Development Strategy of the North Caucasus: Main Challenges
https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2022-3-74-97
Abstract
This article is devoted to the applicability in the North Caucasus of various approaches to stimulating catch-up development. The paper highlights two similar approaches: “modernization from above,” based on public investments and state support of large private investments, and “modernization from below,” where the main driver is local business whereas the state creates conditions and eliminates barriers to its successful development. “Modernization from above,” which demonstrated its potential in the industrial era, has been seeing more and more serious failures in modern conditions, since it forms a distorted motivation among all participants in the process—federal and regional state bodies, development institutions, investors, local bodies and the population. This is confirmed by the unsatisfactory results of the implementation of the North Caucasus Development Strategy until 2025, based on this model. However, the inefficiency of “modernization from above” does not mean that a model of “modernization from below” may be implemented in the region. Our quantitative and qualitative research has shown that there are certain prerequisites for the success of “modernization from below” in the North Caucasus: a positive attitude of respondents towards entrepreneurship and its support by the state; the willingness of the local population to do business; and the potential of open social capital. At the same time, existing barriers, primarily related to the lack of human capital and the poor quality of the institutional environment, can hinder the success of any catch-up development policy. Therefore, the updated strategy for the development of the North Caucasus should not only be aimed at supporting local businesses, but also include measures to improve the quality of higher education in the region, as well as, along with the policy of improving the investment climate, contain tools to “buy out” administrative barriers.
About the Authors
I. V. Starodubrovskaya
Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy; Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Irina V. Starodubrovskaya - Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Head of the Center for Political Economy and Regional Development; Senior Researcher, Center for Regional Research and Urbanism, Institute of Applied Economic Research
3–5, Gazetnyy per., Moscow, 125009
82, Vernadskogo pr., Moscow, 119571
D. A. Sitkievich
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Lomonosov Moscow State Universityc
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Daniil A. Sitkievich - Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Researcher, Center for Regional Research and Urbanism, Institute of Applied Economic Research; Researcher, Laboratory of Institutional Analysis, Faculty of Economics
82, Vernadskogo pr., Moscow, 119571
1–46, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119234
References
1. Auzan A. A. “Effekt kolei”. Problema zavisimosti ot traektorii predshestvuyushchego razvitiya - evolyutsiya gipotez [Path Dependence Problem: The Evolution of Approaches]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 6. Ekonomika [Moscow University Economics Bulletin. Series 6. Economics], 2015, no. 1, pp. 3-17. (In Russ.)
2. Bobrovnikov V. Musul’mane Severnogo Kavkaza: obychay, pravo, nasilie [Muslims of the North Caucasus: Custom, Law, Violence]. Moscow, Vostochnaya literatura, 2002. (In Russ.)
3. Zubarevich N. “Lukavye tsifry” na karte Rodiny [“Crafty Figures” on the Map of the Motherland]. EKO [ECO], 2012, no. 4, pp. 74-85. (In Russ.)
4. Kazenin K. Perspektivy institutsional’nogo podkhoda k yavleniyu poliyuridizma (na primere Severnogo Kavkaza) [Prospects of the Institutional Approach to Legal Pluralism: The Case of North Caucasus]. Ekonomicheskaya politika [Economic Policy], 2014, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 178-198. (In Russ.)
5. Starikov I. G. Sotsial’nyy kapital i sotsial’naya mobil’nost’ v Makhachkale, ili Chto delat’, esli u tebya net vliyatel’nykh rodstvennikov? [Social Capital and Social Mobility in Makhachkala: What to Do if You Do Not Have Influential Relatives?]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’ [Social Sciences and Modernity], 2015, no. 4, pp. 153-164. (In Russ.)
6. Starodubrovskaya I., Kazenin K., Sitkevich D. Severnyy Kavkaz: vybor strategicheskikh orientirov [Northern Caucasus: Choosing Strategic Landmarks]. Ekonomicheskaya politika [Economic Policy], 2021, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 112-137. DOI:10.18288/1994-5124-2021-3-112-137. (In Russ.)
7. Yasin E. Modernizatsiya rossiyskoy ekonomiki: chto v povestke dnya [Modernization of the Russian Economy: Problems on the Agenda]. Ekonomicheskiy zhurnal VShE [HSE Economic Journal], 2001, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 157-178. (In Russ.)
8. Yasin E., Yakovlev A. Konkurentosposobnost’ i modernizatsiya rossiyskoy ekonomiki [Competitive Capacity and Modernization of the Russian Economy]. Voprosy ekonomiki, 2004, no. 7, pp. 4-34. DOI:10.32609/0042-8736-2004-7-4-34. (In Russ.)
9. Ahmed H., Miller S. M. Crowding-Out and Crowding-In Effects of the Components of Government Expenditure. Contemporary Economic Policy, 2000, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 124-133. DOI:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2000.tb00011.x.
10. Allen R. Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2003.
11. Barca F. New Trends and the Policy Shift in the Italian Mezzogiorno. Daedalus, 2001, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 93-113.
12. Boschma R. Culture of “Trust” and Regional Development: An Empirical Analysis of Third Italy, 1999. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/114191/1/ERSA1999_a009.pdf.
13. Dominicis L. de, Florax R. J. G. M., Groot H. L. F. de. Regional Clusters of Innovative Activity in Europe: Are Social Capital and Geographical Proximity Key Determinants? Applied Economics, 2013, vol. 45, no. 17, pp. 2325-2335. DOI:10.1080/00036846.2012.663474.
14. Eisenstadt S. N. Multiple Modernities in an Age of Globalization. In: Honegger C., Hradil S., Traxler F. (eds.). Grenzenlose Gesellschaft? Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 1999, pp. 37-50.
15. Etzkowitz H., Brisolla S. N. Failure and Success: The Fate of Industrial Policy in Latin America and South East Asia. Research Policy, 1999, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 337-350.
16. Gaonkar D. P. Alternative Modernities. Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 2001.
17. Hodler R. Rent Seeking and Aid Effectiveness. International Tax and Public Finance, 2007, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 525-541. DOI:10.1007/s10797-006-9006-8.
18. Lin J. Y. New Structural Economics: A Framework for Rethinking Development and Policy. Washington, DC, The World Bank, 2012.
19. Lucas R. E. On the Mechanics of Economic Development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 1988, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 3-42. DOI:10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7.
20. Maio M. D. Industrial Policies in Developing Countries: History and Perspectives. In: Cimoli M., Dosi G., Stiglitz J. E. (eds.). Industrial Policy and Development: The Political Economy of Capabilities Accumulation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 107-143.
21. Ménard C. The Economics of Hybrid Organizations. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 2004, vol. 160, no. 3, pp. 345-376.
22. Morisset J., Lumenga-Neso O. Administrative Barriers to Foreign Investment in Developing Countries, 2002. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=636197/
23. North D. C. Institutions and Economic Growth: An Historical Introduction. World Development, 1989, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1319-1332.
24. Putnam R. D., Leonardi R., Nanetti R. Y. Making Democracy Work. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1994.
Review
For citations:
Starodubrovskaya I.V., Sitkievich D.A. Development Strategy of the North Caucasus: Main Challenges. Economic Policy. 2022;17(3):74-97. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2022-3-74-97
Views:
101
Email this article 