Search

Purpose. To attract investments in the economy of the country is very important. Rise in the standard of living of the population, the increase in the scale of the real sector and other effects of investments in the region result in improving regional infrastructure, which, in turn, improves the investment attractiveness of the region. The paper will present the results of empirical research of described regularities. So purpose of this article is research of correlation between the investment attractiveness of Russian regions and the dynamics of development of the real sector in these regions. Methods. To evaluate the performance results of enterprises of the real sector of Russia the method used by the author earlier for the study of the economy of Northwestern Federal District has been adapted. Integral values for each activity of the regions are calculated. According to the results of calculations the regions are divided into 6 groups. And then this results compared with the numerical values of the investment potential and investment risk of regions. Results. The data only partially evidence on the direct dependence of the successful work of the real sector on the level of investment attractiveness of the region in the years preceding the period in question. Consideration of backflow, i.e. influence of successful work of the real sector on the increase of the investment attractiveness of the region, gave results similar to the previous case. Conclusions. It can be said that the hypotheses advanced in the beginning of the article have been confirmed, although not in full. Most regions that had unfavorable investment climate at the beginning of the years 2000 showed low integral indices of the real sector performance in subsequent years. The conclusion is clear - the absence of attractive environment for investors, deprives the real sector of opportunity to obtain funds for the development and, accordingly, there is no development. Without the development of the real sector the region has neither the funds nor the incentives to improve their investment climate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the paper is to assess the millionaire cities attractiveness for residents in the Russian Federation in the period from 2011 to 2015. Ranking is made using 20 indices combined in five groups. As a result, authors find out that the best positions among millionaire cities in their attractiveness for living are taken by Ekaterinburg, Novosibirsk and Chelyabinsk. They are characterized by a high standard of living, the state of the economy, and the provision of social infrastructure. A little lower attractiveness is shown by Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan and Krasnoyarsk. In the middle of ranking are cities Perm, Omsk, Volgograd and Samara, showing the minimal difference between each other in the integral index. Rostov-on-Don, Ufa and Voronezh are citiesoutsiders in context of their attractiveness for living. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The search the reasons for a manufacturing development is very important for Russia. Nowadays the extractive enterprises are the most important part of Russians economy. For example, in 2013 year the part of mineral products in common Russian export was 76,1% (data of Russians Federal State Statistics Service). But to be competitive in the global economy the country needs in production of more complex products. Methods. The method of this research is a production function which was constructed for the Russian manufacturing. The most known production functions which are used for used in the regional economics are the Cobb-Douglas function and the CES function. In spite of long life of the Cobb-Douglas production function and availability of large amount of new functions, we can say, that this instrument is still applicable today. Many scientists use this production function in their research. So in our article we used the Cobb-Douglas function and the factors were labour, capital, transport infrastructure and innovations. The coefficients for the selected function were obtained using the correlation-regression analysis approach. Results. The result is that transport infrastructure doesn't matter for Russian manufacturing. The coefficient of innovation in logarithmic production function is 0,15 and it's significant on the 1% level. It's means that innovations play an important role in manufacturing production increasing. Conclusions. The first conclusion is regarding the possibility of using the Cobb- Douglas function to research the Russian industry and regarding factors, which influence the development production. The main factor except labor and capital is innovations that means that to increase manufacturing production in Russia the government should improve innovation infrastructure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]