Institutional-synergetic approach in benchmarking of territorial industrial policy

Volume 3, Issue 3
Pages: 167—175

G. F. Galiullina —
Kazan (Volga region) Federal University (Kazan, Russian Federation)
M. M. Sharamko —
Kazan (Volga region) Federal University (Kazan, Russian Federation)
F. I. Andreeva —
Kazan (Volga region) Federal University (Kazan, Russian Federation)

Download full text

The authors argue that an industrial policy for a territory is a crucial means for its development and suggest theoretical and methodological outline for its benchmarking.
The fact of creating priority development areas (PDAs), which are similar to special economic zones, whose inefficiency is now recognized, confirms the suspicion that PDA creation is an outcome of political lobbing rather than economic planning. Governmental efforts on the federal, regional and municipal levels lack consistency. The current economic conditions lead to fierce competition for investment, which makes municipal and regional governments more open to investors, on the one hand, but on the other, may lead to some poor decision-making.
The authors argue that in view of the current priorities of technological innovation, coordination of diverse stakeholders’ interests and goals in PDA dynamics, it is imperative to integrate a PDA development strategy into the industrial policy of a territory.
Conceptually, this research relies on the institutional-synergetic approach to benchmarking of territorial industrial policies. This approach can help us develop an industrial policy for a specific PDA by building upon this area’s competitive advantages and by evaluating the available alternatives. To improve managerial decision-making, it is also recommended to study and adopt Russian and international experience in this sphere. PDAs should act as self-organizing systems in order to engage institutions and mechanisms of development ‘in the right place at the right time’ and employ tools of synergetic management (‘stimulate trigger points’) for positive synergetic effects.

Keywords: industrial policy, institution of development, benchmarking, institutional-synergetic approach, synergetic efficiency

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2017.3.3.019

References

  1. Okun S., Skorobogatko D. (2016, July 9). Special Zones for Special Prices [Electronic resource]. Newspaper ‘Kommersant’. – Issue ‘Single-Industry Municipalities’. [Electronic resource], 101 (5851), 1.
  2. Bukhvald E.M. (2012) ‘Regional Development Zones’ and Enhancement of the Impact of the Subfederal Element in Management of the Russian Economic Modernization. ETAP: Ekonomicheskaya Teoriya, Analiz, Praktika, 3, 27-38
  3. Silin Y.P., Animitsa E.G., Novikova N.V. (2016). «Novaya normal’nost’» v rossijskoj ehkonomike: regional’naya specifika [‘New Formality’ in Russian Economy: Regional Characteristics]. Ekonomika Regiona [Economy of Region), 12(3).
  4. Tatarkin, A. I., & Romanova, O. A. (2014). Industrial policy: Genesis, regional characteristics and legislative support. The region’s Economy, (2), 9-21.
  5. Kulmala, J. (1999). Benchmarkingin ammatillisen aikuiskoulutuskeskuksen toiminnan kehittämisen välineenä», Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 663, Tampere.
  6. Kouzmin, A; Loffler, E; Klages, H; and Korac-KaKabadse, N. (1999) Benchmarking and Performance Measurement in Public Sectors. // International Journal of Public Sector Management, Towards Learning for Agency Effectiveness, 12(2), 121-144
  7. Yasin, M. M. (2002). The theory and practice of benchmarking: then and now. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 9(3), 217-243.
  8. Ahmed, P. K., & Rafiq, M. (1998). Integrated benchmarking: a holistic examination of select techniques for benchmarking analysis. Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, 5(3), 225-242.
  9. Watson, G. H. (1993). Strategic benchmarking: How to rate your company’s performance against the world’s best. Wiley.
  10. Sarkis, J. (2001). Benchmarking for agility. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 8(2), 88-107.
  11. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations, Nueva York. Wiley. Marginson, Simon, y van der Wende, Marijk (2007).‘To Rank or To Be Ranked: The Impact of Global Rankings in Higher Education’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 306-329.
  12. Dalalah, D., Dalalah, D., Al-Rawabdeh, W., & Al-Rawabdeh, W. (2017). Benchmarking the utility theory: a data envelopment approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 24(2), 318-340.
  13. Henry H. Bi, (2017) «Multi-criterion and multi-period performance benchmarking of products and services: Discovering hidden performance gaps», Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 24 Issue: 4, pp.934-972, https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2015-0100
  14. Ferreira, L. M. D., Silva, C., & Azevedo, S. G. (2016). An environmental balanced scorecard for supply chain performance measurement (Env_BSC_4_SCPM). Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(6), 1398-1422.
  15. Metaxas, I. N., Koulouriotis, D. E., & Spartalis, S. H. (2016). A multicriteria model on calculating the Sustainable Business Excellence Index of a firm with fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(6), 1522-1557.
  16. Pellegrin, J., Giorgetti, M. L., Jensen, C., & Bolognini, A. (2015). EU Industrial Policy: Assessment of Recent Developments and Recommendations for Future Policies.
  17. Kuznetsov B.L., Mingaleeva E.K., Kuznetsov M.S. (2009). Crisis as a Synergetic Category. Journal of the Ural State University of Economics, 2 (24, 157-167.
  18. Kuznetsov B.L., Mingaleeva E.K. (2009). From Institutionalism to Institutional-Synergetic Paradigm// Economic Synergetics: Strategies of Development of Russia: collection of research papers. – Naberezhnye Chelny:  Publishing House of the Kama State Academy of Engineering and Economics.   290 pp.
  19. Shmanev S.V., Shmaneva L.V., Egorova T.N. (2015). Institutional-Synergetic Approach to Management of the System of Innovation and Investment. Journal of the South-Western State University. Series: Economics.  Social Studies.  3 (16), 11-18.