ISSN 0798 1015

logo

Vol. 39 (Number 18) Year 2018 • Page 12

Evaluating the Investment Attractiveness of Russian regions

Evaluar el atractivo de inversión de las regiones rusas

Tatiana Mikhailovna VAZHENINA 1; Natalia Grigoryevna GRUSHEVSKAYA 2

Received: 05/12/2017 • Approved: 15/01/2018


Content

1. Introduction

2. Methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

References


ABSTRACT:

This article provides an evaluation of the investment attractiveness of Russian regions for foreign investors. It regards some theoretical and methodological grounds for evaluating the investment attractiveness of Russian regions. This work provides an evaluation of the investment attractiveness of Russian regions for investors based on national investment attractiveness ratings. The authors have evaluated regions’ investment attractiveness based on the “new integral evaluation method” by V.L. Sazykin. The work explains that it is reasonable and appropriate to use this method since it can be used when it is necessary to rank regions based on an investment attractiveness evaluation and to carry out a comparative analysis of regions’ attractiveness. It presents comparative characteristics of the investment attractiveness of regions, which identifies the incommensurability of the results. This work also detects some “bottlenecks” which affect region's investment attractiveness for foreign investors, and suggests some ways of eliminating them.
Keywords: Investor, investment attractiveness, investment risk, evaluation methods, national rating, rating score

RESUMEN:

Este artículo proporciona una evaluación del atractivo de inversión de las regiones rusas para los inversores extranjeros. Considera algunas bases teóricas y metodológicas para evaluar el atractivo de inversión de las regiones rusas. Este trabajo proporciona una evaluación del atractivo de inversión de las regiones rusas para los inversores en función de las calificaciones de atractivo de inversión nacional. Los autores han evaluado el atractivo de inversión de las regiones en base al "nuevo método de evaluación integral" de V.L. Sazykin. El trabajo explica que es razonable y apropiado utilizar este método, ya que puede utilizarse cuando es necesario clasificar las regiones según una evaluación de atractivo de inversión y realizar un análisis comparativo del atractivo de las regiones. Presenta características comparativas del atractivo de inversión de las regiones, lo que identifica la inconmensurabilidad de los resultados. Este trabajo también detecta algunos "cuellos de botella" que afectan el atractivo de la inversión de la región para los inversores extranjeros, y sugiere algunas formas de eliminarlos.
Palabras clave: Inversor, atractivo de inversión, riesgo de inversión, métodos de evaluación, calificación nacional, puntaje de calificación

PDF version

1. Introduction

High investment attractiveness of a region is one of the main factors of its successful economic and innovative development which boosts its and its society’s prosperity.

Lately, a great number of evaluation methods have been developed by foreign and domestic authors, and they present the results in a different form – rating, type classification, or quantitative classification. The rating form is rather popular since it is more compact, easier for investors to perceive and quite informative at the same time. International ratings do not always take into account countries’ (regions’) peculiarities, which nowadays leads to creation of national ratings (Blum, 2013; Panaseykina, 2010; Izyumova, 2011).

Currently, there is no specific method for the evaluation of investment attractiveness approved by the government of the Russian Federation, which explains the existence of a great number of methods. Ratings based on different methods are often incommensurable.

2. Methods

Currently, there are a lot of definitions of investment attractiveness, which leads to a great number of ways to evaluate it (Vazhenina and Grushevskaya, 2017). As there is no common method, the results are non-uniform and incommensurable (Koroleva and Filatova, 2017; Mahmudova et al., 2016; Tarasova and Scherbakova, 2016).

2.1 National ratings evaluating the investment attractiveness of Russia’s regions

2.1.1 Rating by RAEX Rating Agency (Expert RA)

The investment attractiveness rating by Expert RA Rating Agency is based on the comparative evaluation of regions taking into consideration two independent characteristics: investment potential and investment risk. Such evaluation allows to rank regions based on their investment potential and investment risk. Complete ratings of the investment potentials and investment risks of Russian regions have been made but not presented in this article. The final investment attractiveness rating by Expert RA Rating Agency presented in Table 1 (Investment Attractiveness Rating 2015) divides regions into groups based on the potential-risk ratio.

Table 1
Russian Regions’ Investment Attractiveness Rating 2015

Rating score

Name of the subject of the Russian Federation

1

2

Maximum potential — minimum risk

Moscow Oblast

 

Saint Petersburg

 

Krasnodar Krai

 

Medium potential — minimum risk

Belgorod Oblast

 

Republic of Tatarstan

 

Low potential — minimum risk

Voronezh Oblast

Tambov Oblast

Kursk Oblast

Tula Oblast

Lipetsk Oblast

Leningrad Oblast

High potential — moderate risk

Moscow

Sverdlovsk Oblast

Medium potential — moderate risk

Rostov Oblast

Samara Oblast

Republic of Bashkortostan

Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug

Perm Krai

Chelyabinsk Oblast

Niznhy Novgorov Oblast

Krasnoyarsk Krai

Novosibirsk Oblast

Irkutsk Oblast

Kemerovo Oblast

 

Low potential — moderate risk

Bryansk Oblast

Astrakhan Oblast

Vladimir Oblast

Volgograd Oblast

Ivanovo Oblast

Stavropol Krai

Kaluga Oblast

Udmurt Republic

Ryazan Oblast

Chuvash Republic

Smolensk Oblast

Kirov Oblast

Tver Oblast

Orenburg Oblast

Yaroslavl Oblast

Penza Oblast

Komi Republic

Saratov Oblast

Arkhangelsk Oblast

Ulyanovsk Oblast

Vologda Oblast

Tyumen Oblast

Kaliningrad Oblast

Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug

Primorsky Krai

Altai Krai

Khabarovsk Krai

Omsk Oblast

Sakhalin Oblast

Tomsk Oblast

Sakha Republic

 

Minor potential — moderate risk

Kostroma Oblast

Republic of Mordovia

Oryol Oblast

Kurgan Oblast

Nenets Autonomous Okrug

 Republic of Khakassia

Novgorod Oblast

Amur Oblast

Pskov Oblast

Sevastopol

Republic of Adygea

Mari El Republic

Low potential — high risk

Republic of Karelia

Zabaykalsky Krai

Murmansk Oblast

Republic of Crimea

Republic of Buryatia

 

Minor potential — high risk

Republic of Kalmykia

Chechen Republic

Kabardino-Balkar Republic

Altai Republic

Karachay-Cherkess Republic

Kamchatka Krai

Republic of North Ossetia-Alania 

Magadan Oblast

Chukotka Autonomous Okrug

Jewish Autonomous Oblast

Low potential — extreme risk

Tyva Republic

Republic of Dagestan

 Republic of Ingushetia

The “maximum potential — minimum risk” group includes three regions: Moscow Oblast (9th in the Regions’ Investment Risk Rating and 2nd in the Investment Potential Rating), Saint Petersburg (7th in the Regions’ Investment Risk Rating and 3rd in the Investment Potential Rating), and Krasnodar Krai (1st in the Regions’ Investment Risk Rating and 4th in the Investment Potential Rating).

The “high potential - moderate risk” group includes two regions: Moscow (14th in the Regions’ Investment Risk Rating and 1st in the Investment Potential Rating) and Sverdlovsk Oblast (26th in the Regions’ Investment Risk Rating and 5th in the Investment Potential Rating).

The “medium potential — low risk” group includes two regions – Belgorod Oblast (6th in the Regions’ Investment Risk Rating and 7th in the Investment Potential Rating) and the Republic of Tatarstan (8th in the Regions’ Investment Risk Rating and 7th in the Investment Potential Rating).

Tyumen Oblast belongs to the “low potential — moderate risk” group being 13th in the Regions’ Investment Risk Rating (Table 2) and 31st in the Regions' Investment Potential Rating (Table 3) (Tyumen Oblast in Figures, 2016).

Comparing the investment risk rating presented in Table 2 and the investment potential rating presented in Table 3 with the investment attractiveness rating, it is hard to find the relation between these elements. Unfortunately, the method does not demonstrate the relation between investment potential and investment risk when dividing regions into groups. That is why the rating method does not make it clear how investment potential and investment risk are interrelated. In addition, the rating does not grant any specific position to any region, which makes it hard to understand which region is the best. For instance, which regions are better: those having medium potential and minimum risk or those having high potential and moderate risk.

Table 2
Excerpt from the Russian Regions’ Investment Risk Rating 2015

Risk rating

Subject of the Russian Federation

Risk-weighted average

Rating of investment risk constituents

Social

Economic

Financial

Criminal

Environmental

Managerial

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

Krasnodar Krai

0.150

18

2

22

21

10

1

2

Lipetsk Oblast

0.160

3

12

11

14

35

6

3

Tambov Oblast

0.164

8

10

34

13

9

2

4

Leningrad Oblast

0.170

16

20

3

15

50

5

5

Kursk Oblast

0.176

6

16

25

7

3

42

6

Belgorod Oblast

0.176

4

4

26

4

12

63

7

Saint Petersburg

0.177

5

17

1

37

48

44

8

Republic of Tatarstan

0.179

22

3

13

22

38

22

9

Moscow Oblast

0.179

2

5

4

32

33

69

10

Voronezh Oblast

0.188

10

9

53

20

14

4

11

Tula Oblast

0.194

9

25

10

18

40

48

12

Niznhy Novgorod Oblast

0.200

7

50

24

17

16

29

13

Tyumen Oblast

0.202

28

11

8

51

45

26

14

Moscow

0.208

1

33

6

46

29

73

15

Republic of Bashkortostan

0.209

58

1

7

16

47

62

-----

Table 3
Excerpt from the Russian Regions’ Investment Potential Rating 2015

Potential rating

Subject of the Russian Federation

Share in overall Russia's potential

Rating of investment potential constituents

Labor

Consumer

Production

Financial

Institutional

Innovation

Infrastructural

Natural resources

Touristic

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

Moscow

13.873

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

84

2

2

Moscow Oblast

5.906

2

2

3

2

3

2

2

50

3

3

Saint Petersburg

4.683

3

3

2

3

2

3

5

85

4

4

Krasnodar Krai

2.856

4

4

7

4

4

22

6

28

1

5

Sverdlovsk Oblast

2.596

7

5

5

7

5

7

48

12

7

6

Republic of Tatarstan

2.486

5

6

6

5

7

5

21

41

6

7

Krasnoyarsk Krai

2.374

14

14

15

11

13

16

78

1

9

8

Niznhy Novgorod Oblast

2.018

10

9

10

10

10

4

31

57

12

31

Tyumen Oblast

0.982

34

27

19

27

17

25

58

46

27

32

Khabarovsk Krai

0.964

28

31

32

34

33

40

64

13

23

According to the rating provided by the experts of the rating agency, Tyumen is not highly evaluated.

 

2.1.2. Rating by ASI (Agency for Strategic Initiatives, n.d.).

The investment attractiveness rating by ASI is called the National Investment Rating. An excerpt from the rating is presented in Table 4 (Bukharova, n.d.).

Table 4
Excerpt from the National Investment Rating 2015

Region

Final rating

Regulatory environment

Institutes for business

Infrastructure and resources

Small businesses

1

2

3

4

5

6

Republic of Tatarstan

1

A

A

A

B

Kaluga Oblast

2

A

A

C

A

Belgorod Oblast

3

C

A

A

B

Tambov Oblast

4

B

A

B

C

Ulyanovsk Oblast

5

B

A

C

C

Kostroma Oblast

6

B

A

C

B

Krasnodar Krai

7

A

C

B

B

Rostov Oblast

8

B

B

B

B

Chuvash Republic

9

A

C

B

B

Tula Oblast

10

B

B

C

C

Penza Oblast

11

D

A

C

A

Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug - Yugra

12

C

B

B

A

Moscow

13

B

B

C

C

Voronezh Oblast

14

B

B

C

C

Tyumen Oblast

15

D

A

C

B

According to this rating, the top three are the Republic of Tatarstan, Kaluga Oblast, and Belgorod Oblast.

Thus, having studied the ratings provided by two rather reputable agencies, one may conclude that the results of the ratings based on different methods are incommensurable. Such incommensurability may be caused by using different calculation methods and different indicators.

2.2 Indicators to be used to evaluate a region’s investment attractiveness

For more accurate evaluation of the region's investment attractiveness, it is necessary to include all Russian regions into the list of items to be evaluated: Central Federal District, Northwestern Federal District, Southern Federal District, North Caucasian Federal District, Crimean Federal District, Volga Federal District, Ural Federal District, Siberian Federal District and Far Eastern Federal District.

To evaluate investment attractiveness, 43 indicators were selected (Mezentseva, 2016a; Mezentseva, 2016b). The list of indicators is specified in Figure 1.

Fig. 1
List of indicators used for evaluation of investment attractiveness

The statistical data used in the evaluation were taken from the website of Goskomstat (the State Committee for Statistics) and covered the year of 2015. Due to the lack of statistical data, the indicators do not include tourism and legal factors. Moreover, since there is no publicly available information, the weights of the indicators have not been taken into account, and that is why the method regards the weights of all indicators as equal.

A great number of methods are used for evaluating investment attractiveness, and most of them use the integrated index when forming a final rating. This work uses the integral evaluation method by V.L. Sazykin (2204) to evaluate investment attractiveness. It allows for evaluation of the region’s rating, and it also helps determine in what way one region is worse or better than another.

2.3. Mathematical formulation of the method (Vneshneekonomicheskiy tolkovyi slovar (Foreign Economy Dictionary), 2001):

Instead of average values of the entire group, the new method suggests using the average values of the highest level – the “authoritative” average (for Russia's subjects – average data for Russia). As the work regards all regions, let us use the arithmetic mean as the “authoritative” average.

After finding the “authoritative” average, it is necessary to find the standardized deviations of indicators. To do so, based on the type of the indicator, the following formulas are used:

For indicators like “the less, the better” formula (1) is used:

3. Results

The authoritative average and standardized deviations have been calculated but they are not presented in this article. Table 5 presents the top twenty regions of the final Russian Regions’ Investment Attractiveness Rating.  

Table 5
Excerpt from the Russian Regions’ Rating – Determining a Region's Rating based on an Authoritative Rating

Name of region

Final indicator

Rating

Moscow

101.2

1

Saint Petersburg

66.9

2

Sakhalin Oblast

59.3

3

Tula Oblast

34.9

4

Moscow Oblast

34.4

5

Magadan Oblast

29.7

6

Lipetsk Oblast

25.8

7

Niznhy Novgorod Oblast

25.5

8

Tyumen Oblast

19.2

9

Republic of Tatarstan

16.6

10

Kaluga Oblast

16.1

11

Sakha Republic (Yakutia)

15.3

12

Chukotka Autonomous Okrug

13.9

13

Leningrad Oblast

12.9

14

Sverdlovsk Oblast

10.5

15

Tomsk Oblast

8.6

16

Belgorod Oblast

8.1

17

Kursk Oblast

7.8

18

Kamchatka Krai

7.6

19

Voronezh Oblast

6.9

20

Based on the results obtained, one may conclude that Moscow is the leader in the investment attractiveness rating, being far ahead of Saint Petersburg (34.3 points). Tyumen Oblast is the 9th, and its investment attractiveness is a bit better than that of the Republic of Tatarstan (the difference is 2.6 points).

3.1. Comparative characteristics of ratings

The three ratings based on different methods (the rating based on V.L. Sazykin's method, the rating by Expert RA and the rating by ASI) are compared in Table 6.

Table 6
Comparison of ratings

Name of region

Rating (V.L. Sazykin’s

method)

Position in the ASI rating

Position in the Expert RA rating

Moscow

1

13

High potential — moderate risk

Saint Petersburg

2

26

Maximum potential — minimum risk

Sakhalin Oblast

3

54

Low potential — moderate risk

Moscow Oblast

4

22

Maximum potential — minimum risk

Tula Oblast

5

10

Low potential — minimum risk

Magadan Oblast

6

66

Minor potential — high risk

Niznhy Novgorod Oblast

7

46

Medium potential — moderate risk

Lipetsk Oblast

8

34

Low potential — minimum risk

Tyumen Oblast

9

15

Low potential — moderate risk

Kaluga Oblast

10

2

Low potential — moderate risk

Republic of Tatarstan

11

1

Medium potential — minimum risk

Sakha Republic

12

41

Low potential — moderate risk

Leningrad Oblast

13

20

Low potential — minimum risk

Sverdlovsk Oblast

15

47

High potential — moderate risk

The results of the evaluation of the investment attractiveness of Russian regions for 2015 are as follows: the top five include Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Sakhalin Oblast, Moscow Oblast, and Tula Oblast.

When comparing the results of the investment attractiveness ratings, one should note that the results are incommensurable since the former are based on different approaches to evaluation, as well as different indicators. Thus, for instance, the national investment attractiveness rating mostly focuses on surveys among investors, i.e. they take into account investors’ opinion on the following indicators: satisfaction with measures taken by public and municipal bodies responsible for issuing permits; the time within which such a permit is granted or the time within which a new enterprise is added to the State Register; evaluation of the quality of road networks given by entrepreneurs. Thus, the national investment attractiveness rating provides mostly a subjective evaluation. The Expert RA rating is mainly based on statistical data, and the weight of indicators is determined by expertise. V.L. Sazykin’s method also can take into account the weights of indicators, but, due to the impossibility to survey investors all over Russia, this work regards the weights of indicators as equal, and that is why errors are possible. To obtain more accurate results when evaluating investment attractiveness and determining the final rating, it is necessary to take into account the weights of indicators. V.L. Sazykin’s method is good because it not only shows a region’s position in the rating but also helps understand how good the region is. Thus, V.L. Sazykin’s method can be used in case it is necessary not only to rank regions based on an evaluation of investment attractiveness but also to carry out comparative analysis of the state of regions’ attractiveness.

4. Discussion

The issues regarding the attraction of investment in the Russian economy are becoming more and more topical under the current social and economic circumstances. Currently, Russia’s investment attractiveness in general is decreasing. Most foreign investors are concerned about the country’s economic and political problems: instability of the Russian currency, red-tape impeding the business registration and administration processes in Russia, unstable oil prices, etc. (Weinbender, 2016). The financial sanctions have significantly affected the activity of investors from Japan, the EU, and the USA. (Lyubanenko, 2016; Lyubimov et al., 2014).

The new economic conditions influenced by the sanctions have emphasized the issues regarding the stable development of regions and their investment attractiveness. The turbulent external environment and abrupt change in a number of important economic parameters require specific administration over the development of the regional economy (Mezentseva and Naymushina, 2016).

Nevertheless, the Russian economy is quite experienced in raising the attractiveness of the country in general and its individual regions. Thus, in the regions interested in foreign funds the government implements various state aid systems in order to support investment projects (tax incentives, investment tax credits, state guarantees, etc.).

The main provisions and results of this work can be used by the subjects of the Russian Federation for evaluating their investment attractiveness and developing measures to improve their investment attractiveness.

5. Conclusion

This work used the V.L. Sazykin’s method which had not been used for determining regions’ investment attractiveness before. The method allows to understand in what way one region is better than another. The investors do analyze and evaluate not only the macroeconomic, regional and industry-specific levels but also the investment attractiveness of a certain subject which would determine the way an investment project could be carried out (Vazhenina and Nikonova, 2015; Pryamye inostrannye investitsii v Rossii (Direct Foreign Investment in Russia), n.d.). As there is no publicly available information about investors’ opinion on the quality of the investment management system in Russian regions, the evaluation was based only on statistical indicators, which implies certain inaccuracy in such analysis. This method can be used for evaluating the investment attractiveness of the subjects of the Russian Federation taking into account the subjective factors influencing regions’ investment attractiveness.

References

Agency for Strategic Initiatives – National Investment Rating. [Electronic resource]: (n.d.) http://asi.ru/investclimate/rating (Accessed on 12.12.2016)

Blum, E. A. (2013). Obzor metodik otsenki investitsionnogo potentsiala regiona [Reviewing Methods for Evaluation of a Region’s Investment Potential]. Molodoi Uchenyi (Young Scientist), 137-141.

Bukharova O.V. (2014). V Rossii zapustili sait dlya inostrannykh investorov [Russia Launches a Website for Investors] [Electronic resource]: Internal portal Rossiyskaya Gazeta. https://rg.ru/2014/06/23/investinrussia.ru-site-anons.html (Accessed on 08.01.2017)

Investment Attractiveness Rating 2015 [Electronic resource]. (n. d.). http://raexpert.ru/docbank/6ce/1b2/d5c/15 (Accessed on 06.11.2016)

Izyumova O.N. (2011). Analiz metodicheskikh podhodov k upravleniyu i otsenke investitsionnoy privlekatelnosti i investitsionnogo potentsiala regiona [Analysis of Methodological Approaches to Management and Evaluation of Investment Attractiveness and Investment Potential]. [Electronic journal]: Electronic journal Upravlenie ekonomicheskimi sistemami (Managing Economic Systems). http://uecs.ru/uecs-35-352011/item/748 (Accessed on 19.12.2016)

Koroleva A.M. and Filatova I.B. (2017). Otsenka potentsiala razvitiya regionov Uralskogo Federalnogo okruga [Evaluating the Development Potential of the Ural Federal District regions]. In the collection: Sovremennye trendy rossiiskoi ekonomiki: vyzovy vremeni – 2017 [Current Trends in Russian Economics: Challenging Times – 2017]. Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, pp. 317-321.

Lyubanenko A.V. (2016). Islamskaya bankovskaya sistema kak istochnik investitsiy v rossiyskuyu ekonomiku [Islamic Banking System as an Investment Source for the Russian Economy]. Taurida Scientific Messenger, 4(9), Pp. 43-45.

Lyubimov S.V., Lyubimov I.S. and Lyubanenko A.V. (2014). Povyshenie effektivnosti protsedury verifikatsii v realizatsii investitsionnykh programm [Improving the Efficiency of Verification of Investment Programs]. Proceedings in Cybernetics, 4(16), 89-92.

Mahmudova M.M., Koroleva A.M., Shakirova E.V. and Efimenko E.L. (2016). Investitsionnaya privlekatelnost severnogo regiona [Investment Attractiveness of the Northern Region]. Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Sociology. Economics. Politics, 1(48), 27-32.

Mezentseva, O. E. (2016a). Finansirovanie NIOKR kak faktor issledovatelskoy i innovatsionnoy aktivnosti v Tyumenskoy oblasti [R&D Funding as a Factor in Research and Investment Activities in Tyumen Oblast]. Journal of Economy and Entrepreneurship, 1-2 (66-2), 1011-1013.

Mezentseva, O. E. (2016b Sistemnyi analiz i prinyatie resheniy v naukoemkom proizvodstve [Systemic Analysis and Decision-Making in Hi-Tech Production]: tutorial. Tyumen: TIU, pp. 198.

Panaseykina V. S. (2010). Otsenka investitsionnoy privlekatelnosti territorialnykh obrazovaniy: osnovnye kontseptsii [Evaluating Investment Attractiveness of Subnational Entities]. Society: politics, economics, law, 2

Pryamye inostrannye investitsii v Rossii [Direct Foreign Investment in Russia] [Electronic resource]: National Rating Agency, 2013. http://www.ra-national.ru. (Accessed on 25.12.2016)

Sazykin V.L. (2004). Novyi metod integralnoi otsenki [New Integral Evaluation Method]. Vestnik of the Orenburg State University, 12

Tarasova O.V. and Scherbakova M.A. (2016). Investitsionnaya privlekatelnost Tyumenskoy oblasti [Investment attractiveness of Tyumen Oblast]. In the collection: Sovremennye trendy rossiiskoy ekonomiki: vyzovy vremeni – 2015 [Current Trends in Russian Economy: Challenging Times – 2015]. Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference with International Participation, pp. 194-197.

Tyumenskaya oblast v tsifrakh [Tyumen Oblast in Figures]. Territorial body of Federal state statistics service in Tyumen Oblast. (2016). Tyumen, pp. 258.

Vazhenina T.M. and Grushevskaya N.G. (2017). Utochnenie ponyatiya investitsionnogo klimata i faktory ego formirovaniya [Explaining Investment Climate and Understanding the Factors of Its Formation]. In the collection: Sovremennye trendy rossiiskoi ekonomiki: vyzovy vremeni – 2017 [Current Trends in Russian Economics: Challenging Times – 2017]. Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, pp. 58-61.

Vazhenina T.M. and Nikonova A.S. (2015). Nekotorye teoreticheskie aspekty investitsionnoy deyatelnosti kompanii [Some Theoretical Aspects of a Company’s Investment Activities]. In the collection: ]. Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference with International Participation, pp. 290-293.

Vneshneekonomicheskii tolkovyi slovar [Foreign Economy Dictionary]. (2001). Moscow: INFRA – M.

Weinbender, T. L. (2016). Izmenenie pokazateley rossiyskoy ekonomiki v usloviyah ogranicheniy [Changes in figures of the Russian Economy under limitations]. Rossiya i Evropa: svyaz kultury i ekonomiki [Russia and Europe: interrelation of the culture and economy] (Russia and Europe: Relations between Culture and Economics): Materials of the XIVth International Scientific and Practical Conference. Prague, Czech Republic: Publisher: WORLD PRESS s.r.o., pp. 465-467.


1. Federal State Budget Educational Institution of Higher Education "Industrial University of Tyumen"/IUT, Russia, 625000, Tumen, Volodarsky Street, 38; E-mail: a_ahilgov@mail.ru

2. Federal State Budget Educational Institution of Higher Education "Industrial University of Tyumen"/IUT, Russia, 625000, Tumen, Volodarsky Street, 38


Revista ESPACIOS. ISSN 0798 1015
Vol. 39 (Number 18) Year 2018

[Index]

[In case you find any errors on this site, please send e-mail to webmaster]

revistaESPACIOS.com