 The effectiveness of a territory’s spatial development as an indicator of regional authorities performance: The case of Chelyabinsk oblastDarya S. Bents
Upravlenets, 2021, vol. 12, issue 6, 49–66 Abstract: The need for effective development and use of space is a key task posed in the strategic planning documents of the Russian Federation. The “periphery–center” migration of resources and a declining ability of regions to reproduce high-quality human potential question the possibility of achieving the goals of effective spatial development. The added complication is that regions are extremely rigid when it comes to decision-making, since the policy of the “center” dictates every move of regional authorities. The article systematizes research and regulatory materials in the field of spatial development. It aims to formulate a methodology for assessing the performance of regional authorities, which should meet the following requirements: (i) be transparent and do not include indicators that governors are practically unable to change, and (ii) be integrated and focused on not only the socio-economic, but also spatial development of the region. The methodological basis of the research includes the theories of spatial development, including cumulative growth theories. The methods of statistical comparison, dynamics analysis and correlation analysis are applied. The information base covers legal acts; strategic planning documents; Rosstat statistical data; socio-economic rankings of regions, and management effectiveness rankings of the RF constituent entities. The study reveals the development trends in Chelyabinsk oblast’s economic space. It positions the region in the “center – periphery” system and shows its underperformance in comparison with Sverdlovsk oblast in the sphere of economic development (the level of GRP per capita is lagging behind the indicators of Sverdlovsk oblast and the national average), financial well-being (despite a high margin of financial strength, the income of Chelyabinsk region’s population is 1.5 times lower than in Sverdlovsk oblast), human capital (both in statics as of the end of 2019 and in dynamics since 2010, Chelyabinsk oblast demonstrates more negative results in relation to the number of students, postgraduate students, doctoral students, researchers with scientific degrees, etc.). The author raises the question about the gradual inclusion of spatial development indicators in the list of the existing indicators for assessing regional authorities performance. Keywords: regional management effectiveness; regional authorities; spatial development; socio-economic development; Chelyabinsk oblast; Sverdlovsk oblast; center – periphery (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:url:upravl:v:12:y:2021:i:6:p:49-66 DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2021-12-6-4 Access Statistics for this article Upravlenets is currently edited by Yulia S. Bausova More articles in Upravlenets from Ural State University of Economics Contact information at EDIRC. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.