Assessing the Impact of the Foreign Economic Complex on the Economic Immunity of a Regional System

Aim. The presented study aims to confirm the hypothesis that the type of economic immunity of a territory is determined by a specific concentration of activity of economic entities, with the foreign economic complex of the region playing an important role.

Tasks. The authors expand the notion of economic immunity of a regional system and identify its influencing factors; develop a methodological approach to assessing the impact of the foreign economic complex on regional immunity; test the assessment methodology and formulate directions for improving the operation of the foreign economic complex in the context of transformations in the economic immunity of regional systems.

Methods. This study uses general scientific methods of cognition to examine the concept of regional economic immunity and substantiate the structure of the region’s foreign economic complex from the perspective of its interaction with certain economic processes occurring in the regional system. Regression models serve as the basis of the methodological approach to assessing the degree of influence of the foreign economic complex on the formation of regional economic immunity.

Results. The proposed original methodology is tested by analyzing data for 2012-2018 on the development of 59 constituent entities of the Russian Federation that are industrial regions and have foreign economic relations. The performance of the regional foreign economic complex and its correlation with the region’s development indicators are determined. Three main types of economic immunity of regional systems (extractive, inclusive, and mixed) are identified, forming under the influence of the foreign economic complex, and the examined regions are grouped by types of economic immunity.

Conclusions. Based on the determined characteristic differences in the formation of the types of regional economic immunity, and with the inclusive type being the most effective option for diversifying exports, creating new jobs, and improving the population’s quality of life as a whole, the necessity of incentives in the transition of regional economies towards the formation of this type of immunity is substantiated. This makes it possible to identify three main scenarios of transition towards the inclusive type of regional economic immunity: the first scenario involves the transformation of the extractive type of immunity into mixed, allowing for a smoother transition towards the desired type and for the establishment or reformation of existing institutions in the territory; the second scenario involves the transformation of the mixed type of immunity into inclusive by diversifying the economy and exports; the third scenario is premised on enhancing the inclusiveness of immunity by expanding exports of high-tech products.

1. Kiseleva E.P. New concepts of anti-infectious immunity. Infektsiya i immunitet = Russian Journal of Infection and Immunity. 2011;1(1):9-14. (In Russ.).

2. Yakovenko E.A. On the issue of the legal nature of immunities. Correlation of categories “immunity”, “privilege”, “benefit”. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = CSU Bulletin. 2010;(33):10-15. (In Russ.).

3. Zhapuev Z.A. Methodology for researching social immunity of Russian society in the context of institutional transformation and riskiness. Istoricheskaya i sotsial’no-obrazovatel’naya mysl’ = Historical and Social-Educational Idea. 2013;(2):142-146. (In Russ.).

4. Luhmann N. Einführung in die Systemtheorie. Heidelberg: Carl Auer Verlag; 2002. 347 p. (Russ. ed.: Luhmann N. Vvedeniye v sistemnuyu teoriyu. Moscow: Logos; 2007. 360 p.).

5. Mokhov A.I. Models of the “new theory of economic systems” in the context of an integrated approach. Vestnik RAEN = Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. 2016;(2):69-75. (In Russ.).

6. Galbraith J.K. Economic policy is measured by results. Transl. from Eng. Problemy teorii i praktiki upravleniya = Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Management. 1999;(5):32-36. (In Russ.).

7. Abalkin L.I., ed. Russia’s strategic response to the challenges of the new century. Moscow: Ekzamen; 2004. 606 p. (In Russ.).

8. Bogomolov O.T. Anatomy of a global economy. Moscow: Akademkniga; 2003. 216 p. (In Russ.).

9. Nekipelov A. Impact of globalization on the allocation of resources in transition economies. Problemy teorii i praktiki upravleniya = Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Management. 2003;(2):10-16. (In Russ.).

10. Yakovets Yu.V. Globalization and interaction of civilizations. Moscow: Ekonomika; 2001. 346 p. (In Russ.).

11. Medvedev D.A. Social and economic development of Russia: Finding new dynamics. Voprosy ekonomiki. 2016;(10):5-30. (In Russ.).

12. Kazakov M.Yu. The phenomenon of immunity in peripheral territories. Moskovskii ekonomicheskii zhurnal = Moscow Economic Journal. 2018;(3):171-179. (In Russ.).

13. Inshakov O.V. The “core of development” in the context of the new theory of factors of production. Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoi Rossii = Economics of Contemporary Russia. 2003;(1):11- 25. (In Russ.).

14. Vazhenin S.G., Vazhenina I.S. Conceptual bases of competitive coexistence of territories. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoi teorii = Russian Journal of the Economic Theory. 2012;(3):96-105. (In Russ.).

15. Granberg A.G., Valentei S.D. Movement of Russian regions towards an innovative economy. Moscow: Nauka; 2006. 402 p. (In Russ.).