DYNAMIC MODEL OF ANALYSIS OF SECTORAL STRUCTURE OF NATIONAL ECONOMIES WITH RAW MATERIAL EXPORT SPECIALIZATION


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The paper presents economic-mathematical model of analysis of Russian and Norwegian economies sectoral structure dynamics. A comparative analysis of occurred structural changes was performed, proposals for reduction of dependence on raw materials export were made. Structureforming impact of minerals extraction on Russian economy by usage of sectoral division by P-S-T model consists in growth of relative share of primary sector. The process of change of sectoral structure of Norwegian economy over the reviewed period occurred similarly, though intensively. Corresponding sectors of Russian and Norwegian economies have the same dynamics of their shares although deviations from the average in Norwegian economy were more expressed than in Russian. Asymmetry of sectoral growth is evident from inoptimal resource allocation as well as inequality of income distribution. Procedures of management of state incomes from oil export in Russia and Norway are adjusting a process of intersectoral shifts. We identified most strong connection in intersectoral development of economies of Russia and Norway, which is an inverse relationship between primary and tertiary sector shares. Supporting force opposing continuing structural degradation, such as potentially competitive modern industries that are not technologically integrated into the oil and gas extraction and export complex, but are subsidized in the medium-term by its revenues, is a task of the utmost importance for Russian and Norwegian economies.

About the authors

Viacheslav Alexandrovich Perepelkin

Samara State Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities

Author for correspondence.
Email: slavaap@rambler.ru

Doctor of economical science, professo

26, Antonova-Ovseenko str., Samara, Russia, 443090

Elena Viacheslavovna Perepelkina

Samara State Aerospace University

Email: perepelka2102@rambler.ru

Student of Faculty of Economics and Management

34, Moskovskoe shosse, Samara, Russia,443086

References

  1. Fischer A.G.B. Production, Primary, Secondary and Tertiary// Economic Record. 1939. Vol. 15. P. 24-38.
  2. Fischer A.G.B. A note on Tertiary Production // Economic Journal. 1952. Vol. 62. P. 820-834.
  3. Fourastie J. Die große Hoffnung des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. Köln-Deutz : Bund Verlag, 1954. 185 S.
  4. Clark C.G. The Conditions of Economic Progress. London : Macmillan, 1940. 504 p.
  5. Wolfe M. The Concept of Economic Sektors // Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1955. Vol. 69. № 3. P. 402-420.
  6. Kuznets S. Economic Growth of Nations : Total Output and Production Structure. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press, 1971. - 363 p.
  7. Chenery H.B.Development patterns: Among Countries and Over Time / H.B. Chenery, L.J. Taylor // The Review of Economics and Statistics. 1968. 50. P. 391-416.
  8. Pasinetti L.L. Structural Change and Economic Growth. Theoretical Essay on the Dynamics of the Wealth of Nations. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1981. 281 p.
  9. Pasinetti L.L. Structural Economic Dynamics. A Theory of the Economic Consequences of Human Learning. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1993. 186 p.
  10. Pasinetti L.L., Solow R. (Eds.) Economic Growth and the Structure of Long Term Development. / L.L Pasinetti, R. Solow (Eds.). London : Macmillan, 1994. P. 14-29.
  11. Arrow K. The Economic Implications of Learning-by-doing // Review of Economic Studies, 1962. 80. P. 155-174.
  12. Romer P. Increasing returns and long-run growth // Journal of Political Economy. 1986. 94. P. 1002-1037.
  13. Young A. Invention and bounded learning by doing // Journal of Political Economy. 1993. 101. P. 443-472.
  14. Rybczynski T.M. Factor endowments and Relative Commodity Prices // Economica. 1955. 22 (88). P. 336-341.
  15. Bhagwati J. Immiserising Growth : A Geometrical Note. // Review of Economic Studies, 1958. 25 (3). P. 201-205.
  16. Ellman M. Natural Gas, Restructuring and Re-Industrialization: The Dutsch Experievce of Economic Policy // Oil or Industry? / Barker T., Brailovsky V. (Eds.). London : Academic Press, 1981. P. 27-29.
  17. Cherif R. The Dutch disease and the technological gap // Journal of Development Economics. 2013. 101. P. 248-255.
  18. Dülger F. Is Russia suffering from Dutch Disease? Cointegration with structural break / F. Dülger, K. Lopcu, A. Burgac, E. Balli // Resources Policy. 2013. 38 (4). P. 605-612.
  19. Bjorvath K. Resource Curse and Power Balance: Evidence from Oil-Rich Countries. / K. Bjorvath, M.R. Farzanegau, F. Schneider. // World Development. 2012. 40 (7). P. 1308-1316.
  20. Cheng W.L. An extended Heckscher-Ohlin model with transaction costs and technological comparative advantage // W.L Cheng, J. Sahs, X. Yong, // Economic Theory. 2004. 23. P. 671-688.
  21. Валовой внутренний продукт и валовая добавленная стоимость по видам экономической деятельности [Электронный ресурс] / Федеральная служба статистики РФ. - Режим доступа: <http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/ new_site/vvp/tab10.xls>. - Загл. с экрана.
  22. Statistics Norway. Gross domestic product, by main activity. Oslo : Statistical Yearbook of Norway, 2005-2013. 398 p.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2015 Perepelkin V.A., Perepelkina E.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies