Factors of Investment Attractiveness of Russian Regions

Purpose. National and international strategic capital is looking for favorable conditions for preservation and enhancement, respectively, institutional factors of investment attractiveness of Russia’s regions are crucial for ensuring sustained economic growth and prosperity. Gradually, there is a tendency to avoid formal financial assessments of investment projects in favor of a deeper institutional and economic analysis. In this regard, the role of information and analytical agencies specializing in determining the level of investment attractiveness of countries and regions is growing. The article analyzes the factors of the investment attractiveness of the regions of the Russian Federation in order to identify the reasons for the insufficiency of capital investments. The main goal, therefore, is to assess the dynamics of institutional factors of the investment attractiveness of Russian regions and develop recommendations for improving the situation.

Methods. The ratings, developed by Expert RA as the most authoritative organization in this area of Russian jurisdiction, were taken as a basis for the analysis. When writing a work, we use data analysis methods, a logical method, an aggregation method.
Results. As a result of the study, it was found that the problem under investigation is that in the Russian economy there is a significant gap in the regions in terms of investment activity, which contradicts the principle of the single economic space of the country. At the same time, for all components of investment risk, the ratings of the regions are fairly stable by the location of the subjects of the federation. A feature of the ratings, fixed for a long time of observations, is stability with the presence of explicit regions-leaders. This situation reflects the low dynamic mobility of the country’s investment space. Also traditional for both donor regions and recipient regions is the operation of previously created investment conditions for conducting economic activities. In this way, the efforts of the regional authorities to attract investors are often inadequate or  ineffective. 

Conclusions. In the paper the possible reasons for the investment regional gap are analyzed on the basis of the analysis of institutional factors are determined. Recommendations are given on the areas of work in order to improve the investment climate in the regions of the Russian Federation from the point of view of institutionalization. 

1. Balatsky E. V. New investment institutes of Russia // Terra Economicus. 2013. V. 11. N 3. P. 12–19.

2. Grasmik K. I., Shkodinsky S. V. Corporation of development as institute of attraction of direct foreign investments to the region // State audit [Gosudarstvennyi audit]. 2015. N 4. P. 41–49. (In rus)

3. Maslikhina V. Yu. Institutional environment as factor of uneven development of Russian regions // Theory and practice of social development [Teoriya i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiya]. 2016. N 12. P. 82–86. (In rus)

4. Medved A. A. Institutes as factors of investment process: monograph. M. : Infra-M, 2018. (In rus)

5. Musayev M. K., Shamilev S. R. Unevenness of distribution of investments on regions of the Russian Federation [An electronic resource] // Modern problems of science and education [Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya]. 2014. N 5. URL: http: //science- education.ru/ru/article/view?id=14946 (date of the address: 19.02.2018). (In rus)

6. Plakhova L. V. Development of organizational forms and instruments of attraction of investments into the region // Regional economy: theory and practice [Regional’naya ekonomika: teoriya i praktika]. 2007. N 9 (48). P. 95–96. (In rus)

7. Sitnova I. A., Lisitsa A. V. Institutional factors and conditions of ensuring investment attractiveness of regions of Russia // Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University [Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta]. 2014. N 5 (334). Economy. Issue 43. P. 74–86. (In rus)

8. Telekhov I. I. Problems of application of real options in the analysis of investment projects // Russian business [Rossiiskoe predprinimatel’stvo]. 2013. N 6 (228). P. 143–148. (In rus)

9. Acemoglu D., Johnson S., Robinson J. Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institutions in the Making of the Modern World Income Distribution // The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 117, N 4 (Nov., 2002). P. 1231–1294.

10. Acemoglu D., Johnson S. Unbundling institutions // Journal of Political Economy. 2005. N 113. P. 949–995.

11. Aoki M. Endogenizing institutions and institutional changes // Journal of Institutional Economics. 2007. N 3. P. 1–31.

12. Bardhan P. Decentralization of governance and development // Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2002. N 16. P. 185–205.

13. Besley T., Mueller H. Institutions, Volatility, and Investment // Journal of the European Economic Association. 2018. Vol. 16. Is. 3. P. 604–649.

14. Blanchard O., Shleifer A. Federalism with and without political centralization: China versus Russia // IMF Staff Papers. N 48. 2001. P. 171–197.

15. Djankov S., Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes F., Shleifer A. The regulation of entry // Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2002. N 117. P. 1–37.

16. Easterly W., Levine R. Tropics, germs, and crops: how endowments influence economic development // Journal of Monetary Economics. 2003. Vol. 50(1). P. 3–39.

17. Glaeser E., Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanez F., A. Shleifer. Do institutions cause growth? // Journal of Economic Growth. N 9. 2004. P. 271–303.

18. Hall J., Sobel R. Institutions, entrepreneurship, and regional differences in economic growth // American Journal of Entrepreneurship. 2008. № 1. P. 69–96.

19. Pyle W. Organized business, political competition and property rights: Evidence from the Russian Federation // Journal of Law, Economics and Organization. 2011. N 27. P. 2–31.

20. Reuter O. J., Robertson G. B. Subnational appointments in authoritarian regimes: Evidence from Russian gubernatorial appointments // Journal of Politics. 2012. N 74. P. 1023–1037.

21. Rochlitz M. Corporate raiding and the role of the state in Russia // Post-Soviet Affairs. 2014. N 30. P. 89–114.

22. Sachs J., Warner A. Fundamental Sources of Long Run Growth // American Economic Review. 1997. Vol. 87. Is. 2. P. 184–188.

23. Vinokurov S., Medved A. A., Mierin L. A. Economic News and Household Decisions // Contemporary Economics. 2018. Vol. 12. Is. 1. P. 57–68.

24. Voigt S. How (not) to measure institutions // Journal of Institutional Economics. N 9. 2013. P. 1–26.

25. Warner A. Institutions, Geography, Regions, Countries and the Mobility Bias / Andrew Warner // CID Working Paper. N 91. April, 2002. 19 p.