment of potential re-industrialization in the Russian

Federation and the Volga Federal district. Oeconomia et Jus.

017;2:1-11. http://oecomia-et-jus.ru/wp-

content/uploads/2015/12/OEJ_2017_2_s.1_11.pdf. (In Russ.).

Date of access: 10.05.2019)

URL:

(

Gagarina GYu, Chaiynikova LN. The influence of the region on

the reindustrialization of the Russian economy (on the example of

the Volga Federal district). Management of economic systems:

electronic journal]. 2015;9(81). URL: http://uecs.ru/uecs-81-

12015. (Date of access: 10.05.2019)

Glushakova OV, Mikhailov VV. Reindustrialization and new

economy: does Russia have a chance to succeed?. Finance and

credit. 2017;23(1):19-37.

Heymann E, Vetter S. Europe’s re-industrialisation. The gulf

between aspiration and reality. Frankfurt am Main: Deutsche

Bank AG, DB Research. 2013 Nov 26.

0. Hospers G. Restructuring Europe’s Rustbelt. The Case of the

German Ruhrgebiet. Intereconomics. 2004;3:147–156.

1. Kalinina GV, Vanulin AN, Egorova GN. Development of

methods for identifying signs of reindustrialization of the Russian

economy on the example of the Volga Federal district regions.

Bulletin of Chuvash State University. 2014;3:165-171.

2. Kokovikhin АYu, Kansafarova TА, Sharapova NV. New

industrialization: the skills gap and labour market institutions.

Russian Journal of Economic Theory. 2018;15(2):316-324.

3. Kotov EV. Reindustrialization of the economy in the context of

the emerging state. Russian Journal of Economic Theory.

017;3:64-75.