Balanced development of the macroregion’s manufacturing industry under new industrialization (a case study of the Volga Federal District)

Regional and branch economy
Authors:
Abstract:

In the context of geopolitical challenges and the need for Russia's technological sovereignty, the key imperative is new industrialization, which involves a qualitative transition to digital and intellectual production. However, the policy of concentrating resources in historically established industrial centers deepens interregional disparities. This study aims to address the contradiction between the effectiveness of concentration and the need for balanced development, using the Volga Federal District (VFD) as a case study. The goal is to develop and test a concept for the balanced development of the manufacturing industry based on the transition from a «catch-up» development model to a strategy of differentiated integration of regions with different potential into unified production and cooperation chains. The methodology includes three stages. At the first stage, a comprehensive assessment of the potential for new industrialization was conducted based on four blocks (industrial, human resources, investment, and innovation) using data from Rosstat for 2023. The integral index allowed for the identification of leading regions, regions with average potential, and regions with low potential. At the second stage, a «potential-dynamics» matrix was constructed, classifying regions into four groups (Leaders, Catch-up Development Regions, Stable Regions, and Problem Regions) and identifying strategic priorities. At the third stage, functional models of interregional value creation chains were designed for the key clusters of the VFD: the automotive industry, aircraft manufacturing, petrochemicals, and agro-industry. The results revealed pronounced polarization: the two leading regions account for 32% of the gross regional product (GRP) of manufacturing industry and 46% of investments, while labor productivity is twice the average. At the same time, a number of regions with low absolute potential demonstrate high growth rates, making them potential growth points within cooperation networks. The key conclusion is the need to transition from a policy of fiscal equalization to a strategy of specialized integration of lagging regions as component suppliers into the clusters of leading regions. The practical significance lies in the creation of diagnostic tools and functional cooperation schemes to transform spatial heterogeneity into a growth factor for the technological sovereignty of the macroregion.

  • References

    1. Sasayev N.I. (2025) Postnormalnost kak okno strategicheskikh vozmozhnostey promyshlennogo razvitiya Rossii. Ekonomika promyshlennosti, 18 (2), 171–181. DOI: 10.17073/2072-1633-2025-2-1445

    2. Petrov M.N., Filippov Ya.S. (2023) Tekhnologicheskiy suverenitet: osnovnyye printsipy kontseptsii natsionalnoy nauchno-tekhnologicheskoy bezopasnosti. Voprosy innovatsionnoy ekonomiki, 13 (3), 1185–1198. DOI: 10.18334/vinec.13.3.118646

    3. Silin Ya.P., Animitsa Ye.G, Novikova N.V. (2017) Regionalnyye aspekty novoy industrializatsii: teoriya i metodologiya otsenki. Ekonomika regiona, 13 (3), 684–696. DOI: 10.17059/2017-3-4

    4. Stepanova T.D. (2022) Tekhnologicheskiy suverenitet Rossii kak element ekonomicheskoy bezopasnosti. Ekonomika: vchera, segodnya, zavtra, 12 (9–1), 567–577. DOI: 10.34670/AR.2022.19. 76.044

    5. Medvedeva M.B. (2023) Tekhnologicheskiy suverenitet kak faktor konkurentosposobnosti natsionalnoy ekonomiki. Bankovskiye uslugi, 9, 31–38. DOI: 10.36992/2075-1915_2023_09_31

    6. Shinkevich A.I., Idrisov A.E. (2023) Voprosy obespecheniya tekhnologicheskogo suvereniteta Rossii: aspekty tsifrovizatsii. Upravleniye ustoychivym razvitiyem, 3 (46), 10–15. DOI: 10.55421/2499992X_2023_3_10

    7. Dovbiy I.P., Minkin A.A., Kobylyakova V.V., Kondratov M.V. (2023) Tekhnologicheskiy suverenitet Rossii: strategicheskiye ustanovki promyshlennoy politiki i kontsepty regionalnoy povestki. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 3 (473), 11–22.

    8. Schwab K. (2016) The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    9. Oruch T.A. (2024) Gosudarstvennaya podderzhka obespecheniya tekhnologicheskogo suvereniteta: zarubezhnyye praktiki i rossiyskiye vozmozhnosti. Russian Economic Bulletin, 7 (6), 389–396. DOI: 10.58224/2658-5286-2024-7-6-389-396

    10. Kurnikova M.V. (2025) Otsenka tekhnologicheskoy zrelosti regionov Rossii kak osnovy ikh tekhnologicheskogo suvereniteta i globalnoy konkurentosposobnosti. π-Economy, 18 (4), 105–123. DOI: 10.18721/JE.18406

    11. Khmeleva G.A. (2023) Tekhnologicheskiy suverenitet kak instrument obespecheniya ustoychivogo razvitiya ekonomiki regiona v usloviyakh sanktsiy. Vestnik Yevraziyskoy nauki, 15 (3), st. № 64ECVN323. DOI: 10.15862/64ECVN323

    12. Perru F. (2007) Ekonomicheskoye prostranstvo: teoriya i prilozheniya. Prostranstvennaya ekonomika, 2, 77–93.

    13. Leontyev A.I., Novikova N.V. (2020) Regionalnaya proyektsiya teorii polyusa rosta: zarubezhnyy i rossiyskiy opyt. Teoreticheskaya i prikladnaya ekonomika, 4, 106–117. DOI: 10.25136/2409-8647.2020.4.34019

    14. Boudeville J.-R. (1966) Problems of regional economic planning, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    15. Rothwell R., Dodgson M. (1992) European technology policy evolution: convergence towards SMEs and regional technology transfer. Technovation, 12 (4), 223–238. DOI: 10.1016/0166-4972(92)90044-I

    16. Hung S.-W., Tang R.-H. (2008) Factors affecting the choice of technology acquisition mode: An empirical analysis of the electronic firms of Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Technovation, 28 (9), 551–563. DOI: 10.1016/J.TECHNOVATION.2007.10.005

    17. Ceipek R., Hautz J., Mayer M.C.J., Matzler K. (2019) Technological Diversification: A Systematic Review of Antecedents, Outcomes and Moderating Effects. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21 (4), 466–497. DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12205

    18. Kotov A.V. (2022) Investitsionnyy rost cherez mezhregionalnyye vzaimodeystviya. EKO, 2 (572), 8–26. DOI: 10.30680/ECO0131-7652-2022-2-8-26

    19. Ilin V.A., Lukin Ye.V. (2022) Sovremennyye problemy razvitiya tsepochek sozdaniya stoimosti v natsionalnoy ekonomike: regionalnyy aspekt. Ekonomicheskoye vozrozhdeniye Ros- sii, 2 (72), 44–49. DOI: 10.37930/1990-9780-2022-2-72-44-49

    20. Ilin V.A., Uskova T.V., Lukin Ye.V., Leonidova Ye.G., Sidorov M.A., Rumyantsev N.M. (2021) Transformatsiya mezhregionalnykh tsepochek sozdaniya stoimosti: problemy i perspektivy, Vologda: Vologodskiy nauchnyy tsentr Rossiyskoy akademii nauk.

    21. Kuznetsova O.V. (2019) Mezhregionalnoye sotrudnichestvo v Rossii: perspektivy kooperatsii regionalnykh vlastey. Regionalnyye issledovaniya, 1 (63), 16–25. DOI: 10.5922/1994-5280-2019-1-2

    22. Bulatov A.N. (2010) Strategicheskaya matritsa perspektiv promyshlenno-torgovoy mezh- regionalnoy kooperatsii. Rossiyskiy ekonomicheskiy internet-zhurnal, 4, 133–145.

    23. Kryukov V.A., Suslov N.I., Yagolnitser M.A. (2021) Vostochnyy vektor ekonomiki Rossii – v osnove uspekha sinergiya vzaimodeystviya i mezhregionalnoy kooperatsii. Nauchnyye trudy Volnogo ekonomicheskogo obshchestva Rossii, 230 (4), 90–102. DOI: 10.38197/2072-2060-2021-230-4-90-102

    24. Batuyeva T.B. (2017) Mezhregionalnaya kooperatsiya na osnove sokonkurentsii kak faktor innovatsionnogo razvitiya regiona. Gosudarstvennoye i munitsipalnoye upravleniye. Uchenyye zapiski, 4, 80–84. DOI: 10.22394/2079-1690-2017-1-4-80-84

    25. Buldakova A.A., Zagorulko N.A. (2023) Rol chelovecheskogo kapitala v epokhu ukrepleniya tekhnologicheskogo suvereniteta Rossii. Chelovek. Sotsium. Obshchestvo, 5, 245–252.

    26. Gasanova M.A., Volkova A.L., Guzyr V.V., Potyagaylov S.V. (2022) Strukturogenezis chelovecheskogo kapitala kak usloviye dostizheniya tekhnologicheskogo suvereniteta. Filosofiya khozyaystva, 6 (144), 110–126.

    27. Demidova S.Ye. (2025) Faktory obespecheniya tekhnologicheskogo suvereniteta. Ekonomika, upravleniye i finansy: novyye podkhody i resheniya, 284–288.

    28. Yurevich M.A. (2023) Tekhnologicheskiy suverenitet Rossii: ponyatiye, izmereniye, vozmozhnost dostizheniya. Voprosy teoreticheskoy ekonomiki, 4 (21), 7–21. DOI: 10.52342/2587-7666VTE_2023_4_7_21

    29. Timofeyev R.A., Kiyamov I.K., Avkhadiyeva E.A. (2023) K voprosu o tekhnologicheskom suverenitete regionalnykh sotsialno-ekonomicheskikh sistem (na primere Respubliki Tatarstan). Finansovyy biznes, 12 (246), 91–93.

    30. Altufyeva T.Yu. (2024) Vovlecheniye malykh tekhnologicheskikh kompaniy v ukrepleniye tekhnologicheskogo suvereniteta regionov RF v usloviyakh sanktsionnogo davleniya. Innovatsionnyye tekhnologii upravleniya sotsialno-ekonomicheskim razvitiyem regionov Rossii, 193–201.

    31. Kurnikova M.V., Nizhegorodov A.V. (2025) Mnogokriterialnaya metodika otsenki potentsialnykh prioritetov regionalnoy strukturnoy politiki v usloviyakh novoy industrializatsii. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Seriya: Ekonomika, 20 (3), 288–309. DOI: 10.17072/1994-9960-2025-3-288-309

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Previous articleNext article