Digital economy of the Russian Federation: A conceptual analysis of the national program

Abstract

The Government “Digital Economy of the Russian Federation” Program describes future economic development of Russia, its regions and industries. However, this Program has not been scrutinized for the modern economic theories and inner conceptual inconsistencies. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to identify the Program’s conceptual uncertainties which could give rise to the alternative scenarios of the economic development of Russia and to inconsistent managerial decisions resulted in the dramatic differences in unfolding the digital economy in different regions and industries. It has been found that the Program contains three definitions for the digital economy – declared (with the focus on the digital data), latent (with the focus on the digital platforms), and promising (with the focus on the artificial intelligence) ones. The Program’s content was compared with the modern economic theories, which revealed five levels of strategic uncertainty: 1) cluster or platform economy; 2) dispersed or agglomeration economy; 3) linear or circular economy; 4) homogeneous or heterogeneous economic landscape; 5) smart cities, smart agglomerations or smart regions. The reviewed Program lacks a clearly defined priority in the development of the cluster or post-cluster (platform) economy in Russia, which creates the theoretical (conceptual) and practical (connected with the development of the social and economic strategy) uncertainties for the industries and regions. With a stronger focus on the latent definition of the Program, there is a risk of extreme monopolization of the digital markets in Russia by the platform leading companies which are mainly located in Moscow and established with the public support under this Program implementation. The article offers to expand the concept of platform economy with a new type of digital ecosystem – a territorial digital platform to construct regional digital platforms and to develop business-ecosystems around them. It has been found that the digital economy in Russia is developed together with the implementation of the previously adopted spatial development strategy aimed to diminish the inter-regional differences, therefore, the dispersed digital economy should be seen as a promising approach. At the same time, there is a risk to activate the process of extreme territorial concentration of digital economic activities as the reviewed Program contains no measures aimed to disperse the agents of digital economy with any financial and other public mechanisms. One more strategic uncertainty induced by the fact that the Program lacks any priorities in preserving or expanding value chain is connected with linear or circular economy dichotomy. This uncertainty misinforms the domestic economic agents and could lead to the technological retardation of Russia from the leading countries in the circular digital economy. The advent of the artificial intelligence gives rise to the debate about the alternative routes of development with the homogeneous (human only) types of agents or heterogeneous (humans, intelligent machines and human-machine systems) economic landscape. It has been shown that the Program does not regulate the interaction of the different economic agents and the development of the economic landscapes, which could result in the unwanted transformation of the Russian economic space. In connection with the smart territorial units, the conclusion is that the Program does not contain any instructions concerning a preferable theory for the territorial organization of digital economy (smart city, smart region, smart agglomeration). This could lead to the situation when different regions observe different theories, with their implementation violating the equilibrium in the digital economic space of Russia. Interception of all alternative theories gives 48 possible development scenarios for digital economy in Russia. It has been established that Russia is likely to follow the platform agglomeration linear digital economy in homogeneous landscapes and smart cities. It is noted that the development of platform dispersed circular digital economy in heterogeneous landscapes and smart regions is seen to be the most favorable scenario in terms of modern studies and digital economy practices in other countries. The practical value of the study is determined by the adjustment of the existing Program or a development of a new document. Further studies are seen to be performed in the field of finding new uncertainty levels, one of them being “4G-, 5G- or 6G-determined digital economy”.

Keywords

national program, digital economy, strategic uncertainty, artificial intelligence, platform economy, agglomeration economy, circular economy, economic landscape, smart city, smart region, digital agglomeration

For citation

Blanutza B.I. Digital economy of the Russian Federation: A conceptual analysis of the national program. Perm University Herald. Economy, 2020, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 463–493. DOI 10.17072/1994-9960-2020-4-463-493

Acknowledgements

The research was funded under the government assignment (theme registration number АААА-А17-117041910166-3).

References

1. Polozhikhina M.A. Natsional'nye modeli tsifrovoi ekonomiki [The national models of the digital economy]. Ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye problemy Rossii [Economic and Social Problems of Russia], 2018, no. 1, pp. 111–154. (In Russian).
2. Yakutin Yu.V. Rossiiskaya ekonomika: strategiya tsifrovoi transfor-matsii (k konstruktivnoi kritike pravitel'stvennoi programmy «Tsifrovaya ekonomika Rossiiskoi Federatsii») [The Russian economy: A strategy for digital transformation (constructive criticism of the government programme “Digital economy of the Russian Federation”). Menedzhment i biznes-administrirovanie [Management and Business Administration], 2017, no. 4, pp. 27–52. (In Russian).
3. Makogonova N.V. Riski realizatsii gosudarstvennoi programmy «Tsifrovaya ekonomika Rossiiskoi Federatsii» [Risk of implementation of the government program “Digital economy of the Russian Federation]. Upravlencheskie nauki v sovremennom mire [Managerial Sciences in the Modern World], 2018, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 569–576. (In Russian).
4. Lenchuk E.B., Vlaskin G.A. Formirovanie tsifrovoi ekonomiki v Rossii: Problemy, riski, perspektivy [Formation of the digital economy in Russia: Problems, risks, prospects]. Vestnik Instituta ekonomiki RAN [Bulletin of the IE RAS], 2018, no. 5, pp. 9–21. (In Russian).
5. Dukhovnykh D.A., Agafonova M.S. Problemy i riski formirovaniya i razvitiya tsifrovoi ekonomiki v Rossii [Problems and risks of the formation and development of the digital economy in Russia]. European Journal of Natural History, 2020, no. 1, pp. 110–114. (In Russian).
6. Dean T.J., Meyer G.D. Industry environments and new venture formations in US manufacturing: A conceptual and empirical analysis of demand determinants. Journal of Business Venturing, 1996, vol. 11 (2), pp. 107–132. doi: 10.1016/0883-9026(95)00109-3.
7. Musole M. Property rights, transaction costs and institutional change: Conceptual framework and literature review. Progress in Planning, 2009, vol. 71 (2), pp. 43–85. doi: 10.1016/j.progress.2008.09.002.
8. Barra G.M.J., Ladeira M.B. Theories institutional applied to agro industrial systems studies in the context of coffee agribusiness: A conceptual analysis. REGE – Revista de Gestao, 2016, vol. 23 (2), pp. 159–171. doi: 10.1016/j.rege.2015.12.005.
9. Yeboah-Assiamah E., Muller K., Domfeh K.A. Institutional assessment in natural resource governance: A conceptual overview. Forest Policy and Economic, 2017, vol. 74, pp. 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.006.
10. Adanu K. Institutional change and economic development: A conceptual analysis of the African case. International Journal of Social Economics, 2017, vol. 44 (4), pp. 547–559. doi: 10.1108/IJSE-02-2014-0022.
11. Granstrand O., Holgersson M. Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 2020, vol. 90-91, pp. 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098.
12. Di Tommaso M.R., Tassinari M., Bonnini S., Marozzi M. Industrial policy and manufacturing targeting in the US: New methodological tools for strategic policy-making. International Review of Applied Economics, 2017, vol. 31 (5), pp. 681–703. doi: 10.1080/02692171.2017.1303036.
13. Mirza S.S., Ahsan T. Corporates’ strategic responses to economic policy uncertainty in China. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2019, vol. 29 (2), pp. 375–389. doi: 10.1002/bse.2370.
14. Tapscott D. The Digital economy: Promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1994. 368 p.
15. D'yachenko O.V. Definitsiya kategorii «tsifrovaya ekonomika» v zaru-bezhnoi i otechestvennoi ekonomicheskoi nauke [Categorical definition of digital economy in foreign and Russian economic theory]. Ekonomicheskoe vozrozhdenie Rossii [Economic Revival of Russia], 2019, no. 1, pp. 86–98. (In Russian).
16. Brynjolfsson E. The productivity paradox of information technology. Communication of the ACM, 1993, vol. 36 (12), pp. 66–77. doi: 10.1145/163298.163309.
17. Chen S., Xie Z. Is China’s e-governance sustainable? Testing Solow IT productivity paradox in China’s context. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2015, vol. 96, pp. 51–61. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.10.014.
18. Polak P. The productivity paradox: A meta-analysis. Information Economics and Policy, 2017, vol. 38, pp. 38–54. doi: 10.1016/j.infoecopol.2016.11.003.
19. Kaurova O.V., Maloletko A.N., Matraeva L.V., Korol'kova N.A. Opredelenie sostava pokazatelei otsenki urovnya razvitiya tsifrovoi ekonomiki v regione (regional'noi tsifrovoi sredy) [Identifying the indicators of digital economy development for a region (regional digital environment). Fundamental'nye i prikladnye issledovaniya kooperativnogo sek-tora ekonomiki [Fundamental and Applied Research Studies of the Economic Cooperative Sector], 2020, no. 1, pp. 138–149. (In Russian).
20. Stepanova V.V., Ukhanova A.V., Grigorishchin A.V., Yakhyaev D.B. Otsenka tsifrovykh ekosistem regionov Rossii [Evaluating digital ecosystems in Russia’s regions. Ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz [Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecasts], 2019, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 73–90. doi: 10.15838/esc.2019.2.62.4.
21. Schwab K. The fourth industrial revolution. New York, Crown Business, 2017. 192 p.
22. Liao Y., Deschamps S., Loures E.F.R., Ramos L.F.R. Past, present and future of Industry 4.0 – A systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. International Journal of Production Research, 2017, vol. 55 (1), pp. 3609–3629. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576.
23. Dalenogare L.S., Benitez G.B., Ayala N.F., Frank A.G. The expected contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 2018, vol. 204, pp. 383–394. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.019.
24. Muhuri P.K., Shukla A.K., Abraham A. Industry 4.0: A bibliometric analysis and detailed overview. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2019, vol. 78, pp. 218–235. doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2018.11.007.
25. Castelo-Branco I., Cruz-Jesus F., Oliveira T. Assessing Industry 4.0 readiness in manufacturing: Evidence for the European Union. Computers in Industry, 2019, vol. 107, pp. 22–32. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2019.01.007.
26. Kuo C.-C., Shyu J.Z., Ding K. Industrial revitalization via industry 4.0 – A comparative policy analysis among China, Germany and the USA. Global Transition, 2019, vol. 1, pp. 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.glt.2018.12.001.
27. Tien J.M. The next industrial revolution: Integrated service and good. Journal of System Science and System Engineering, 2012, vol. 21, pp. 257–296. doi: 10.1007/s11518-012-5194-1.
28. Dirican C. The impacts of robotics, artificial intelligence on business and economics. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, vol. 195, pp. 564–573. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.134.
29. Wagner D.N. Economics patterns in a world with artificial intelligence. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 2020, vol. 17 (1), pp. 111–131. doi: 10.1007/s4084-019-00157-x.
30. Soni N., Sharma E.K., Singh N., Kapoor A. Artificial intelligence in business: From research and innovation to market deployment. Procedia Computer Science, 2020, vol. 167, pp. 2200–2210. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.272.
31. Johansson B., Karlsson C., Stough R. (Eds.). Emerging digital economy: Entrepreneurship, clusters, and policy. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2006. 352 p. doi: 10.1007/3-540-34488-8.
32. Halbert L. Collaborative and collective: Reflexive co-ordination and the dynamics of open innovation in the digital industry clusters of the Paris Region. Urban Studies, 2012, vol. 49 (11), pp. 2357–2376. doi: 10.1177/0042098011427186.
33. Gotz M., Jankowska B. Clusters and Industry 4.0 – Do they fit together? European Planning Studies, 2017, vol. 25 (9), pp. 1633–1653. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1327037.
34. Nathan M., Vandore E., Voss G. Spatial imaginaries and tech cities: Place-branding East London’s digital economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 2019, vol. 19 (2), pp. 409–432. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lby018.
35. Parker G.G., van Alstyne M.W., Choudary S.P. Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 2016. 352 p.
36. Spulber D.F. The economics of markets and platforms. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 2019, vol. 28 (1), pp. 159–172. doi: 10.1111/jems.12290.
37. Cusumano M.A., Gawer A., Yoffie D.B. The Business of platforms: Strategy in the age of digital competition, innovation, and power. New York, HarperCollins, 2019. 304 p.
38. Baronian L. Digital platforms and the nature of the firm. Journal of Economic Issues, 2020, vol. 54 (1), pp. 214–232. doi: 10.1080/00213624.2020.1720588.
39. Nuccio M., Guerzoni M. Big data: Hell or heaven? Digital platforms and market power in the data-driven economy. Competition and Change, 2019, vol. 23 (3), pp. 312–328. doi: 10.1177/1024529418816525.
40. Condorelli D., Padilla J. Harnessing platform envelopment in the digital world. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2020, vol. 16(2), pp. 143–187. doi: 10.1093/joclec/nhaa006.
41. Eferin Y., Hohlov Y., Rossotto C. Digital platforms in Russia: Competition between national and foreign multi-sided platforms stimulates growth and innovation. Digital Policy Regulation and Governance, 2019, vol. 21 (2), pp. 129–145. doi: 10.1108/DPRG-11-2018-0065.
42. Lima V. Towards an understanding of the regional impact of Airbnb in Ireland. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2019, vol. 6 (1), pp. 78–91. doi: 10.1080/21681376.2018.1562366.
43. Boutsioukis G., Fasianos A., Petrohilos-Andrianos Y. The spatial distribution of short-term rental listings in Greece: A regional graphic. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2019, vol. 6 (1), pp. 455–459. doi: 10.1080/21681376.2019.1660210.
44. Porter M.E. Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 2000, vol. 14 (1), pp. 15–34. doi: 10.1177/089124240001400105.
45. Delgado M., Porter M.E., Stern S. Defining clusters of related industries. Journal of Economic Geography, 2016, vol. 16 (1), pp. 1–38. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbv017.
46. Slaper T.F., Harmon K.M., Rubin B.M. Industry clusters and regional economic performance: A study across US metropolitan statistical areas. Economic Development Quarterly, 2018, vol. 32 (1), pp. 44–59. doi: 10.1177/0891242417752248.
47. Poell T., Nieborg D., Dijck J. van. Platformisatio. Internet Policy Review, 2019, vol. 8 (4), pp. 1–13. doi: 10.14763/2019.4.1425.
48. Valdez-De-Leon O. How to develop a digital ecosystem: A practical framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2019, vol. 9 (8), pp. 43–54. doi: 10.22215/timreview/1260.
49. Hein A., Schreieck M., Riasanow T., Setzke D.S., Wiesche M., Bohm M., Krcmar H. Digital platform ecosystems. Electronic Markets, 2020, vol. 30 (1), pp. 87–98. doi: 10.1007/s12525-019-00377-4.
50. Alaimo C., Kallinikos J., Valderrama E. Platforms as service ecosystem: Lessons from social media. Journal of Information Technology, 2020, vol. 35 (1), pp. 25–48. doi: 10.1177/0268396219881462.
51. Moore J.F. The Death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. New York, HarperCollins, 1996. 288 p.
52. Song A.K. The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem – A critique and reconfiguration. Small Business Economics, 2019, vol. 53 (3), pp. 569–590. doi: 10.1007/s11187-019-00232-y.
53. Selander L., Henfridsson O., Svahn F. Capability search and redeem across digital ecosystems. Journal of Information Technology, 2013, vol. 28 (3), pp. 183–197. doi: 10.1057/jit.2013.14.
54. Blanutsa V.I. Ekonomicheskaya svyaznost' rossiiskikh regionov v pro-stranstve Internet [Economic connectivity of Russian regions in the Internet space]. Kreativnaya ekonomika [Creative Economy], 2018, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 701–716. (In Russian). doi: 10.18334/ce.12.5.39144.
55. Blanutsa V.I. Tsifrovaya ekonomika Sibiri: territorial'nye platformy dlya klasterov [Digital economy of Siberia: Territorial platforms for clusters]. Aktual'nye problemy ekonomiki i prava [Actual problems of economics and law], 2019, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1343–1355. (In Russian). doi: 10.21202/1993-047X.13.2019.3.1343-1355.
56. Perroux F. Economic space: Theory and application. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1950, vol. 64 (1), pp. 89–104.
57. Darwent D.F. Growth poles and growth centers in regional planning – A review. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 1969, vol. 1 (1), pp. 5–32. doi: 10.1068/a010005.
58. Parr J.B. Growth-pole strategies in regional economic planning: A retrospective view. Part 1. Origins and advocacy. Urban Studies, 1999, vol. 36 (7), pp. 1195–1215. doi: 10.1080/0042098993187.
59. Friedman J. Regional development policy: A Case study of Venezuela. Boston, MIT Press, 1966. 279 p.
60. Krugman P. Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 1991, vol. 99 (3), pp. 483–499. doi: 10.1086/261763.
61. Krugman P. What’s new about the new economic geography? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 1998, vol. 14 (2), pp. 7–17.
62. Fujita M., Krugman P. The new economic geography: Past, present and the future. Papers in regional science, 2003, vol. 83 (1), pp. 139–164. doi: 10.1007/s10110-003-0180-0.
63. Proost S., Thisse J.-F. What can be learned from spatial economics? Journal of Economic Literature, 2019, vol. 57 (3), pp. 575–643. doi: 10.1257/jel.20181414.
64. Di Comite F., Kancs d’A., Lecca P. Modeling agglomeration and dispersion in space: The role of labor migration, capital mobility and vertical linkages. Review of International Economics, 2017, vol. 26 (3), pp. 555–577. doi: 10.1111/roie.12313.
65. Akamatsu T., Mori T., Osawa M., Takayama Y. Spatial scale of agglomeration and dispersion: Theoretical foundation and empirical implications. RIETI Discussion Paper Series 17-E-125. Tokyo, The Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2017. 92 p.
66. Fujita M., Thisse J.-F. Economics of agglomeration: Cities, industrial location, and regional growth. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 2002. 466 p.
67. Viladecans-Marsal E. Agglomeration economies and industrial location: City-level evidence. Journal of Economic Geography, 2004, vol. 4 (5), pp. 565–582. doi: 10.1093/jnlecg/lbh040.
68. Brulhart M., Sbergami F. Agglomeration and growth: Cross-country evidence. Journal of Urban Economics, 2009, vol. 65 (1), pp. 48–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2008.08.003.
69. Puga D. The magnitude and causes of agglomeration economies. Journal of Regional Science, 2010, vol. 50 (1), pp. 203–219. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2009.00657.x.
70. Combes P.-P., Duranton G., Gobillon L. The identification of agglomeration economies. Journal of Economic Geography, 2011, vol. 11 (2), pp. 253–266. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbq038.
71. Beandry C., Schiffauerova A. Who’s right, Marshall or Jacobs? The localization versus urbanization debate. Research Policy, 2009, vol. 38 (2), pp. 318–337. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.010.
72. Picard P.M., Tabuchi T. Self-organized agglomerations and transport costs. Economic Theory, 2010, vol. 42 (3), pp. 565–589. doi: 10.1007/s00199-008-0410-4.
73. Gaspar J.M., Castro S.B.S.D., Correia-da-Silva J. Agglomeration patterns in a multi-regional economy without income effects. Economic Theory, 2018, vol. 66 (4), pp. 863–899. doi: 10.1007/s00199-017-1065-9.
74. Mel'nikova L.V. Teoreticheskie argumenty i empiricheskoe znanie v strategicheskom planirovanii [Theoretical arguments and empirical evidence in strategic planning]. Region: ekonomika i sotsiologiya [Region: Economics and Sociology], 2018, no. 2, pp. 52–80. (In Russian). doi: 10.15372/REG20180203.
75. Barbero J., Zofio J.L. The multiregional core-periphery model: The role of the spatial topology. Networks and Spatial Economics, 2016, vol. 16 (2), pp. 469–496. doi: 10.1007/s11067-015-9285-7.
76. Davelaar E.J., Nijkamp P. Spatial dispersion of technological innovation. A review. In: Innovation behaviour in space and time. Bertuglia C.S., Lombardo S., Nijkamp P. (Eds.). Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 17–40.
77. Myint S. An exploration of spatial dispersion, pattern, and association of socio-economic functional units in an urban system. Applied Geography, 2008, vol. 28 (3), pp. 168–188. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.02.005.
78. MacFeely S. Opportunism over strategy: A history of regional policy and spatial planning in Ireland. International Planning Studies, 2016, vol. 21 (4), pp. 377–402. doi: 10.1080/13563475.2016.1162403.
79. Marot N., Golobic M. Delivering a national spatial development strategy: A success story? European Planning Studies, 2018, vol. 26 (6), pp. 1202–1221. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2018.1459502.
80. Nosek S. Territorial cohesion storylines in 2014–2020 Cohesion Policy. European Planning Studies, 2017, vol. 25 (12), pp. 2157–2174. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1349079.
81. Rivera P.P., Vazquez F.J.C. Rethinking the territorial cohesion in the EU: Institutional and functional elements of the concept. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 2019, vol. 10 (2), pp. 41–62.
82. Barro R.J. Economic growth in a cross section of countries. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1991, vol. 106 (2), pp. 407–443. doi: 10.2307/2937943.
83. Barro R.J., Sala-i-Martin X. Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 1992, vol. 100 (2), pp. 223–251. doi: 10.1086/261816.
84. Sala-i-Martin X. Regional cohesion: Evidence and theories of regional growth and convergence. European Economic Review, 1996, vol. 40 (6), pp. 1325–1352. doi: 10.1016/0014-2921(95)00029-1.
85. Bartkowska M., Riedl A. Regional convergence clubs in Europe: Identification and conditioning factors. Economic Modelling, 2012, vol. 29 (1), pp. 22–31. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2011.01.013.
86. Von Lyncker K., Thoennessen R. Regional club convergence in the EU: Evidence from a panel data analysis. Empirical Economics, 2017, vol. 52 (2), pp. 525–553. doi: 10.1007/s00181-016-1096-2.
87. Marelli E.P., Parisi M.L., Signorelli M. Economic convergence in the EU and Eurozone. Journal of Economic Studies, 2019, vol. 46 (7), pp. 1332–1344. doi: 10.1108/jes-03-2019-0139.
88. Blanutsa V.I. Perspektivnye ekonomicheskie spetsializatsii dlya rossiiskikh regionov v Strategii prostranstvennogo razvitiya: kluby konvergentsii [Perspective economic specializations for the Russian regions in the strategy of spatial development: Convergence clubs]. Ekonomika. Informatika [Economics. Information Technologies], 2020, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 233–243. (In Russian). doi: 10.18413/2687-0932-2020-47-2-233-243.
89. Cainelli G., Ganau R. Distance-based agglomeration externalities and neighboring firms’ characteristics. Regional Studies, 2018, Vol. 52 (7), pp. 922–933. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2017.1360482.
90. Kinossian N. Planning strategies and practices in non-core regions: A critical response. European Planning Studies, 2018, vol. 26 (2), pp. 365–375. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1361606.
91. Humer A. Linking polycentricity concepts to periphery: Implications for an integrative Austrian strategic spatial planning practice. European Planning Studies, 2018, vol. 26 (4), pp. 635–652. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1403570.
92. Geissinger A., Laurell C., Sandstrom C., Eriksson K., Nykvist R. Digital entrepreneurship and field condition for institutional change – Investigation the enabling role of cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2019, vol. 146, pp. 877–886. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.019.
93. Lu Y., Cao K. Spatial analysis of big data industrial agglomeration and development in China. Sustainability, 2019, vol. 11 (6), pp. 1–22. doi: 10.3390/SU11061783.
94. De Groot H.L.F., Poot J., Smit M.J. Which agglomeration externalities matter most and why? Journal of Economic Surveys, 2016, vol. 30 (4), pp. 756–782. doi: 10.1111/joes.12112.
95. Freret S., Maguain D. The effects of agglomeration on the tax competition: Evidence from a two-regime spatial panel model on French data. International Tax and Public Finance, 2017, vol. 24 (6), pp. 1100–1140. doi: 10.1007/s10797-016-9429-9.
96. Wang B., Sun Y., Wang Z. Agglomeration effect of CO2 emissions and emissions reduction effect of technology: A spatial econometric perspective based on China’s province-level data. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, vol. 204, pp. 96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.243.
97. Otsuka A. Dynamics of agglomeration, accessibility, and total factor productivity: Evidence from Japanese region. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2018, vol. 27 (7), pp. 611–627. doi: 10.1080/10438599.2017.1384110.
98. Liang J., Goetz S.J. Technology intensity and agglomeration economies. Research Policy, 2018, vol. 47 (10), pp. 1990–1995. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.006.
99. Widya A.H.B., Hartono D., Indraswari K.D., Setyonugroho L.D. Population concentration and productivity in the metropolitan area: Evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Economics and Management, 2019, vol. 13 (2), pp. 453–466.
100. Tao J., Ho C.-Y., Luo S., Sheng Y. Agglomeration economies in creative industries. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 2019, vol. 77, pp. 141–154. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2019.04.002.
101. Gokan T., Kuroiwa I., Nakajima K. Agglomeration economies in Vietnam: A firm-level analysis. Journal of Asian Economics, 2019, vol. 62, pp. 52–64. doi: 10.1016/j.asieco.2019.03.002.
102. Bergeaud A., Cette G., Lecat R. Long-term growth and productivity trends: Secular stagnation or temporary slowdown? Revue de I’OFCE, 2018, vol. 157 (3), pp. 37–54. doi: 10.3917/reof.157.0037.
103. Polyan P.M. Metodika vydeleniya i analiza opornogo karkasa rasseleniya [Identification and analysis methodology for the basic resettlement framework]. Мosocw, Izd-vo In-ta geografii AN SSSR Publ., 1988. 283 p. (In Russian).
104. Blanutsa V.I. Territorial'naya struktura tsifrovoi ekonomiki Rossii: predvaritel'naya delimitatsiya «umnykh» gorodskikh aglomeratsii i regionov [Territorial structure of digital economy of Russia: Preliminary delimitation of ‘smart’ urban agglomerations and regions]. Prostranstvennaya ekonomika [Spatial Economy], 2018, no. 2, pp. 17–35. (In Russian). doi: 10.14530/se.2018.2.017-035.
105. Suarez-Eiroa B., Fernandez E., Mendez-Martinez G., Soto-Onate D. Operational principles of circular economy for sustainable development: Linking theory and practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, vol. 214, pp. 952–961. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.271.
106. Sassanelli C., Rosa P., Rocca R., Terzi S. Circular economy performance assessment methods: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, vol. 229, pp. 440–453. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.019.
107. Winans K., Kendall A., Deng H. The history and current applications of the circular economy concept. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017, vol. 68, pp. 825–833. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.123.
108. McDowall W., Geng Y., Huang B., Bartekova E., Bleischwitz R., Turkeli S., Kemp R., Domenech T. Circular economy policies in China and Europe. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2017, vol. 21 (3), pp. 651–661. doi: Kirchherr J., Reike D., Hekkert M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2017, vol. 127, pp. 221–232. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005.
109. Kirchherr J., Reike D., Hekkert M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2017, vol. 127, pp. 221–232. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005.
110. Skene K.R. Circles, spirals, pyramids and cubes: Why the circular economy cannot work. Sustainability Science, 2018, vol. 13, pp. 479–492. doi: 10.1007/s11625-017-0443-3.
111. Zotti J., Bigano A. Write circular economy, read economy’s circularity. How to avoid going in circles. Economia Politica, 2019, vol. 36, pp. 629–652. doi: 10.1007/s40888-019-00145-9.
112. Lieder M., Rashid A. Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, vol. 115, pp. 36–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042.
113. Kalmykova Y., Sadagopan M., Rosado L. Circular economy – From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2018, vol. 135, pp. 190–201. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.034.
114. Merli R., Preziosi M., Acampora A. How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, vol. 178, pp. 703–722. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112.
115. Bressanelli G., Saccani N., Pigosso D.C.A., Perona M. Circular economy in the WEEE industry: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2020, vol. 23, pp. 174–188. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2020.05.007.
116. Wu H.Q., Shi Y., Xia Q., Zhu W.D. Effectiveness of the policy of circular economy in China: A DEA-based analysis for the period of 11th five-year-plan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2014, vol. 83, pp. 163–175. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.003.
117. Jawahir I.S., Bradley R. Technological elements of circular economy and the principles of 6R-based closed-loop material flow in sustainable manufacturing. Procedia CIRP, 2016, vol. 40, pp. 103–108. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.067.
118. Gbededo M.A., Liyanage K., Garza-Reyes J.A. Towards a life cycle sustainability analysis: A systematic review of approaches to sustainable manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, vol. 184, pp. 1002–1015. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.310.
119. Tukker A., Tischner U. Product-services as a research field: Past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006, vol. 14, pp. 1552–1556. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.022.
120. Sposato P., Preka R., Cappellaro F., Cutaia L. Sharing economy and circular economy. How technology and collaborative consumption innovations boost closing the loop strategies. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 2017, vol. 16 (8), pp. 1797–1806. doi: 10.30638/EEMJ.2017.196.
121. Sari R., Meyliana, Hidayanto A.N., Prabowo H. Sharing economy in people, process and technology perspective: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Management, 2019, vol. 10 (2), pp. 100–116. doi: 10.34218/IJM.10.2.2019.009.
122. Schlagwein D., Schoder D., Spindeldreher K. Consolidated, systemic conceptualization, and definition of the “sharing economy”. JASIST, 2020, vol. 71 (7), pp. 817–838. doi: 10.1002/asi.24300.
123. Pieroni M.P.P., McAloone T.C., Pigosso D.C.A. Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, vol. 215, pp. 198–216. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.036.
124. Centobelli P., Cerchione R., Chiaroni D., Del Vecchio P., Urbinati A. Designing business models in circular economy: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2020, vol. 29 (4), pp. 1734–1749. doi: 10.1002/bse.2466.
125. Turcu C., Gillie H. Governing the circular economy in the city: Local planning practice in London. Planning Practice and Research, 2020, vol. 35 (1), pp. 62–85. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2019.1703335.
126. Kębłowski W., Lambert D., Bassens D. Circular economy and the city: An urban political economy agenda. Culture and Organization, 2020, vol. 26 (2), pp. 142–158. doi: 10.1080/14759551.2020.1718148.
127. Aranda-Uson A., Moneva J.M., Portillo-Tarragona P., Llena-Macarulla F. Measurement of the circular economy in business: Impact and implications for regional policies. Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment, 2018, vol. 2018 (2), pp. 187–205. doi: 10.3280/EFE2018-002010.
128. Cramer J.M. The function of transition brokers in the regional governance of implementing circular economy – A comparative case study of six Dutch regions. Sustainability, 2020, vol. 12 (12), pp. 1–21. doi: 10.3390/SU12125015.
129. Jabbour A.B.L.S.,Jabbour C.J.C., Filho M.G., Roubaud D. Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A proposed research agenda and original roadmap for sustainable operations. Annals of Operations Research, 2018, vol. 270, pp. 273–286. doi: 10.1007/s10479-018-2772-8.
130. Acerbi F., Sassanelli C., Terzi S., Taisch M. Towards a data-based circular economy: Exploring opportunities from digital knowledge management. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 2020, vol. 122, pp. 331–339. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-41429-0_33.
131. Rosa P., Sassanelli C., Urbinati A., Chiaroni D., Terzi S. Assessing relations between Circular Economy and Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 2020, vol. 58 (6), pp. 1662–1687. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1680896.
132. Pagoropoulos A., Pigosso D.C.A., McAloone T.C. The emergent role of digital technologies in the circular economy: A review. Procedia CIRP, 2017, vol. 64, pp. 19–24. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2017.02.047.
133. Hatzivasilis G., Fysarakis K., Soultatos O., Askoxylakis I., Papaefstathiou I., Demetriou G. The industrial internet of things as an enabler for a circular economy Hy-LP: A novel IIoT protocol, evaluated on a wind park’s SDN/NFV-enabled 5G industrial network. Computer Communications, 2018, vol. 119, pp. 127–137. doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2018.02.007.
134. Unruh G. Circular economy, 3D printing, and the biosphere rules. California Management Review, 2018, vol. 60 (3), pp. 95–111. doi: 10.1177/0008125618759684.
135. Casado-Vara R., Prieto J., De La Prieta F., Corchado J.M. How blockchain improves the supply chain: Case study alimentary supply chain. Procedia Computer Science, 2018, vol. 134, pp. 393–398. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.193.
136. Berg H., Wilts H. Digital platforms as market places for the circular economy – requirements and challenges. Sustainability Management Forum, 2019, vol. 27, pp. 1–9. doi: 10.1007/s00550-018-0468-9.
137. Olugu E., Wong K.Y. An expert fuzzy rule-based system for closed-loop chain performance assessment in the automotive industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 2012, vol. 39, pp. 375–384. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.026.
138. Huysman S., De Schaepmeester J., Ragaert K., Dewulf J., De Meester S. Performance indicators for a circular economy: A case study on post-industrial plastic waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2017, vol. 120, pp. 46–54. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.013.
139. Xu J., Li X., Wu D.D. Optimizing circular economy planning and risk analysis using system dynamics. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2009, vol. 15 (2), pp. 316–331. doi: 10.1080/10807030902761361.
140. Ranta V., Aarikka-Stenroos L., Ritala P., Mäkinen S.J. Exploring institutional drivers and barriers of the circular economy: A cross-regional comparison of China, the US, and Europe. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2018, vol. 135, pp. 70–82. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.017.
141. Losch А. Geograficheskoe razmeshchenie khozyaistva. Per. s angl [Geographical location of a household. Transl. from Eng.]. Moscow, Izd-vo inostrannoi literatury Publ., 1959. 455 p. (In Russian).
142. Sonis M., Hewings G.J.D. Economic landscapes: Multiplier product matrix analysis for multiregional input-output system. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 1999, vol. 40 (1), pp. 59–74. doi: 10.15057/7722.
143. Plummer P. Modelling economic landscapes: A geographical perspective. Regional Studies, 2003, vol. 37 (6-7), pp. 687–695. doi: 10.1080/0034340032000108778.
144. Rafiqui P.S. Evolving economic landscapes: Why new institutional economics matters for economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 2009, vol. 9 (3), pp. 329–353. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbn050.
145. Hachem K. Shadow banking in China. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 2018, vol. 10, pp. 287–308. doi: 10.1146/annurev-financial-110217-023025.
146. Jean S. How the COVID-19 pandemic is reshaping the trade landscape and what to do about it. Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, 2020, vol. 55 (3), pp. 135–139. doi: 10.1007/s10272-020-0890-4.
147. Ghossoub E.A., Reed R.R. Banking competition, production externalities, and the effects of monetary policy. Economic Theory, 2019, vol. 67 (1), pp. 91–154. doi: 10.1007/s00199-017-1086-4.
148. Eichengreen B., Park D., Shin K. The landscape economic growth: Do middle-income countries differ? Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 2018, vol. 54 (4), pp. 836–858. doi: 10.1080/1540496X.2017.1419427.
149. Filculescu A. The heterogeneous landscape of innovation in female led-businesses – Cross-country comparisons. Management and Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 2016, vol. 11 (4), pp. 610–623. doi: 10.1515/mmcks-2016-0019.
150. Wentrup R., Ström P., Nakamura H.R. Digital oases and digital deserts in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 2016, vol. 7 (1), pp. 77–100. doi: 10.1108/JSTPM-03-2015-0013.
151. Batten D.F. Complex landscapes of spatial interaction. Annals of Regional Science, 2001, vol. 35, pp. 81–111. doi: 10.1007/s001680000032.
152. Fagiolo G., Marengo L., Valente M. Population learning in a model with random payoff landscapes and endogenous networks. Computational Economics, 2005, vol. 24, pp. 383–408. doi: 10.1007/s10614-005-6160-5.
153. Filatova T., Veen A. van der, Parker D.C. Land market interaction between heterogeneous agents in a heterogeneous landscape – Tracing the macro-scale effects of individual trade-offs between environmental amenities and disamenities. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2009, vol. 57 (4), pp. 431–457. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2009.01164.x.
154. Lipovska H., Coufalova L., Zidek L. Homo economicus in the shortage economy. DANUBE: Law, economics and social issues review, 2018, vol. 9 (4), pp. 207–226. doi: 10.2478/danb-2018-0013.
155. Simon H.A. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1955, vol. 69 (1), pp. 99–118. doi: 10.2307/1884852.
156. Dopfer K. The economic agent as rule maker and rule user: Homo Sapiens Oeconomicus. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2004, vol. 14 (2), pp. 177–195. doi: 10.1007/s00191-004-0189-9.
157. Miljkovic D. Rational choice and irrational individuals or simply an irrational theory: A critical review of the hypothesis of perfect rationality. Journal of Socio-Economics, 2005, vol. 34 (5), pp. 621–634.
158. Urbina D.A., Ruiz-Villaverde A. A critical review of Homo Economicus from five approaches. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2019, vol. 78 (1), pp. 63–93. doi: 10.1111/ajes.12258.
159. Parkes D.C., Wellmann M.P. Economic reasoning and artificial intelligence. Science, 2015, vol. 349 (6245), pp. 267–272. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa8403.
160. Batty M., Axhausen K., Giannotti F., Pozdnoukhov A., Bazzani A., Wachowicz M., Ouzounis G., Portugali Y. Smart cities of the future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 2012, vol. 214, pp. 481–518. doi: 10.1140/epjst/e2012-01703-3.
161. Albino V., Berardi U., Dangelico R.M. Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 2015, vol. 22 (1), pp. 3–21. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2014.942092.
162. Mora L., Bolici R., Deakin M. The first two decades of smart-city research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Urban Technology, 2017, vol. 24 (1), pp. 3–27. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2017.1285123.
163. Silva B.N., Khan M., Han K. Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2018, vol. 38, pp. 697–713. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.053.
164. Coletta C., Evans L., Heaphy L., Kitchin R. (eds.) Creating Smart Cities. London, Routledge, 2018. 254 p. doi: 10.4324/9781351182409.
165. Winkowska J., Szpilko D., Pejíć S. Smart city concept in the light of the literature review. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 2019, vol. 11 (2), pp. 70–86. doi: 10.2478/emj-2019-0012.
166. Caragliu A., Bo C. del, Nijkamp P. Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 2011, vol. 18 (2), pp. 65–82. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2011.601117.
167. Joss S., Sengers F., Schraven D., Caprotti F., Dayot Y. The smart city as global discourse: Storylines and critical junctures across 27 cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 2019, vol. 26 (1), pp. 3–34. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2018.1558387.
168. Kourtit K., Nijkamp P. Smart cities in smart space: A regional science perspective. Scienze Regionali. Italian Journal of Regional Science. 2018, vol. 17 (1), pp. 105–114. doi: 10.14650/88819.
169. Greco I., Cresta A. From smart cities to smart city-regions: Reflections and proposals. Proceeding of the International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA 2017), 2017, pp. 282–295. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-62398-6_20.
170. De Falco S., Angelidou M., Addie J.-P.D. From the “smart city” to the “smart metropolis”? Building resilience in the urban periphery. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2018, vol. 26 (2), pp. 205–223. doi: 10.1177/0969776418783813.
171. Komninos N., Tsarchopoulos P. Toward intelligent Thessaloniki: From an agglomeration of apps to smart districts. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2013, vol. 4 (2), pp. 149–168. doi: 10.1007/s13132-012-0085-8.
172. Morandi C., Rolando A., Di Vita S. From smart city to smart region: Digital services for an internet of places. Milan, Springer-Verlag, 2016. 103 p. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-17338-2.
173. Vanolo A. Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Studies, 2014, vol. 51 (5), pp. 883–898. doi: 10.1177/0042098013494427.
174. Luque-Ayala A., Marvin S. Developing a critical understanding of smart urbanism? Urban Studies, 2015, vol. 52(12), pp. 2105–2116. doi: 10.1177/0042098015577319.
175. Cugurullo F. Exposing smart cities and eco-cities: Frankenstein urbanism and the sustainability challenges of the experimental city. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2018, vol. 50 (1), pp. 73–92. doi: 10.1177/0308518X17738535.
176. Colantonio E., Cialfi D. Smart regions in Italy: A comparative study through self-organizing maps. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 2016, vol. 5 (9), pp. 84–99.
177. Mikki L., Markkula M., Schaffers H. (Eds.) Helsinki smart region: Pioneering for Europe 2020. Helsinki, Aalto University, 2014. 45 p.
178. Ma S., Zhao Y., Tan X. Exploring smart growth boundaries of urban agglomeration with land use spatial optimization: A case study of Changsha-Zhuzhou-Xiangtan city group, China. Chinese Geographical Science, 2020, vol. 30 (4), pp. 665–676. doi: 10.1007/s11769-020-1140-1.
179. Blanutsa V.I., Cherepanov K.A. Regional information flows: Existing and new approaches to geographical study. Regional Research of Russia, 2019, vol. 9 (1), pp. 97–106. doi: 10.1134/S2079970519010039.
180. Schwenker B., Wulf T. (Eds.) Scenario-based strategic planning: Developing strategies in an uncertain world. Berlin, Springer, 2013. 214 p.
181. Alam K., Erdiaw-Kwasie M.O., Shahiduzzaman M., Ryan B. Assessing regional digital competence: Digital futures and strategic planning implications. Journal of Rural Studies, 2018, vol. 60, pp. 60–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.02.009.
182. Tikhvinskii V.O., Bochechka G.S. Perspektivy setei 5G i trebovaniya k kachestvu ikh obsluzhivaniya [5G network future and their maintenance requirements]. Elektrosvyaz' [Electric Connection], 2014, no. 11, pp. 40–43. (In Russian)
183. Patwary M.N., Nawaz S.J., Rahman A., Sharma S.K., Rashid M. The potential short- and long-term disruptions and transformative impacts of 5G and beyond wireless networks: Lessons learnt from the development of a 5G testbed environment. IEEE Access, 2020, vol. 8, pp. 11352–11379. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2964673.
184. Letaief K.B., Chen W., Shi Y., Zhang J., Zhang Y.-J.A. The roadmap to 6G: AI empowered wireless networks. IEEE Communication Magazine, 2019, vol. 57 (8), pp. 84–90. doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2019.1900271.

Show full text