ecpolicyЭкономическая политикаEconomic Policy1994-51242411-2658Economic Policy10.18288/1994-5124-2021-1-56-81ecpolicy-88Research ArticleРЕГИОНАЛЬНАЯ ЭКОНОМИКАREGIONAL ECONOMYАссортимент экспорта российских предприятий и близость к локальным сравнительным преимуществамExport Product Scope of Russian Firms and Proximity to Local Comparative AdvantagesКузнецовД. Е.KuznetsovD. E.

Дмитрий Евгеньевич Кузнецов, научный сотрудник лаборатории исследований международной торговли Института прикладных экономических исследований; научный сотрудник лаборатории международной торговли

119571, Москва, пр. Вернадского, 82

125009, Москва, Газетный пер., 3–5

Dmitrii E. Kuznetsov, Institute of Applied Economic Research

82, Vernadskogo pr., Moscow, 119571

3–5, Gazetnyy per., Moscow, 125009

kuznetsovde@iep.ruРАНХиГС; Институт экономической политики им. Е. Т. ГайдараРоссияRussian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Gaidar Institute for Economic PolicyRussian Federation2021280220211615681Copyright © Кузнецов Д.Е., 20212021Кузнецов Д.Е.Kuznetsov D.E.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.ecpolicy.ru/jour/article/view/88

В статье исследуется связь между структурой сравнительных преимуществ российских регионов и динамикой ассортимента экспорта предприятий обрабатывающей промышленности российских регионов. Для этого на основе данных о видах экономической деятельности и ассортимента экспорта российских предприятий рассчитываются показатели выявленной технологической близости отраслей. Методология этого расчета базируется на предположении, что ведение нескольких видов деятельности на одном предприятии, а также экспорт разных видов продукции одним предприятием свидетельствуют о технологической близости этих видов деятельности и создаваемой ими продукции. Указанная мера технологической близости имеет ряд преимуществ по сравнению с традиционно используемыми показателями. Демонстрируется, что построенные таким образом индексы отражают различные выделяемые в литературе аспекты технологической близости отраслей обрабатывающей промышленности и могут рассматриваться как сводные показатели. Построенные измерители используются для расчета индекса близости товаров к структуре экспортных сравнительных преимуществ российских регионов. Этот индекс статистически значимо связан с вероятностью включения товара в экспортную корзину российской фирмы-экспортера, с вероятностью исключения товара из экспортной корзины и, как следствие, с объемами и динамикой экспорта этого товара предприятиями региона. Таким образом, подтверждается, что ассортимент экспорта предприятий, расположенных в регионе, эволюционирует с учетом текущей структуры сравнительных преимуществ региона. Результаты работы могут быть использованы для выработки мер экономической политики, направленной на диверсификацию производственной и экспортной корзин регионов, в том числе на базе существующих предприятий, а также самими предприятиями обрабатывающей промышленности для выбора наиболее перспективных направлений расширения деятельности с учетом отраслевой структуры региона, где расположена фирма. 

This paper explores the relationship between the structure of regional comparative advantages and the dynamics of the export product scope of Russian manufacturing enterprises. For this purpose, indices of revealed technological proximity of industries are calculated on the basis of data on types of economic activities and the export product scope of Russian enterprises. The methodology for calculating these indicators is based on the assumption that technologically closer types of activities are, to a certain degree, more often co-produced and co-exported within the boundaries of individual enterprises. This measure of technological proximity has several advantages over the traditionally used indicators. Estimates show that the constructed indices reflect different aspects of technological proximity of industries and can be considered as composite indicators. Technological proximity measures are used to calculate the index of product proximity to the structure of export comparative advantages of Russian regions. This index is statistically related to the probability of a product being included in the export product scope of a Russian exporter, to the probability of the product being excluded from the export product scope and, as a result, to the value and dynamics of exports of this product by the regional enterprises. These findings indicate that there is a relationship between the current structure of the regional comparative advantage and the direction in which the range of exports of Russian enterprises located in this region evolves. The results of the study can be used for designing economic policy measures aimed at diversification of production and export of the Russian regions, in particular on the basis of existing producers and exporters, as well as applied by the firms themselves to detect the most promising directions of activity expansion taking into account the production structure of the region which the given firm is located at. 

экспортдиверсификациясравнительные преимуществатехнологическая близостьобрабатывающая промышленностьрегиональная экономикаexportdiversificationcomparative advantagestechnological proximitymanufactureСтатья подготовлена в рамках выполнения научно-исследовательской работы государственного задания РАНХиГС. Автор благодарит рецензента журнала «Экономическая политика» за замечания, позволившие улучшить работу.ReferencesКуракова Н. Г., Зинов В. Г., Цветкова А. А. Анализ структуры патентообладателей России и проблема выделения ведущих научно-исследовательских организаций // Инновации. 2016. № 4. С. 17–25.Kurakova N. G., Zinov V. G., Tsvetkova A. A. Analiz struktury patentoobladateley Rossii i problema vydeleniya vedushchikh nauchno-issledovatel’skikh organizatsiy [Analysis of the Structure of Russian Patent Owners and the Problem of Defining the Leading Scientific Research Organizations]. Innovatsii [Innovations], 2016, no. 4, pp. 17-25.Любимов И. Л., Гвоздева М. А., Казакова М. В., Нестерова К. В. Сложность экономики и возможность диверсификации экспорта в российских регионах // Журнал Новой экономической ассоциации. 2017. № 2(34). С. 94–122.Lyubimov I. L., Gvozdeva M. A., Kazakova M. V., Nesterova K. V. Slozhnost’ ekonomiki i vozmozhnost’ diversifikatsii eksporta v rossiyskikh regionakh [Economic Complexity of Russian Regions and Their Potential to Diversify]. Zhurnal Novoy ekonomicheskoy assotsiatsii [The Journal of the New Economic Association], 2017, vol. 2(34), pp. 94-122.Alfaro L., Chen M. X. Location Fundamentals, Agglomeration Economies, and the Geography of Multinational Firms. The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy. Working Papers. No 18. 2016.Alfaro L., Chen M. X. Location Fundamentals, Agglomeration Economies, and the Geography of Multinational Firms. The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy, Working Papers, no. 18, 2016.Alfaro L., Chen M. X. The Global Agglomeration of Multinational Firms // Journal of International Economics. 2014. Vol. 94. No 2. P. 263–276.Alfaro L., Chen M. X. The Global Agglomeration of Multinational Firms. Journal of International Economics, 2014, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 263-276.Balassa B. Trade Liberalisation and “Revealed” Comparative Advantage // The Manchester School. 1965. Vol. 33. No 2. P. 99–123.Balassa B. Trade Liberalisation and “Revealed” Comparative Advantage. The Manchester School, 1965, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 99-123.Bernard A. B., Jensen J. B. Exceptional Exporter Performance: Cause, Effect, or Both? // Journal of International Economics. 1999. Vol. 47. No 1. P. 1–25.Bernard A. B., Jensen J. B. Exceptional Exporter Performance: Cause, Effect, or Both? Journal of International Economics, 1999, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1-25.Bernard A. B., Redding S. J., Schott P. K. Multiproduct Firms and Trade Liberalization // The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2011. Vol. 126. No 3. P. 1271–1318.Bernard A. B., Redding S. J., Schott P. K. Multiproduct Firms and Trade Liberalization. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2011, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 1271-1318.Breschi S., Lissoni F., Malerba F. Knowledge-Relatedness in Firm Technological Diversification // Research Policy. 2003. Vol. 32. No 1. P. 69–87.Breschi S., Lissoni F., Malerba F. Knowledge-Relatedness in Firm Technological Diversification. Research Policy, 2003, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 69-87.Caves R. E. Diversification and Seller Concentration: Evidence from Changes, 1963–72 // The Review of Economics and Statistics. 1981. Vol. 63. No 2. P. 289–293.Caves R. E. Diversification and Seller Concentration: Evidence from Changes, 1963-72. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1981, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 289-293.Costinot A., Donaldson D., Komunjer I. What Goods Do Countries Trade? A Quantitative Exploration of Ricardo’s Ideas // The Review of Economic Studies. 2012. Vol. 79. No 2. P. 581–608.Costinot A., Donaldson D., Komunjer I. What Goods Do Countries Trade? A Quantitative Exploration of Ricardo’s Ideas. The Review of Economic Studies, 2012, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 581-608.Harding T., Javorcik B. S. Roll out the Red Carpet and They Will Come: Investment Promotion and FDI Inflows // The Economic Journal. 2011. Vol. 121. No 557. P. 1445–1476.Harding T., Javorcik B. S. Roll out the Red Carpet and They Will Come: Investment Promotion and FDI Inflows. The Economic Journal, 2011, vol. 121, no. 557, pp. 1445-1476.Hausmann R., Goldstein P., Grisanti A., O’Brien T., Tapia J., Santos M. A. A Roadmap for Investment Promotion and Export Diversification: The Case of Jordan. Center for International Development at Harvard University Working Papers. No 374. 2019.Hausmann R., Goldstein P., Grisanti A., O’Brien T., Tapia J., Santos M. A. A Roadmap for Investment Promotion and Export Diversification: The Case of Jordan. Center for International Development at Harvard University Working Papers, no. 374, 2019.Hausmann R., Hidalgo C., Stock D., Yildirim M. A. Implied Comparative Advantage. Center for International Development at Harvard University Working Papers. No 276. 2014.Hausmann R., Hidalgo C., Stock D., Yildirim M. A. Implied Comparative Advantage. Center for International Development at Harvard University Working Papers, no. 276, 2014.Hausmann R., Klinger B. Structural Transformation and Patterns of Comparative Advantage in the Product Space. Center for International Development at Harvard University Working Papers. No 128. 2006.Hausmann R., Klinger B. Structural Transformation and Patterns of Comparative Advantage in the Product Space. Center for International Development at Harvard University Working Papers, no. 128, 2006.Hazir C. S., Bellone F., Gaglio C. Local Product Space and Firm-Level Churning in Exported Products // Industrial and Corporate Change. 2019. Vol. 28. No 6. P. 1473–1496.Hazir C. S., Bellone F., Gaglio C. Local Product Space and Firm-Level Churning in Exported Products. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2019, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1473-1496.Hidalgo C. A., Hausmann R., Dasgupta P. S. The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2009. Vol. 106. No 26. P. 10570–10575.Hidalgo C. A., Hausmann R., Dasgupta P. S. The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2009, vol. 106, no. 26, pp. 10570-10575.Hidalgo C. A., Klinger B., Barabási A. L., Hausman R. The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations // Science. 2007. Vol. 317. No 5837. P. 482–487.Hidalgo C. A., Klinger B., Barabási A. L., Hausman R. The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations. Science, 2007, vol. 317, no. 5837, pp. 482-487.Jaffe A. B. Characterizing the “Technological Position” of Firms, with Application to Quantifying Technological Opportunity and Research Spillovers // Research Policy. 1989. Vol. 18. No 2. P. 87–97.Jaffe A. B. Characterizing the “Technological Position” of Firms, with Application to Quantifying Technological Opportunity and Research Spillovers. Research Policy, 1989, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 87-97.Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M. International Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Patent Citations // Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 1999. Vol. 8. No 1–2. P. 105–136.Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M. International Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Patent Citations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1999, vol. 8, no. 1-2, pp. 105-136.Klavans R. Business Relatedness and Business Performance. FTC Line of Business Program Research Paper. No 83. 1989.Klavans R. Business Relatedness and Business Performance. FTC Line of Business Program Research Paper, no. 83, 1989.Lemelin A. Relatedness in the Patterns of Interindustry Diversification // The Review of Economics and Statistics. 1982. Vol. 64. No 4. P. 646–657.Lemelin A. Relatedness in the Patterns of Interindustry Diversification. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1982, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 646-657.Lin J. Y. New Structural Economics: A Framework for Rethinking Development. 2012. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/19919.Lin J. Y. New Structural Economics: A Framework for Rethinking Development. 2012. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/19919.Melitz M. The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity // Econometrica. 2003. Vol. 71. No 6. P. 1695–1725.Melitz M. The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity. Econometrica, 2003, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 1695-1725.Nesta L., Saviotti P. P. Coherence of the Knowledge Base and the Firm’s Innovative Performance: Evidence from the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry // The Journal of Industrial Economics. 2005. Vol. 53. No 1. P. 123–142.Nesta L., Saviotti P. P. Coherence of the Knowledge Base and the Firm’s Innovative Performance: Evidence from the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2005, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 123-142.Pierce J. R., Schott P. K. A Concordance Between Ten-Digit U.S. Harmonized System Codes and SIC/NAICS Product Classes and Industries // Journal of Economic and Social Measurement. 2012. Vol. 37. No 1–2. P. 61–96.Pierce J. R., Schott P. K. A Concordance Between Ten-Digit U.S. Harmonized System Codes and SIC/NAICS Product Classes and Industries. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 2012, vol. 37, no. 1-2, pp. 61-96.Poncet S., de Waldemar F. S. Product Relatedness and Firm Exports in China // World Bank Economic Review. 2015. Vol. 29. No 3. P. 579–605.Poncet S., de Waldemar F. S. Product Relatedness and Firm Exports in China. World Bank Economic Review, 2015, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 579-605.Schmidt-Ehmcke J., Zloczysti P. Technology Portfolio and Market Value. Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin. No 780. 2008.Schmidt-Ehmcke J., Zloczysti P. Technology Portfolio and Market Value. Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin, no. 780, 2008.Teece D. J., Rumelt R., Dosi G., Winter S. Understanding Corporate Coherence: Theory and Evidence // Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 1994. Vol. 23. No 1. P. 1–30.Teece D. J., Rumelt R., Dosi G., Winter S. Understanding Corporate Coherence: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1994, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1-30.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.