Polarisation of Russia’s spatial development: quo vadis?

Inequality is an inherent property of spatial development, but too high spatial inequality can have  a number of serious consequences, from increased fiscal spending aimed at smoothing fiscal space to slowing national economic development and increasing separatist sentiment. The problem of heterogeneity in spatial development is therefore relevant, especially for countries with a large spatial extent, where such inequalities are naturally higher. In Russia the spatial inequality started to grow since the end of the 20^th century and is still considered to be high. The aim of the work was to identify the features of the process of polarization of Russia’s spatial development by analyzing the dynamics of 

economic activity in Russian regions in the 21^st century and obtaining extrapolation forecast of interregional distribution of economic activity.

The study was carried out with the help of distribution dynamics analysis methods, using the theory of Markov process with discrete time and continuous state space. The above methods have allowed us to: assess the actual distribution of economic activity indicators of the regions and to conclude about its changes in the first two decades of the 21^st century; to obtain extrapolation forecast of the distribution of regional economic activity indicators in the long-run, i.e. to forecast long-run spatial equilibrium; to identify and characterize groups of regions forming “convergence groups” in the long-run. The obtained results led to a conclusion about the increasing polarization of Russia’s regions by the level of economic activity both in the study period and in the long run, while maintaining the current trends, to substantiate the need to expand the practice of applying tools of place-based regional policy.

1. Kolomak E. A. Evolution of the spatial distribution of economic activity in Russia. Region: Economics and Sociology, 2014, no. 3, pp. 75–93. (in Russ.)

2. Rastvortseva S. N. Economic Activity in Russian Regions. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast, 2018, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 84–99. (in Russ.)

3. Kolomak E. A. Spatial Development of Russia in XXI century. Spatial Economics, 2019, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 85–106. (in Russ.)

4. Quah D. Empirics for Growth and Distribution: Stratification, Polarization, and Convergence Clubs. Journal of Economic Growth, 1997, no. 2, pp. 27–59.

5. Bickenbach F., Bode E. Evaluating the Markov Property in Studies of Economic Convergence. International Regional Science Review, 2003, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 363–392.

6. Johnson P. A nonparametric analysis of income convergence across the US states. Economics Letters, 2000, no. 69, pp. 219–223.

7. Johnson P. A continuous state space approach to “Convergence by Parts”. Economics Letters, 2005, vol. 86 (3), pp. 317–321.

8. Silverman B. Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. London, Chapman & Hall, 1986.

9. Davies T., Marshall J., Hazelton M. Tutorial on kernel estimation of continuous spatial and spatiotemporal relative risk. Statistics in Medicine, 2018, vol. 37 (7), pp. 1191–1221.

10. Jacobi M. A robust spectral method for finding lumpings and meta stable states of non-reversible Markov chains. Electronic Transactions on Numerical Analysis ETNA, 2010, no. 37, pp. 296–306.

11. Melnikova L. V. “Spatial-neutral” and “place-based” regional policy: problems of choice. Region: Economics and Sociology, 2014, no. 1, pp. 64–85. (in Russ.)

12. Melnikova L. V. Efficiency and equality: twenty years of discussion on spatial development. Region: Economics and Sociology, 2022, no. 1, pp. 289–323. (in Russ.)

13. Capello R. Spatial Spillovers and Regional Growth. A Cognitive Approach. European Planning Studies, 2009, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 639–658.

14. Iammarino S., Rodriguez-Pose A., Storper M. Why Regional Development Matters for Europe’s Economic Future. Working Papers of the DirectorateGeneral for Regional and Urban Policy, WP 07/2017.