Comparative analysis of operational frameworks of special economic areas in Russia

Volume 5, Issue 1
Pages: 25—37

G. F. Galiullina — Naberezhnye Chelny Institute, Branch of Kazan Federal University (Naberezhnye Chelny, Russia)

Download full text

There are fourteen types of special economic areas currently operating in Russia, with different federal ministries actively lobbying and then supervising the establishment of this or that type. We compare operational frameworks in different types of such areas, placing an emphasis on the areas of priority socio-economic development, which are now being established in closed towns, monotowns and the Far East. Unfortunately, Russia’s special economic areas are often criticized for their inefficacy due to the lack of systemic approach on the federal level and the conflict of interests between the key stakeholders (residents, municipalities, local companies, and local communities). Goals of regional development do not correlate with the national priorities and strategic goals. Another problem is inconsistent managerial decision-making both on the part of regional authorities and management of large enterprises. No clear, justified criteria are established to evaluate the areas’ progress and no threshold values are specified. Although there is a significant concentration of special areas within certain regions, there is no integral, coordinated program or plan of action. Thus, synergetic interaction between the stakeholders is impossible. The existing procedure of establishing special areas takes into account neither the level of development of their host regions nor the quality of their development potential. These problems can be addressed through a regional industrial policy designed on the basis of the industrial-synergetic approach. Such approach makes it possible not only to focus on institutions of development and institutional transformations but also to take into account phase transformations and structural transformations in the system of areas of priority socio-economic development. The resulting organizational mechanism will be able to adjust to external uncertainties and, together with the system-forming factors, will enhance socio-economic development both on the regional and national level.

Keywords: institutions of development; conflict of interests; systemic approach; comparative analysis; industrial policy; institutional-synergetic approach; retrospective analysis



1. Tsybulsky A. We notice a surge of interest among foreign investors in special economic zones. Retrieved from [Accessed August 26, 2018].
2. Baklanov, P. Y. (2014). Territory ahead of the development: concept, structure, approaches to identification. Regionalnye issledovaniya, (3), 12–19. (In Russ.)
3. Zausaevm V., Kruchak, N, & Bezhina, V. (2017). New model of growth for the Far East. ECO, (2), 27–35. (In Russ.)
4. Ostanin, V. A. (2017). Areas of priority socio-economic development as a creative economic space. Russia’s Tax Policy in the Far East, (2). (In Russ.)
5. Smirnov, M. A. (2015). Advanced development territories: high risks and the need for an active sectoral policy of the State. Financial Analytics: Science and Experience = Finansovaya analitika: problemy i resheniya, (16), 58–68. (In Russ.)
6. Makarov, A. N. (2017). Experience Evaluation of Advanced Social and Economic Development Areas (Paradox of Development and / or Advance). Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Political, Sociological and Economic sciences = Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Politicheskie, sotsiologicheskie i ekonomicheskie nauki, (4), 42–47. (In Russ.)
7. Buchvald, E. M., & Valentik, O. N. (2015). Priority development areas: failure or illusion? ETAP: Economic Theory, Analysis, Practice, (2).
8. Krishtal, I. S. (2016). Priority development area as a factor of investment attractiveness of a region: characteristics and problems of development. Innovatsii i Investitsii, (10), 148–152. (In Russ.)
9. Osipov, V. S. (2016). Territories of priority development – new direction of institutional conditions of Russian’s industry development. Journal of Economy and Entrepreneurship = Ekonomika i predprinimatelstvo, (9), 852–857. (In Russ.)
10. Larchenko, O. V. (2018). Advanced development zones in single-industry urban settlements: problems and prospects (the case of the republic of Karelia). Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Political, Sociological and Economic sciences = Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Politicheskie, sotsiologicheskie i ekonomicheskie nauki, (2), 106–113. (In Russ.)
11. Tsygankov, E. M. (2017). Taxation issues in different forms of investment development. Nalogovaya politika i praktika, (1), 74–77. (In Russ.)
12. Ryaboshapka, A. I. (2017). Areas of priority socio-economic development and their role in stimulating the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Academic Journal of Rostov Branch of the Russian Customs Academy, (2), 37–42. (In Russ.)
13. Alekseev, P. V. (2018). On the conditions for the successful establishment and operation of territories of priority social and economic development in the Far East of Russia. Economic sciences = Ekonomicheskie nauki, (161), 99–102. (In Russ.)
14. Iuiukina, T. I. (2018). The possibilities of application China’s economic-technological deve- lopment areas experience in relation to Russian’s areas of advanced social and economic development. Izvestiya Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta, (2), 169–174. (In Russ.)
15. Afonin, M. G. (2017). International experience of creation and management of priority development areas in the Far Eastern Federal District. In: Theory and Practice of Management of Social and Economic Systems: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference (pp. 9–12). Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky: Kamchatka State Technical University. (In Russ.)
16. Kireev, A. A. (2016). Priority development areas as a factor in the development of China-Russia. Cooperation (the case of Amur Region). In: Current Challenges in the Development of China in the Process of its Regionalization and Globalization. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference (pp. 132–139). (In Russ.)
17. Zeldner, A. G. (2016). Priority development areas: status and incentives to attract investments. Economic and Law Issues = Voprosy ekonomiki i prava, (96), 46–51. (In Russ.)
18. Kharchenkova, E. V. (2017). Effective management of the territories of priority social and economic development of the Russian Far East. Izvestiya Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta, (2), 161–164. (In Russ.)
19. Kolomenskiy, G. A., Selivanova, L. A., & Vasilyeva, N. V. (2017). Analysis of efficiency of territories of priority socio-economic development in regional economy in Russian Federation. Herald of Education and Science Development of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences = Vestnik obrazovaniya i razvitiya nauki Rossiiskoi akademii estestvennykh nauk, (3), 38–41. (In Russ.)
20. Sidorenko, O. V. (2017). Evaluating the Performance of Areas of Priority Socio-Economic Development. In: International Conference Proceedings ‘Priorities of Development of Social Studies and Humanities, Economics and Law (pp. 128–132). (In Russ.)
21. Sinenko, O. A. (2017). Problems of assessing the effectiveness of budget expenditures in the territories with special economic status of the Far East. Bulletin of Ural Federal University. Series Economics and Management, 16(5), 803–826. (In Russ.) doi: 10.15826/vestnik.2017.16.5.039
22. Błachuciak, M. (2016). The DEA method in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the special economic zones in poland in 2014. Jagiellonian Journal of Management, 2(4), 259–273. doi: 10.4467/2450114XJJM.16.021.6090
23. Pechatkin, V. V. (2017). The concept of konkurentosposobnosti regions as the basis for the justification and implementation of strategic development priorities. Fundamental research = Fundamentalnye issledovaniya, (10-1), 137–142. (In Russ.)
24. Leonov, S. N. (2017). Tools of the state regional policy in the Russian Far East. Spatial Economics = Prostranstvennaya ekonomika, (2), 41–67. (In Russ.) doi: 10.14530/se.2017.2.041-067
25. Galiullina, G. F., Kuznetsov, B. L., & Sharamko, M. M. (2016). Areas of priority socio-economic development in monotowns: necessary conditions for implementation. In: XI International Conference Proceedings “Transformations of Russian Regions” (pp. 137–149). (In Russ.)
26. Danilov, L. V., Golubkin, I. V., & Labudin M. A. (2017). Third annual review “Russian technoparks – 2017”. Association of clusters and technoparks. Moscow: AKIT. (In Russ.)
27. Buchvald, E. M., & Babkin, A. V. (2016). Industrial policy and the priorities of economic security in Russia. Transbaikal State University Journal = Vestnik Zabaikalskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 22(4), 94–106. (In Russ.)
28. Turgel, I. D. (2017). New institutions for support of single- industry towns. Ekonomika i politika, 2, 72–75. (In Russ.)
29. Galiullina, G., Aetdinova, R., Makarov, A., & Vasilyev, A. (2018). Classification of territories of advanced socio-economic development. Dilemas Contemporaneos-Educacion Politica y Valores. 6(84).
30. Kotlyarova, S. N. (2014). Regional institutions: formation and development. Tomsk State University Journal of Economics = Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomika, (3), 99–109. (In Russ.)
31. Mysko V., Shisterova V. Why Ilshat Fardiev’s Sapphire Dreams are Broken. On-line Business Newspaper of Tatarstan. Retrieved from [Accessed September 23, 2018].
32. Klimova, N. V., & Gulko, M. V. (2014). Foreign experience of using human resources in business (on the example of EU). Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University, (100), 1322–1335. Retrieved from (In Russ.)
33. Avdeeva, I. L., Golovina, T. A., & Belikova, Y. V. (2017). Management of the processes of functioning of territories of advanced development as a factor in ensuring the sustainability of regional economic systems. St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics = Nauchno-tekhnicheskie vedomosti SPbGPU. Ekonomicheskie nauki. 10(6), 84–95. (In Russ.) doi: 10.18721/JE.10608
34. Galiullina, G. F., & Fatkhutdinov, A. N. (2018). Urgency of development of industrial policy of territories of advanced development. Managenebt of Economic Systems: Scientific Electronic Journal = Upravlenie ekonomicheskimi sistemami: elektronnyi nauchnyi zhurnal, (5), 25. (In Russ.)
35. Galiullina, G. F., Sharamko, M. M., & Andreeva, F. I. (2017). Institutional-synergetic approach in benchmarking of territorial industrial policy. R-Economy, 3(3), 167–175. doi: 10.15826/ recon.2017.3.3.019
36. Turgel, I. D., Bozhko, L. L. & Xu, Linshui (2016). Government support of single-industry towns in Russia and Kazakhstan. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta, 20(2), 22–32. (In Russ.)
37. Lin, J. Y. (2012). New structural economics: a framework for rethinking development and policy. The World Bank.
38. Gahlen, B. (1981). Strukturpolitik und Soziale Marktwirtschaft. In: Issing, O. (Hrsg.) Zukunfsprobleme der sozialen Mar-ktwirtschaft. Berlin, 853–871.
39. Pack, H. & Saggi, K. (2006). The case for industrial policy: a critical survey. The World Bank.
40. Putna, M. (2012). New industrial policy. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 1(2), 463–467.

In Russian:

Г. Ф. Галиуллина — Набережночелнинский институт (филиал), Казанский федеральный университет (Набережные челны, Россия)

Сравнительный анализ условий функционирования территорий с особым режимом ведения предпринимательской деятельности

В настоящее время в России действует 14 типов территорий с особым режимом ведения предпринимательской деятельности. Формирование той или иной формы территориального развития активно лоббируют и затем курируют разные федеральные министерства. Сравнительный анализ выявил схожесть основных государственных преференции резидентам ранее созданных территорий с особыми условиями хозяйствования и показал ключевые отличия режима территорий опережающего социально-экономического развития, создаваемых в монопрофильных муниципальных образованиях. Результаты сравнительного и ретроспективного анализов позволили сформулировать ведущие проблемы, которые лежат в основе малой эффективности этих территорий – это отсутствие системного подхода к созданию территорий и конфликт интересов стейкхолдеров (резиденты, действующие предприятия/аборигены, муниципалитеты, жители территории). На отсутствие системного подхода указывают следующие признаки: цели территорий не взаимоувязаны с главными национальными приоритетами и стратегическими задачами развития страны; разрозненность управляющих воздействий со стороны руководства территорий и крупных предприятий; нет понимания, что подразумевается под опережающим развитием; не заданы и не обоснованы критерии опережающего развития и их пороговые значения; концентрация различных инструментов развития территорий в одной местности без разработки согласованной программы действий не включает механизм синергетического взаимодействия и не ориентировано на получение синергетических эффектов; действующий формат создания особых территорий, не учитывает уровень и качество потенциала развития данных территорий. Решение выявленных проблем предлагается реализовать в рамках территориальной промышленной политики, разработанной на основе институционально-синергетического подхода. Институционально-синергетический подход позволяет не только акцентировать внимание на институтах развития и институциональных преобразованиях, но и учитывать фазовые, структурные трансформации в системе ТОСЭР, проектировать организационно-экономический механизм, учитывающий степень неопределенности внешней среды, системообразующие и системоформирующие факторы, что в комплексе придаст необходимое ускорение социально-экономическому развитию как территории, так и региона, и страны в целом.

Ключевые слова: институты развития; конфликт интересов; системный подход; сравнительный анализ; промышленная политика; институциональносинергетический подход; ретроспективный анализ

© G. F. Galiullina