Leadership of Lagging Territories: Myth or Reality?

  • Elena Dvoryadkina
  • Ekaterina Kaybicheva
  • Anetta Zielińska
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

Most economic studies regard periphery as something that has remained beyond development. Its role in the economy is reduced to serving as a resource base for a center represented by a set of more developed territories and a consumer of its products. In reality, the diversity of periphery’s participation in economic life often leads to the fact that it leaves the existing centers behind and takes their place instead. The article considers theoretical views on changing the position of peripheral territories in the “center-periphery” relations and turning them from outsiders into leaders. A system of indicators is presented, which can be used to assess the location of the territory in the “center-periphery” system. The center-peripheral processes in modern Russia are considered. Regions related to the center, semi-periphery, and periphery are identified. Taking subjects of the Russian Federation as an example, it is shown how peripheral regions became leaders and the centers became outsiders of economic development. A forecast of changes in the “center-periphery” system in Russia is made. The recommendations for the authorities on managing the country’s spatial development have been developed. The study is divided into three parts. The first part, theoretical, presents a brief overview of the scientific discussion on the periphery of territories and the interpretation of the concept of “peripheral region.” In the methodological part of the study, the authors develop a system of indicators for assessing the location of the territory in the “center-periphery” system; central and peripheral subjects of the Russian Federation are defined. The final, applied, part of the study contains recommendations for the authorities on managing the spatial development of the country.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), research project No.17-32-00016 “Responses of peripheral urban districts to changes the parameters of regional economy in conditions of the local government reform.” The reported study was also supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), research project No.18-010-00789A “Development of a methodological tool for the study of the economy of a new industrial city in the context of transformation of the spatial organization of economic activity.”

References

  1. Abrhám J, Strielkowski W, Vošta M, Šlajs J (2015) Factors that influence the competitiveness of Czech rural small and medium enterprises. Agric Econ (Zemědělská Ekonomika) 61(10):450–460.  https://doi.org/10.17221/63/2015-AGRICECON Google Scholar
  2. Brodzicki T (2016) Does variety matter? Export pattern of Poland prior and after the accession to the EU. Int Econ Lett 4(2):103–118.  https://doi.org/10.24984/iel.2016.4.2.5 Google Scholar
  3. Chromý P, Jančák V (2005) Periferní oblasti Česka jako jeden z pólů polarizovaného prostoru [Peripheral areas of Czechia as one of the poles of polarized space]. Životné Prostredie 39(2):106–108Google Scholar
  4. Cieślik A, Michałek J, Mycielski J (2016) Globalization, international trade, and human development: a case of Central and Eastern Europe. Czech J Soc Sci Bus Econ 5(2):6–15.  https://doi.org/10.24984/cjssbe.2016.5.2.1 Google Scholar
  5. Davies S, Michie R (2011) Peripheral regions: a marginal concern? European policies research centre. University of Strathclyde, UK, 77 pGoogle Scholar
  6. Dvoryadkina EB, Kaibicheva CI, Shurova II (2016) Compression of economic space and its impact on peripheral areas. Int J Econ Financ Issues 6(S8):24–29Google Scholar
  7. Esin O (2005) Different definitions of “periphery” and different peripheries in the EU. Temmuz. 198 pGoogle Scholar
  8. GAS Upravlenye (2017) Information system. http://gasu.gov.ru. Accessed 31 Aug 2017
  9. Halás M (2008) Priestorová polarizácia spoločnosti s detailným pohľadom na periférne regióny Slovenska [Space polarization of society with the detailed look at the peripheral regions of Slovakia]. Czech Soc Rev 44:349–369Google Scholar
  10. Hampl M (2009) Global system: situation, contemporary tendencies and possible perspectives of the power potential distribution. Geografie–Sborník ČGS 114(1):1–20Google Scholar
  11. Janda K, Rausser G, Strielkowski W (2013) Determinants of profitability of polish rural micro-enterprises at the time of EU accession. East Eur Countryside 19:177–217.  https://doi.org/10.2478/eec-2013-0009 Google Scholar
  12. Kolosov VA, Mironenko NS (2001) Geopolitics and political geography, 1st edn. Aspect Press, Moscow, 479 pGoogle Scholar
  13. Mishra US, Singhania D (2014) Contrasting the levels of poverty against the burden of poverty: an Indian case. Int Econ Lett 3(2):26–35.  https://doi.org/10.24984/iel.2014.3.2.1 Google Scholar
  14. Niño-Amézquita J, Dubrovsky V, Jankurová A (2017) Innovations and competitiveness in regional development: a comparison of Latin America, Europe, and China. Czech J Soc Sci Bus Econ 6(1):28–36.  https://doi.org/10.24984/cjssbe.2017.6.1 Google Scholar
  15. Pileček J, Jančák V (2011) Theoretical and methodological aspects of the identification and delimitation of the peripheral areas. Auc Geogr 46(1):43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Simionescu M, Ciuiu D, Bilan Y, Strielkowski W (2016) GDP and net migration in some Eastern and South-Eastern countries of Europe. A panel data and Bayesian approach. Montenegrin J Econ 12(2):161–175.  https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845.2016/12-1/10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sokol M (2001) Central and Eastern Europe a decade after the fall of state socialism: regional dimensions of transition processes. Reg Stud 35(7):645–655.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400120075911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stanko P (2006) Geographical marginality in Slovenia from the point of demographical indicators. Rev Geogr 2(1):121–131Google Scholar
  19. Tikhonravov YV (2000) Geopolitics, 1st edn. Infra-M, Мoscow, 269 pGoogle Scholar
  20. Zanadvornov VS, Il’ina IP (1999) Theory of the city economy, 1st edn. GU VSE Publishing house, Moscow, 174 pGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Dvoryadkina
    • 1
  • Ekaterina Kaybicheva
    • 1
  • Anetta Zielińska
    • 2
  1. 1.Ural State University of EconomicsYekaterinburgRussia
  2. 2.Wroclaw University of EconomicsWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations