Optimization and resource distribution management in a national economy: The choice of structure

Abstract

The purpose of the research is to develop resource management tools aimed to appropriately distribute the resources and to justify the ways for copying with the structure choice problem as regards the Schumpeterian approach to the economic development. The methodology of the research includes the Schumpeterian economic growth model, structural analysis, and conventional optimization methods, in particular the gradient projection method which gives alternatives for optimization task solution algorithms. These methods are applied to show the structures with the maximum profit and minimum risk in resource distribution in the national economy, which underlies the resource distribution management task. A model of interaction between the old and new combinations which are officially provided as investments into the old and cutting edge technologies was proposed within the Schumpeterian economic growth model. The economy restructuring was defined as the evolutionary changes of its structure under Joseph Schumpeter’s theory, and the modes of the economic dynamics were identified from the correlation between the effects of creative destruction and combinatorial augmentation. The article describes the results of the optimizational simulation which prove that the Schumpeterian economy restructuring provides the prerequisites for new combinations which enhance the possibilities for their own development and for the development of the old combinations. The correlation between the profit and risk rates or expert decisions could become a criterion for decision making at a characteristic point. This fundamentally improves the quality of the managerial decision justification at different levels of an economic body which faces structural tasks of resource distribution. A structural choice problem together with its solution makes the priority task in the economic development of the managed system relevant. The research concludes that the structural policy is an essential element in the strategy aimed to develop a new model of the economic development of Russia, because, in fact, institutional changes and measures taken to create the business environment with no restructuring of the sectorial economic proportions look like the palliative aid with no prerequisites for the new type of economic growth. The research is seen to be promising in finding the particular solutions for resource distribution among the sectors and activity types according to the target functions of the economic system development. What is more, this issue updates the task to identify the impact of new combinations on the exising combinations, as well as to examine the factors which determine this impact. It would also be relevant to find the characteristic points of resource distribution for the particular tasks in the management of the national economy, e.g. state programs, which would enable the stakeholders to develop qualitative (expert) approaches to justify the resources distribution in an economic system.

Keywords

economic growth, innovations, risk, resource management, resource distribution, profit, Schumpeterian approach to restructuring, structural choice, optimizational models, gradient projection method

For citation

Sukharev O.S. Optimization and resource distribution management in a national economy: The choice of structure. Perm University Herald. Economy, 2020, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 178–197. DOI 10.17072/1994-9960-2020-2-178-197

Acknowledgements

The article is supported by the Russian Scientific Fund (project no. 18-18-00488).

References

1. Ahlstrom D., Arregle J.-L., Hitt M.A., Qian G., Ma X., Faems D. Managing technological, sociopolitical, and institutional change in the New Normal. Journal of Management Studies, 2020, no. 57 (3), pp. 411–437. doi: 10.1111/joms.12569.
2. Clougherty J.A., Duso T., Seldeslachts J., Ciari L. Transformational strategies and productivity growth: A transformational‐activities perspective on stagnation in the New‐Normal Business Landscape. Journal of Management Studies, 2020, no. 57 (3), pp. 537–568. doi: 10.1111/joms.12519.
3. Ryser L., Halseth G., Markey S., Morris M. The structural underpinnings impacting rapid growth in resource regions. The Extractive Industries and Society, 2016, no. 3 (3), pp. 616–626. doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2016.06.001.
4. Schumpeter J.A. The Theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. New Brunswick (U.S.A) and London (U.K.), Transaction Publ., 2008, 255 p.
5. Jiang S., Gong L., Wang H., Kimble C. Institution, strategy, and performance: A co-evolution model in transitional China. Journal of Business Research, 2016, no. 69 (9), pp. 3352–3360.
6. Samaniego R.M., Sun J.Y. Productivity growth and structural transformation. Review of Economic Dynamics, 2016, no. 21, pp. 266–285.
7. Aguirre A. Contracting institutions and economic growth. Review of Economic Dynamics, 2017, no. 24, pp. 192–217. doi: 10.1016/j.red.2017.01.009.
8. Ahmad M., Hall S.G. Economic growth and convergence: Do institutional proximity and spillovers matter? Journal of Policy Modeling, 2017, no. 39 (6), pp. 1065–1085. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2017.07.001.
9. Balachandran B., Williams B. Effective governance, financial markets, financial institutions and crises. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 2018, no. 50, pp. 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2018.07.006.
10. Alonso-Carrera J., Raurich X. Labor mobility, structural change and economic growth. Journal of Macroeconomics, 2018, no. 56, pp. 292–310. doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro.2018.03.002.
11. Brancaccio E., Garbellini N., Giammetti R. Structural labor market reforms, GDP growth and the functional distribution of income. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 2018, no. 44, pp. 34–45. doi: 10.1016/j.strueco.2017.09.001.
12. Felice G. Size and composition of public investment, sectoral composition and growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 2016, no. 44, pp.136–158. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2016.07.001.
13. Iamsiraroj S. The foreign direct investment–economic growth nexus. International Review of Economics and Finance, 2016, no. 42, pp. 116–133. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2015.10.044.
14. North D.C. Institutions and economic growth: An historical introduction. World Development, 1989, no. 17 (9), pp. 1319–1332.
15. Hanusch H., Chakraborty L., Khurana S. Fiscal policy economic growth and innovation: An empirical analysis of G20 countries. Levy Economics Institute, 2017, no. 883. 16 p.
16. Saviotti P., Pyka A., Jun B. Education, structural change and economic development’. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 2016, no. 38, pp. 55–68.
17. Hanusch H., Pyka A. The principles of Neo-Schumpeterian economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2017, no. 31 (2), pp. 275–289. doi: 10.1093/cje/bel018.
18. Ruiz J.L. Financial development, institutional investors, and economic growth. International Review of Economics and Finance, 2018, no. 54, pp. 218–224. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2017.08.009.
19. Vo L.V., Le H.T.T. Strategic growth option, uncertainty, and R&D investment. International Review of Financial Analysis, 2017, no. 51, pp. 16–24. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2017.03.002.
20. Hartwell C.A. The institutional basis of efficiency in resource-rich countries. Economic Systems, 2016, no. 40 (4), pp. 519–538. doi: 10.1016/j.ecosys.2016.02.004.
21. Sukharev O.S. The model of economic growth and the principle of combinatorial augmentation. Economics World, 2013, no. 1 (1), pp. 39–58.
22. Neyapti B. Modeling institutional evolution. Economic Systems, 2013, no. 37 (1), pp. 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ecosys.2012.05.004.
23. Welsch H., Kühling J. Macroeconomic performance and institutional change: Evidence from subjective well-being data. Journal of Applied Economics, 2016, no. 19 (2), pp. 193–217. doi: 10.1016/S1514-0326(16)30008-3.
24. Gabardo F.A., Pereima J.B., Einloft P. The incorporation of structural change into growth theory: A historical appraisal. EconomiA, 2017, no. 18 (3), pp. 392–410. doi: 10.1016/j.econ.2017.05.003.
25. Brainard W.C., Tobin J. On the internationalization of portfolios. Oxford Economic Papers, 1992, no. 44 (4), pp. 533–565.
26. Sukharev O.S. The restructuring of the investment portfolio: The risk and effect of the emergence of new combinations. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2019, no. 3 (2), pp. 390–411. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2019.2.390.
27. Ravindran A., Ragsdell K.M., Reklaitis G.V. Engineering optimization: methods and application. New York: Wiley, 1983. 684 p.
28. Sukharev O.S. Structural analysis of income and risk dynamics in models of economic growth. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2020, no. 4 (1), pp. 1–18.
29. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 1984, no. 39 (4), pp. 341–350. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341.
30. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1992, no. 5 (4), pp. 297–323.
31. Kantorovich L.V., Akilov G.P. Functional analysis. 2nd Ed. United Kingdom, Pergamon Press, 1982. 604 p.
32. Koopmans T.C. Serial correlation and quadratic forms in normal variables. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1942, no. 13 (1), pp. 14–33.
33. Koopmans T.C., Montias J.M. On the description and comparison of economic systems. Cowles Foundation Paper, 1971, no. 357, pp. 27–78.

Show full text