Manufacturing Industry In Russia Research Articles

Development of the industry of synthetic materials in Russia with the application of sustainability / Desenvolvimento da indústria de materiais sintéticos na Rússia com a aplicação da sustentabilidade

The production of synthetic materials is actively developing at the world: USA, Germany, Japan, China, India [1]. This is due perfect consumer properties of synthetic materials successfully compete with natural fabrics, and surpass them in some properties. At the same time, the production of synthetic materials is characterized by a reduction in labor and capital costs, automation of the process and the possibility of processing secondary materials. The article shows the measures of impact on the environment and production capacity to reduce the adverse impacts on the environment and the contribution of fabrics to the field of labor protection, through the development of modern personal protective equipment and workwear. These actions are a promising direction for the development of the manufacturing industry in Russia.

Improving the system of measures to support industrial development in Russia

Currently, it is not individual enterprises that compete in the global market of industrial goods, but value chains. Within their framework, technological and production interfaces, diversification of demand markets, and optimization of business processes contribute to a sharp increase in the competitiveness of enterprises. The existing measures to support the development of industry do not confirm their effectiveness based on the results of work. To improve the system of support measures, the following steps are proposed: value chains should become the main tool for implementing the state’s industrial policy, measures for technological re-equipment based on intersectoral interaction of enterprises of high-tech and medium-tech industries should be implemented, as well as development institutions alternative to the banking sector should be formed. When implementing the proposed state support measures, the conditions for the sustainable development of the manufacturing industry in Russia are formed.

ASSESSMENT OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE RUSSIAN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY CONSIDERING THE DIGITAL FACTOR

The purpose of the study is to assess the technological transformation of the manufacturing industry in Russia, taking into account the digital factor. The analysis of a set of methods that can be used to assess the impact of technologies on the digital transformation of economic systems (country, industry, region, industrial enterprise) is carried out; the results of a SWOT analysis of the Russian manufacturing industry for the medium term are presented (as an initial stage for the subsequent development of functional strategies of industrial enterprises-digital transformation, innovative, competitive, etc.); the results of a survey of experts on a sample of industrial enterprises of the Arkhangelsk region regarding barriers and prospects of digital transformation of manufacturing enterprises are summarized; an economic and mathematical model of the influence of production factors, including the digital factor, on the value added created by the manufacturing industry is developed. Based on the analysis and modeling of the formation of added value in the manufacturing industry, taking into account the contribution of each of the factors of production, a set of solutions is proposed, on the basis of which it is possible to give a new impetus to accelerate the digital transformation of the industry.

THE TSARIST IRON WORKS IN RUSSIA IN THE 17TH CENTURY

The palace manufacturing industry in Russia in the 17th century was represented by glass, morocco, linen, iron-making manufactories. They used the most advanced European technologies. Manufactories developed due to the exploitation of the population of the royal fiefdoms, soldiers, archers, domestic and foreign employees. Most of the products were intended for the needs of the royal family, a smaller one portion was used as sovereign grants and was bought up by the first-class nobility of Russia. A certain number of finished products were supplied to the domestic and international markets. The products of the palace iron works were exported abroad. At the same time, the organization of their activities in historical science remains virtually unexplored. The novelty of this article lies in the formulation of a scientific problem. Here is the list of points that were covered in our research. The role of the tsarist iron works in the economy of the tsarist domain in Russia in the 17th century is determined. The main types of products of the palace iron-making manufactories are identified. The features of their functioning are studied. The article analyzes the conditions under which Dutch entrepreneurs rented tsarist iron works in the Russian state in the 17th century. Methods of providing industrial facilities with labor are shown. The significance of the Ministry of Secret Affairs in the organization of iron ore mining, which was in charge of the royal iron works, is determined. Their historical and geographical coordinates are indicated. The features of sales of finished products are covered. The evolution of the tsarist iron-making industry in Russia during the 17th century is explained. In the palace fiefdoms, natural and human resources were used as much as possible. In the 17th century, in five districts of Russia (Maloyaroslavsky, Obolensky, Tula, Kashirsky, Moscow), the tsarist iron factories functioned. On which they used European experience in the use of production processes. Foreign specialists and entrepreneurs were invited to Russia. Dutch merchants A. Vinius, E. Vickens, P. Marselis, F. Akema, R. Adrian received a monopoly on the extraction of iron ore, the establishment of factories on unpopulated palace lands.

Companies profitability under economic instability: evidence from the manufacturing industry in Russia

This study analyzes factors affecting the efficiency (profitability) of enterprises in foreign, joint and domestic ownership in countries with unstable economy. The novelty of the study is that for the first time this kind of analysis has been carried out for the manufacturing industry in Russia, whose economy is characterized by the instability (crisis), external sanctions, and the internal trend for import substitution. Using a panel data on 6134 enterprises operating across several industries in Russia over the period of 2012–2016, the article suggests that generally production efficiency and scale efficiency positively affect profitability, whereas the share of borrowed capital, share of fixed assets and rising interest rates exert negative effects. The contribution of external financial factors is minimal, except for foreign and jointly owned firms. Production efficiency has a particularly pronounced effect for the automotive industry, machinery and equipment manufacturing, and in the metal industry. In contrast, in the chemical, electrical and optical manufacturing, and in food processing industries, internal financial factors emerge as a powerful predictor of performance. Firm ownership does not exert a significant effect on the relationship between the variables of interest when the share of borrowed funds is below 50%. When the share of borrowed capital exceeds 50%, internal financial factors emerge as a particularly prominent predictor of profitability.

Investment Potential of the Manufacturing Industry

The article considers investment in fixed assets of the manufacturing industry as one of the main factors of its development. The manufacturing industry is shown to be the growth driver of national economy for developed and developing countries. The analysis of exports and imports of the first 15 countries in the ranking in terms of gross domestic product calculated at purchasing power parity (GDP at PPP) shows the leading role of the manufacturing industry in the global economy. At the same time, competitiveness in the global market is determined by high-tech products. Therefore, for the sustainable development of the Russian economy, it is necessary to create investment conditions for the advanced development of high-tech segments of the manufacturing industry. However, the current structure of investments in fixed assets contributes to the development of such services sector segments as “Transportation and storage”, “Real estate operations”. In the structure of investments in fixed assets, the largest share belongs to investments in buildings and structures, and intellectual property items account for no more than 10%. It is shown that the lack of investment resources is the main reason for the reduction (by 1.5 times) of the contribution to the value added of the manufacturing industry in Russia, production of machinery and equipment. This leads to an increase in dependence on imports, a fall in the share of products from high-tech sectors. To analyze the development potential of manufacturing industries, the authors introduced an indicator of investment intensity per 100 rubles of shipped industrial products. It was determined that enterprises with a joint Russian and foreign form of ownership lead in terms of investment intensity. At the same time, private enterprises, leading in terms of output, demonstrate weak investment activity. The low investment attractiveness of high-tech manufacturing sectors is shown. The regional structure of the manufacturing industry was analyzed. There is a high level of regional concentration of the manufacturing industry in Russia. At the same time, the authors show its relatively weak significance in the structure of the gross regional product in the majority of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. It has been proposed to develop a program at the federal level for the advanced development of production in the high-tech and medium-technology high-level sectors for 10–15 years. It is proposed to create a supradepartmental executive authority to manage this program.

Обрабатывающие производства России: санкции, импортозамещение

В статье анализируется современное состояние обрабатывающих производств России в условиях санкций, вызвавших проблему импортозамещения. Рассмотрены показатели состояния и развития обрабатывающих отраслей, характеризующих масштабы и качество производства, а также факторы производства (труд и капитал) и внешнеторговой деятельности – результаты импортозамещения как политики повышения конкурентоспособности российской продукции с целью продвижения ее на мировой рынок. Делается вывод о том, что, хотя государство официально взяло курс на создание цифровой экономики и на прорыв в экспорте наукоёмкой и высокотехнологичной продукции, в реальности технико-технологическое развитие страны в условиях импортозамещения не ускорилось. Анализ можно расценивать как некий мониторинг экономических преобразований в России, вызванных санкциями и импортозамещением.

Study of the problems of technological integration in the manufacturing industry in Russia

The strategy of scientific and technological development of the Russian Federation defines the priority areas that are believed to become a foundation for innovative development of the domestic market of products/services and will contribute to the transition to environmentally friendly and resource-saving energy, increase the efficiency of production and deep processing of hydrocarbons. In the context of global competition, emphasis is placed on the creation of institutional, financial and legislative mechanisms to ensure the harmonization of scientific, technological, innovation, industrial, economic and social policies. The need to promote technological resources of industrial manufacturing enterprises determined the relevance of research of the technological integration process, as these enterprises are the key to the economic growth of the country and are in a dire need of a technological breakthrough. The aim of the article is to study the problems of formation and development of technological integration of manufacturing enterprises in the Russian Federation in the context of priority scientific and technological development of the Russian economy. The article uses a wide range of general scientific methods: description, generalization and abstraction, construction of concepts, argumentation, and comparison. The main methodological approaches used in the article are: system and process approaches that find their refraction in the scientific and practical material of the general theory of systems, organization theory, as well as technical and technological approach. A fundamental change in the situation in the manufacturing industries entails the need to diversify the refining sector, which consists in upgrading the production capacity of high-quality semi-finished products for the petrochemical industry. World experience shows that the synergetic effect of the integration of oil refining and petrochemicals provides savings of up to hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and the main part of successful integration projects, located in the Persian Gulf countries, implements a strategy for the production of high-quality raw materials and petrochemical products. When solving the problems of transition to deep resource-saving technologies in the manufacturing industry, it becomes obvious that it is necessary to develop and implement special management technologies that will form the basis of the strategy of the technological revolution of the domestic industrial complex. According to the laws of technologization, this occurs within the framework of the formation of the sixth technological structure in the world economic system, characterized by the development of intelligent technologies such as smart plant, as well as the living design of business processes. In this regard, technological integration, as a direction of system technologization, should be a scientifically based concept, which includes a set of mechanisms, tools and methods for practical implementation in the industrial enterprises of the Russian economy.

On the level of the tax burden in the Russian economy and the possibilities to reduce it without reducing tax revenues

In article on the basis of specific calculations the author shows the level of tax burden of the economy and some manufacturing industries in Russia in comparison with foreign countries. On average, this level is about 1.4–1.8 times higher in Russia compared to most developed countries. In order to reduce the tax burden on the business proposes to modernize tax policy in Russia on two fronts. The first direction involves redistribution of gravity of taxation from legal enties to physical with the introduction of their progressive income tax. The second direction to reduce the tax burden, the author relates an urgent need to modernize the depreciation policy in Russia, which should allow to accelerate the pace of economic growth. This direction in the process of reproduction, the author considers as a manifestation of the «new economy», the characteristic feature of which is the active use of «soft power» aimed at forcing the business to better use its profits on investment.

Labor indicators and manufacturing companies ownership patterns in Russia and its regions: results of quantitative analysis

Research background: There has been an extensive process of foreign and joint ownership enterprises establishment in the Russian economy since 2006. Domestic manufacturing industry has been experiencing certain pressure on behalf of foreign direct investment bringing new technologies and higher labor requirements.
 Purpose of the article: The aim of this paper is to investigate differences in employment strategies and labor indicators in the case of enterprises in foreign and joint ownership (FJO) and domestic enterprises in Russian ownership (RO). We analyze the manufacturing industry in Russia and its regions under conditions of stable and crisis periods.
 Methods: The study enhances the analysis of Rosstat?s statistical data for 2005?2016 and applies ANOVA method to compare the employment results for companies with different ownership patterns. The research is carried out both at the national level of the Russian Federation and at the regional level according to the regions.
 Findings & Value added: The study identifies significant decline in employment and in-crease in productivity for the period of 2005?2016. In contrast to the crisis of 2008?2009, in 2014?2016 there has been no sharp drop in employment. However, there is a substantial decline in real salaries which is comparable to the crisis of 2008-2009. According to ANOVA, statistically significant differences in labor indicators between FJO and RO companies are manifested. RO companies dominate in employment and payroll funds, while FJO enter-prises have better productivity results with a higher average salary. FJO companies demonstrated faster growth in employment and payroll fund in relatively stable conditions (2012?2013). However, they reacted with a significant reduction in employment for a new crisis (2014?2016), although the creation of new FJO enterprises continued in separate regions of Russia. The results can be used in social policy to regulate the employment and earnings of industrial workers in the current economic conditions.

Labor indicators and manufacturing companies ownership patterns in Russia and its regions: results of quantitative analysis

Research background: There has been an extensive process of foreign and joint ownership enterprises establishment in the Russian economy since 2006. Domestic manufacturing industry has been experiencing certain pressure on behalf of foreign direct investment bringing new technologies and higher labor requirements.
 Purpose of the article: The aim of this paper is to investigate differences in employment strategies and labor indicators in the case of enterprises in foreign and joint ownership (FJO) and domestic enterprises in Russian ownership (RO). We analyze the manufacturing industry in Russia and its regions under conditions of stable and crisis periods.
 Methods: The study enhances the analysis of Rosstat’s statistical data for 2005–2016 and applies ANOVA method to compare the employment results for companies with different ownership patterns. The research is carried out both at the national level of the Russian Federation and at the regional level according to the regions.
 Findings & Value added: The study identifies significant decline in employment and in-crease in productivity for the period of 2005–2016. In contrast to the crisis of 2008–2009, in 2014–2016 there has been no sharp drop in employment. However, there is a substantial decline in real salaries which is comparable to the crisis of 2008-2009. According to ANOVA, statistically significant differences in labor indicators between FJO and RO companies are manifested. RO companies dominate in employment and payroll funds, while FJO enter-prises have better productivity results with a higher average salary. FJO companies demonstrated faster growth in employment and payroll fund in relatively stable conditions (2012–2013). However, they reacted with a significant reduction in employment for a new crisis (2014–2016), although the creation of new FJO enterprises continued in separate regions of Russia. The results can be used in social policy to regulate the employment and earnings of industrial workers in the current economic conditions.

Spatial concentration of the manufacturing industry: Evidence from Russia

Spatial concentration of the manufacturing industry in Russia during the period of 2005-2015 was analyzed in the article. The analysis includes 83 Russian subjects, which are united in 8 federal districts. The Herfindahl-Hirschman index, the Theil index and the coefficient of variation by the production volume, the number of employees and the fixed assets volume were used to estimate the scale and tendencies of the spatial concentration of the manufacturing industry. The analysis has revealed an increase in the spatial concentration of the manufacturing industry in Russia as a whole against the backdrop of multidirectional concentration-dispersion processes in the regions and districts. Production redistribution has been revealed: the east of the country is dominated by the deconcentration of production and the western part is dominated by the concentration of production. The strong localization of certain sectors of the manufacturing industry (chemical and electronic industry, and transport vehicles production) under the infl uence of agglomeration forces has been established.

Explaining the Productivity Advantages of Manufacturing Firms in Russian Urban Agglomerations

This paper empirically analyzes the agglomeration-related productivity premium at the enterprise level of the manufacturing industry in Russia. A settlement is counted as part of an urban agglomeration in two cases: that of a large, central city and that of a town located within 50 kilometers of the central city. Data obtained from a 2009 manufacturing enterprise survey are used, along with linked data on hosting regions and cities. We employ a multilevel model, which allows us to consider firm, urban and regional heterogeneity and test two possible explanations of the productivity advantages of firms in urban agglomerations – own-sector and all economic activity concentration in the city and the surrounding region. The results suggest that Russian plants in urban agglomerations enjoy 17-21% higher labor productivity. This gain arises as a result of urbanization and external scale economy – the agglomeration of firms belonging to different industries at both the urban and the regional levels of analysis. We also found that productivity gained from urban agglomeration is the highest in towns with populations of 100,000 to 250,000 people. Localization and clustering – the own-sector concentration of plants in the city – is not associated with higher labor productivity. The structure and size of the surrounding economy always matter: in contrast to urban clusters, regional own-industry clustering satisfactorily explains the productivity premium, suggesting that efficient clustering requires a scale economy larger than only a city. The region’s trade openness almost doubles the productivity premium of a firm in an urban agglomeration. All of our results are robust to changes in estimation technique, sample structure and choice of spatial objects.

Russian pump manufacturing and markets today

In this issue's special focus, World Pumps takes a look at the pump manufacturing industry in Russia. Although the sector has experienced some changes of fortune in recent years, it is now reported to be growing steadily at 8–9% per year. Vladimir Karakhanyan , President of the Russian Pump Manufacturers Association (RPMA), and member of Europump's executive council, provides an overview of Russia's pump manufacturing capabilities and market trends since 1991. This is followed by introductions to several typical Russian pump manufacturers: a young company that is one of the most successful on the Russian market, especially in the area of international integration; one of the biggest traditional leaders; and a small, young company that produces unique and knowledge-intensive products. Finally, we examine achievements in the development of new types of pump for power engineering.