Study on how transformation of regional economy affects living standards of the population

The article presents results of a study on determining the directions for structural transformation of economy of the Krasnoyarsk Territory which would promote sustainable economic development and thus improve the performance of current economic system. This study revealed the degree to which the structure of territory economy can affect the key indicator of economic performance of the region - that is living standards of the population. This research was conducted, using cluster analysis and similarity evaluation, it demonstrated that one of the conditions for improving the regional economy’s resistance to external and internal factors is to increase the share of the following kinds of activities in the structure of territorial GRP: «Agriculture, hunting and forestry» (OKVED, Section A) and «Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and personal and household goods» (OKVED, Section G) - which should be followed by the reduction of the existing dependency of the economic system from mining and quarrying. In the same vein evaluation of series of regression models proved that structure of regional economy and the changes that it had undergone over the period in question, failed to demonstrate significant impact on living standards indicators, such as average wages and median age at death. The conclusions, that were formulated on the basis of this research can be taken into account during the decision making process by those state authorities of the Krasnoyarsk territory that are responsible for implementing regional economic policy.

уровень жизни населения, региональная статистика, анализ подобия, кластерный анализ, структурные изменения, трансформация региональной экономики, эконометрическая модель, standard of living of the population, regional statistics, similarity analysis, cluster analysis, structural changes, transformation of the regional economy, econometric model

1. Kuznets S. Modern economic growth: Findings and reflections // American Economic Review. 1973. No. 63. P. 247-258.

2. Fisher A.G.B. Production, primary, secondary and tertiary // The Economic Record. 1939. No. 15.1. P. 24-38.

3. Clark C. The conditions of economic progress. Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1940. 504 р.

4. Fourastie J. Die große Hoffnung des 20. Jahrhunderts. Köln, 1954.

5. Lucas R.E. On the mechanics of economic development // Journal of Monetary Economics. 1988. No. 22. Р. 3-42.

6. Romer P.M. Endogenous technological change // The Journal of Political Economy. 1990. Vol. 98. No. 5. Part 2. Р. S71-S103.

7. Dietrich A. Does growth cause structural change, or is it the other way round? A dynamic panel data analyses of seven OECD countries // Empirical Economics. 2012. Vol. 43. No. 3. Р. 915-944.

8. Herrendorf B., Rogerson R., Valentinyi À. Growth and structural transformation // Handbook of Economic Growth. 2014. No. 2. P. 855-941.

9. OECD. Russia: Modernising the Economy. «Better Policies» Series. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2013. 46 p.

10. Stamer M. Strukturwandel und Wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in Deutschland, den USA und Japan. Shaker Verlag. Aachen, 1999.

11. Lilien D.M. Sectoral shifts and cyclical unemployment // Journal of Political Economy. 1982. No. 90. P. 777-793.