For a qualitative research method, it is necessary to check the concept to identify certain results, so this is a deductive approach. The purpose of the study of this article is also deductive. This method will refer to the existing theory and show how to evaluate the impact of the World Cup on the development of the enterprise, using dependent and independent variables.

For a quantitative method, it is necessary to use an econometric regression model and use the OLS estimation method to determine the impact of government orders on the development of small and medium-sized businesses. "OLS (ordinary least squares) - regression analysis methods for estimating the unknown parameters of regression models from sample data" (Wooldridge, 2015). The regression model is a kind of hypothesis that will have a statistical test throughout the study. This model is a parametric function group and is displayed as:

,

where are the parameters,

- is an independent variable space,

- is a dependent variable space.

In the formula, - acting as an independent variable, will be presented as a volume of state order, the amount of government contracts (rubles), - acts as a dependent variable, will characterize the indicator of development of small and medium enterprises. Y of this work are revenue figures for 2013, 2014 and 2015, and revenue growth figures for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. Using these variables, a regression will be constructed that will determine the dependence of these variables. The regression model is the most convenient tool for conducting this study, since it contains many universal functions necessary to solve the problems posed in the work. Do-file with an independent variable the amount of state orders - in Appendix 1, with an independent variable the number of state orders in Appendix 2.

e) Description of the methods and procedures used to analyses data and of the statistical software used to analyses data.

An empirical analysis of the collected data was performed in the STATA program. First of all, regressions will be constructed in which the independent variables are the number and amount of government contracts, and the dependent ones are the revenues of small and medium-sized enterprises in 2013, 2014 and 2015 and the revenue growth rate for 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 using the formula: growth rate revenue = ln (revenue of companies in 2014) - ln (revenue of companies in 2013) and revenue growth rate = ln (revenue of companies in 2015) - ln (revenue of companies in 2014). All regressions are ordered by type of construction activity and city of registration of small and medium enterprises. After the conclusions are made on the basis of the data obtained. The regression parameters should be checked for the multicollinearity of the parameters with the help of the correlation of variables and the VIF - test. "VIF-test - method of detecting multicollinearity using the study of factors of inflation dispersion" (Wooldridge, 2015). It is also necessary to build descriptive statistics to check for normal distribution. All these operations will be made according to the companies that performed the state contract in 2013, 2014 and 2015.

f) Limitations of the data and methods

The lack of data on private contracts of small and medium enterprises is the most important limitation in this work. Having the necessary information, it was possible to conduct a better analysis comparing the conditions, quantity and quality of private and public contracts.

To continue this work, it would be possible to investigate the percentage of failed government contracts and find out the reason why many small and medium-sized companies do not take up government orders or cannot fulfill them and break the contract. Using a quantitative data collection method, you can take information from official government procurement portals for failed and successfully completed contracts for certain years in several regions of Russia.

Description of the results

The practical part of the study is to conduct a regression analysis in which the impact of the number of government contracts, the amount of government contracts (rubles) and the average cost of a contract for revenues and the rate of revenue growth will be assessed. For this, it is necessary to use the program STATA and the method of the OLS to estimate the parameters. For a more accurate analysis, all government contracts executed in the construction sector for 2013, 2014 and 2015 were added to control variables such as total assets as an indicator of company size, the type of construction activity and the city of registration of the company hosting the state order. The first variable was grouped by such activities as: construction of residential and non-residential buildings, construction works (finishing works, installation, demolition of buildings, etc.), architectural works, engineering works and production works (production of material necessary for construction). The second control variable was sorted by such regions as: Moscow, St. Petersburg, the Republic of Tatarstan, Krasnodar Region, Nizhny Novgorod, Rostov-on-Don, Sverdlovsk Region, Volgograd, the Republic of Mordovia, Samara Region and Kaliningrad. All cities have hosted the World Cup 2018 in Russia. After designing regressions, it is necessary to check all the variables for multicollinearity and construct descriptive statistics. To test for multicollinearity will be constructed correlations and VIF-tests.

Government contracts for 2013

At this stage, data are collected for all construction small and medium enterprises in Russia for 2013. Regressions were constructed, as dependent variables - revenue of companies for 2013, 2014, 2015 and the revenue growth rate for 2014/2013 and 2015/2014. As independent variables - the amount of state contracts (RUB) and the number of state contracts.

Table 1

Analysis of the impact of the number of state contracts on revenue and revenue growth rate

VARIABLES	Revenue 2013	Revenue 2014	Revenue 2015	Revenue Growth rate 2014/2013	Revenue Growth rate 2015/2014
Amount of government contracts (RUB)	0.0633***	0.0506***	0.0651***	-0.0888***	-0.111***
	(0.0132)	(0.0134)	(0.0174)	(0.0174)	(0.0160)
Saint Petersburg	-0.0969	-0.0935	-0.125	0.115	0.126
	(0.0684)	(0.0835)	(0.0843)	(0.0832)	(0.0820)
Republic of Tatarstan	-0.251*	-0.182	-0.0700	0.200	0.238
	(0.151)	(0.191)	(0.287)	(0.170)	(0.188)
Krasnodar region	-0.220**	-0.186	-0.00474	0.0426	-0.0121
	(0.0882)	(0.115)	(0.163)	(0.109)	(0.127)
Nizhniy Novgorod	0.0273	-0.108	-0.137	-0.124	0.0823
	(0.146)	(0.226)	(0.215)	(0.153)	(0.279)
Rostov on Don	-0.223**	-0.387***	-0.0880	0.306***	0.237*
	(0.0951)	(0.114)	(0.135)	(0.111)	(0.123)
Sverdlovsk region	-0.633***	-0.399**	-0.234	0.754***	0.425**
	(0.226)	(0.200)	(0.166)	(0.259)	(0.208)
Volgograd	-0.282**	-0.204**	0.00917	0.429***	0.367**
	(0.129)	(0.104)	(0.130)	(0.160)	(0.153)
Republic of Mordovia	-0.637**	-0.307*	0.122	0.735***	0.315*
	(0.257)	(0.170)	(0.216)	(0.278)	(0.176)
Samara Region	-0.212	-0.0911	-0.112	0.133	-0.0544
	(0.129)	(0.124)	(0.177)	(0.127)	(0.113)
Kaliningrad	-0.670	-0.120	-0.466	0.800	0.193
	(0.537)	(0.195)	(0.421)	(0.535)	(0.182)
Construction works	0.0292	-0.0740	-0.0447	0.0395	0.0501
	(0.0571)	(0.0683)	(0.0787)	(0.0674)	(0.0705)
Architectural works	-0.208***	-0.289***	-0.182**	0.275***	0.165**
	(0.0739)	(0.0738)	(0.0854)	(0.0839)	(0.0788)
Engineering works	0.120	0.0844	0.185	-0.172*	-0.150
	(0.0894)	(0.107)	(0.137)	(0.0988)	(0.113)
Production works	0.152	0.169	0.100	-0.134	-0.248
	(0.142)	(0.144)	(0.200)	(0.182)	(0.163)
Total Assets 2013	0.723***
	(0.0176)
Total Assets 2014		0.704***		-0.593***
		(0.0187)		(0.0218)
Total Assets 2015			0.690***		-0.575***
			(0.0258)		(0.0236)
Constant	4.577***	5.061***	4.776***	-3.530***	-3.469***
	(0.271)	(0.274)	(0.382)	(0.314)	(0.337)
Observations	1,149	1,240	1,241	1,075	1,122
R-squared	0.781	0.717	0.662	0.686	0.673
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

a) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2013 will increase by 6 percent, considering all other things being equal.

b) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2014 will increase by 5 percent, considering all other things being equal.

c) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2015 will increase by 7 percent, considering all other things being equal.

d) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue growth rate 2014/2013 will decrease by 9 percent, considering all other things being equal.

e) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue growth rate 2015/2014 will decrease by 11 percent, considering all other things being equal.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics variables used in the regression

Variable	Obs	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Amount of contracts (RUB)	965	14.49536	2.5202	.0009995	23.12901
Revenue 2013	965	1.93e+08	7.36e+08	134000	1.78e+10
Revenue 2014	965	2.06e+08	7.99e+08	145000	2.02e+10
Revenue 2015	965	1.88e+08	8.58e+08	34000	2.34e+10
Revenuу growth rate 2014/2013	965	-14.64319	1.663548	-20.43372	-9.223356
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	965	-14.71358	1.689574	-20.55732	-9.176053

Table 3

Multicollinearity analysis of regression indicators with independent variable amount of contracts (VIF-test)

	VIF value
Revenue 2013	1.11
Revenue 2014	1.1
Revenue 2015	1
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	1.11
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	1

Result: Multicollinearity not detected. None of the values exceed 5.

Table 4

Multicollinearity analysis of regression indicators with independent variable amount of contracts (correlation)

	Amount of contracts (RUB)	Revenue 2013	Revenue 2014	Revenue 2015	Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	Revenue growth rate 2015/2014
Amount of contracts (RUB)	1.0000
Revenue 2013	0.5160	1.0000
Revenue 2014	0.4683	0.8381	1.0000
Revenue 2015	0.4528	0.7714	0.8332	1.0000
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	-0.5180	0.9993	-0.8179	-0.7631	1.0000
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	-0.5113	0.8622	-0.9993	-0.8118	0.8458	1.0

A multicollinearity regression analysis was performed. According to the results - all revenues and all revenue growth rates have an average dependence on the amount of state orders.

Table 5

Analysis of the impact of the number of state contracts on revenue and revenue growth rate

VARIABLES	Revenue 2013	Revenue 2014	Revenue 2015	Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	Revenue growth rate 2015/2014
Number of government contracts	0.104***	0.0660**	0.00935	-0.157***	-0.115***
	(0.0299)	(0.0335)	(0.0359)	(0.0354)	(0.0315)
Saint Petersburg	-0.112	-0.106	-0.156*	0.140	0.173**
	(0.0694)	(0.0844)	(0.0849)	(0.0850)	(0.0845)
Republic of Tatarstan	-0.169	-0.121	0.0304	0.0895	0.0799
	(0.151)	(0.196)	(0.292)	(0.179)	(0.206)
Krasnodar region	-0.209**	-0.177	-0.0108	0.0115	-0.0300
	(0.0920)	(0.117)	(0.171)	(0.117)	(0.134)
Nizhniy Novgorod	0.0578	-0.0902	-0.107	-0.160	-0.00695
	(0.143)	(0.229)	(0.227)	(0.142)	(0.296)
Rostov on Don	-0.208**	-0.387***	-0.112	0.294***	0.246*
	(0.0982)	(0.116)	(0.138)	(0.112)	(0.131)
Sverdlovsk region	-0.674***	-0.425**	-0.205	0.823***	0.407*
	(0.221)	(0.199)	(0.165)	(0.247)	(0.214)
Volgograd	-0.309**	-0.246**	-0.0897	0.480***	0.491***
	(0.132)	(0.113)	(0.134)	(0.166)	(0.164)
Republic of Mordovia	-0.624**	-0.312*	0.0787	0.719**	0.339*
	(0.257)	(0.177)	(0.212)	(0.282)	(0.187)
Samara Region	-0.206	-0.0931	-0.136	0.125	-0.0491
	(0.129)	(0.125)	(0.176)	(0.125)	(0.113)
Kaliningrad	-0.641	-0.112	-0.493	0.761	0.191
	(0.526)	(0.204)	(0.420)	(0.518)	(0.200)
Construction works	0.00681	-0.0902	-0.0724	0.0745	0.0934
	(0.0577)	(0.0680)	(0.0784)	(0.0687)	(0.0719)
Architectural works	-0.255***	-0.325***	-0.236***	0.340***	0.242***
	(0.0737)	(0.0737)	(0.0856)	(0.0843)	(0.0804)
Engineering works	0.157*	0.112	0.200	-0.227**	-0.191
	(0.0882)	(0.106)	(0.136)	(0.1000)	(0.119)
Production works	0.0558	0.0837	0.0216	0.00509	-0.140
	(0.130)	(0.139)	(0.197)	(0.160)	(0.159)
Total Assets 2013	0.753***
	(0.0156)
Total Assets 2014		0.728***		-0.635***
		(0.0164)		(0.0188)
Total Assets 2015			0.722***		-0.624***
			(0.0231)		(0.0217)
Constant	4.937***	5.359***	5.197***	-4.036***	-4.208***
	(0.274)	(0.283)	(0.403)	(0.327)	(0.376)
Observations	1,149	1,240	1,241	1,075	1,122
R-squared	0.777	0.714	0.657	0.678	0.656
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

a) If the number of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2013 will increase by 10 percent, considering all other things being equal.

b) If the number of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2014 will increase by 6 percent, considering all other things being equal.

c) If the number of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue growth rate 2014/2013 will decrease by 16 percent, considering all other things being equal.

d) If the number of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue growth rate 2015/2014 will decrease by 12 percent, considering all other things being equal.

Table 6

Descriptive statistics variables used in the regression

Variable	Obs	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Number of contracts	965	.6767848	.8489094	0	4.634729
Revenue 2013	965	1.93e+08	7.36e+08	134000	1.78e+10
Revenue 2014	965	2.06e+08	7.99e+08	145000	2.02e+10
Revenue 2015	965	1.88e+08	8.58e+08	34000	2.34e+10
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	965	-14.64319	1.663548	-20.43372	-9.223356
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	965	-14.71358	1.689574	-20.55732	-9.176053

Table 8

Multicollinearity analysis of regression indicators with independent variable number of contracts (VIF-test)

	VIF value
Revenue 2013	1.07
Revenue 2014	1.06
Revenue 2015	1.07
Revenue Growth rate 2014/2013	1.07
Revenue Growth rate 2014/2013	1.06

Result: Multicollinearity not detected. None of the values exceed 5



Table 7

Multicollinearity analysis of regression indicators with independent variable number of contracts (correlation)

	Number of contracts	Revenue 2013	Revenue 2014	Revenue 2015	Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	Revenue growth rate 2015/2014
Number of contracts	1.0000
Revenue 2013	0.2465	1.0000
Revenue 2014	0.1957	0.8381	1.0000
Revenue 2015	0.1556	0.7714	0.8332	1.0000
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	-0.2439	-0.9993	-0.8179	-0.7631	1.0000
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	-0.2118	-0.8622	-0.9993	-0.8118	0.8458	1.0000

A multicollinearity regression analysis was performed. According to the results - all revenues and all revenue growth rates have a weak dependence on the number of state orders.

Government contracts for 2014

At this stage, data are collected for all construction small and medium enterprises in Russia for 2014. Regressions were constructed, as dependent variables - revenue of companies for 2013, 2014, 2015 and the revenue growth rate for 2014/2013 and 2015/2014. As independent variables - the amount of state contracts (RUB) and the number of state contracts.



Table 9

Analysis of the impact of the amount of state contracts on revenue and revenue growth rate

VARIABLES	Revenue 2013	Revenue 2014	Revenue 2015	Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	Revenue growth rate 2015/2014
Amount of government contracts	0.0480**	0.120***	0.0990***	-0.0439*	-0.127***
	(0.0207)	(0.0182)	(0.0295)	(0.0249)	(0.0159)
Saint Petersburg	-0.161	0.0940	0.0332	-0.0973	-0.0363
	(0.182)	(0.137)	(0.414)	(0.245)	(0.118)
Republic of Tatarstan	0.317	0.212	0.358	-0.750***	-0.143
	(0.234)	(0.198)	(0.435)	(0.279)	(0.163)
Krasnodar region	-0.239	0.187	0.763*	-0.205	-0.197
	(0.316)	(0.361)	(0.424)	(0.329)	(0.288)
Nizhniy Novgorod	-0.344	-0.0639	0.101	0.138	0.0126
	(0.228)	(0.157)	(0.423)	(0.289)	(0.135)
Rostov on Don	-0.277	-0.236	0.125	0.149	0.247
	(0.227)	(0.173)	(0.434)	(0.286)	(0.168)
Sverdlovsk region	-0.0167	0.0451	0.151	-0.188	-0.0828
	(0.198)	(0.144)	(0.420)	(0.264)	(0.131)
Volgograd	0.0704	-0.142	0.154	-0.124	0.0846
	(0.221)	(0.167)	(0.442)	(0.281)	(0.156)
Republic of Mordovia	-0.368	0.0638	0.125	0.257	-0.0595
	(0.269)	(0.164)	(0.444)	(0.347)	(0.152)
Samara Region	-0.215	-0.139	-0.0165	-0.212	0.170
	(0.195)	(0.150)	(0.420)	(0.262)	(0.140)
Kaliningrad	-0.337	-0.302	-0.0399	0.360	0.263
	(0.222)	(0.235)	(0.483)	(0.307)	(0.218)
Construction works	-0.0306	-0.0528	0.0792	0.0805	0.0980
	(0.0950)	(0.0766)	(0.0923)	(0.119)	(0.0790)
Architectural works	-0.288**	0.00403	0.0440	0.290*	0.0785
	(0.125)	(0.0968)	(0.118)	(0.161)	(0.102)
Engineering works	0.214*	0.203**	0.230*	-0.391***	-0.273***
	(0.113)	(0.0990)	(0.123)	(0.130)	(0.104)
Production works	0.323**	0.215**	0.197	-0.383**	-0.148
	(0.149)	(0.108)	(0.202)	(0.159)	(0.134)
Total Assets 2013	0.759***
	(0.0335)
Total Assets 2014		0.649***		-0.676***
		(0.0267)		(0.0365)
Total Assets 2015			0.696***		-0.606***
			(0.0292)		(0.0226)
Constant	4.075***	4.700***	3.871***	-2.202***	-2.448***
	(0.442)	(0.375)	(0.629)	(0.535)	(0.353)
Observations	602	726	758	574	682
R-squared	0.778	0.774	0.690	0.647	0.760
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

a) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2013 will increase by 4 percent, considering all other things being equal.

b) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2014 will increase by 12 percent, considering all other things being equal.

c) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2013 will increase by 10 percent, considering all other things being equal.

d) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue growth rate 2014/2013 will decrease by 4 percent, considering all other things being equal.

e) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue growth rate 2015/2014 will decrease by 13 percent, considering all other things being equal.

Table 10

Descriptive statistics variables used in the regression

Variable	Obs	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Amount of contracts (RUB)	543	14.6262	3.109957	-6.907755	22.20569
Revenue 2013	543	1.43e+08	3.85e+08	14000	4.51e+09
Revenue 2014	543	1.49e+08	3.54e+08	154000	3.45e+09
Revenue 2015	543	1.34e+08	2.89e+08	44000	2.32e+09
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	543	-14.32998	1.805016	-19.14129	-7.066525
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	543	-14.62406	1.554606	-18.90248	-9.099525

Table 12

Multicollinearity analysis of regression indicators with independent variable amount of contracts (VIF-test)

	VIF value
Revenue 2013	3.15
Revenue 2014	2.99
Revenue 2015	3.33
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	3.25
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	3.26

Result: Multicollinearity not detected. None of the values exceed 5

Table 11

Multicollinearity analysis of regression indicators with independent variable amount of contracts (correlation)

	Amount of contracts (RUB)	Revenue 2013	Revenue 2014	Revenue 2015	Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	Revenue growth rate 2015/2014
Amount of contracts (RUB)	1.0000
Revenue 2013	0.3404	1.0000
Revenue 2014	0.4390	0.8535	1.0000
Revenue 2015	0.3785	0.7294	0.8397	1.0000
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	-0.3523	-0.9996	-0.8387	-0.7282	1.0000
Revenue growth rate 2015/2013	-0.4403	-0.8572	-0.9992	-0.8174	0.8431	1.0000

A multicollinearity regression analysis was performed. According to the results - all revenues and all revenue growth rates have a weak dependence on the amount of state orders.

Table 13

Analysis of the impact of the number of state contracts on revenue and revenue

VARIABLES	Revenue 2013	Revenue 2014	Revenue 2015	Growth rate 2014/2013	Growth rate 2015/2014
Number of government contracts	0.0196	0.0344**	0.0384**	-0.0160	-0.0355***
	(0.0134)	(0.0136)	(0.0155)	(0.0162)	(0.0128)
Saint Petersburg	-0.202	0.0496	-0.00813	-0.0712	-0.0323
	(0.189)	(0.131)	(0.415)	(0.245)	(0.125)
Republic of Tatarstan	0.271	0.197	0.344	-0.718**	-0.169
	(0.239)	(0.194)	(0.437)	(0.279)	(0.174)
Krasnodar region	-0.273	0.175	0.766	-0.184	-0.237
	(0.296)	(0.398)	(0.482)	(0.302)	(0.445)
Nizhniy Novgorod	-0.431*	-0.191	0.000428	0.208	0.0975
	(0.234)	(0.155)	(0.424)	(0.289)	(0.143)
Rostov on Don	-0.298	-0.154	0.173	0.168	0.114
	(0.237)	(0.189)	(0.438)	(0.286)	(0.187)
Sverdlovsk region	-0.0614	0.0185	0.130	-0.159	-0.113
	(0.202)	(0.140)	(0.421)	(0.263)	(0.138)
Volgograd	-0.0243	-0.271	0.0479	-0.0473	0.170
	(0.229)	(0.165)	(0.442)	(0.283)	(0.157)
Republic of Mordovia	-0.447*	-0.0816	-0.00464	0.337	0.0417
	(0.263)	(0.166)	(0.451)	(0.340)	(0.165)
Samara Region	-0.231	-0.0864	0.0282	-0.214	0.0667
	(0.201)	(0.146)	(0.420)	(0.262)	(0.148)
Kaliningrad	-0.367	-0.336	-0.0520	0.385	0.252
	(0.225)	(0.232)	(0.480)	(0.303)	(0.221)
Construction works	-0.0700	-0.153*	-0.000876	0.117	0.211**
	(0.0939)	(0.0793)	(0.0966)	(0.117)	(0.0818)
Architectural works	-0.332***	-0.135	-0.0666	0.322**	0.232**
	(0.120)	(0.101)	(0.116)	(0.157)	(0.104)
Engineering works	0.212*	0.185*	0.225*	-0.390***	-0.265**
	(0.113)	(0.103)	(0.125)	(0.129)	(0.110)
Production works	0.267*	0.120	0.124	-0.333**	-0.0521
	(0.144)	(0.101)	(0.203)	(0.152)	(0.122)
Total Assets 2013	0.783***
	(0.0271)
Total Assets 2014		0.715***		-0.701***
		(0.0227)		(0.0289)
Total Assets 2015			0.750***		-0.677***
			(0.0220)		(0.0200)
Constant	4.438***	5.424***	4.460***	-2.468***	-3.141***
	(0.504)	(0.429)	(0.630)	(0.574)	(0.382)
Observations	607	730	764	578	686
R-squared	0.777	0.757	0.681	0.647	0.736
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

a) If the number of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2014 will increase by 3 percent, considering all other things being equal.

b) If the number of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2015 will increase by 4 percent, considering all other things being equal.

c) If the number of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue growth rate 2015/2014 will decrease by 4 percent, considering all other things being equal.



Table 14

Descriptive statistics variables used in the regression

Variable	Obs	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Number of contracts	543	.8415014	2.364124	-6.907755	14.46263
Revenue 2013	543	1.43e+08	3.85e+08	14000	4.51e+09
Revenue 2014	543	1.49e+08	3.54e+08	154000	3.45e+09
Revenue 2015	543	1.34e+08	2.89e+08	44000	2.32e+09
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	543	-14.32998	1.805016	-19.14129	-7.066525
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	543	-14.62406	1.554606	-18.90248	-9.099525

Table 16

Multicollinearity analysis of regression indicators with independent variable number of contracts (VIF-test)

	VIF value
Revenue 2013	3.23
Revenue 2014	2.96
Revenue 2015	3.24
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	3.22
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	3.23

Result: Multicollinearity not detected. None of the values exceed 10

Table 15

Multicollinearity analysis of regression indicators with independent variable number of contracts (correlation)

	Number of contracts	Receipts 2013	Receipts 2014	Receipts 2015	Growth rate 2014/2013	Growth rate 2015/2014
Number of contracts	1.0000
Receipts 2013	0.0648	1.0000
Receipts 2014	0.0837	0.8535	1.0000
Receipts 2015	0.0745	0.7294	0.8397	1.0000
Growth rate 2014/2013	-0.0665	-0.9996	-0.8387	-0.7282	1.0000
Growth rate 2015/2014	-0.0783	-0.8572	-0.9992	-0.8174	0.8431	1.0000

A multicollinearity regression analysis was performed. According to the results - all revenues and all revenue growth rates have a weak dependence on the number of state orders.

Government contracts for 2015

At this stage, data are collected for all construction small and medium enterprises in Russia for 2015. Regressions were constructed, as dependent variables - revenue of companies for 2013, 2014, 2015 and the revenue growth rate for 2014/2013 and 2015/2014. As independent variables - the amount of state contracts (RUB) and the number of state contracts.

Table 17

Analysis of the impact of the amount of state contracts on revenue and revenue

VARIABLES	Revenue 2013	Revenue 2014	Revenue 2015	Growth rate 2014/2013	Growth rate 2015/2014
Amount of state contracts (RUB)	0.0410**	0.0658***	0.0803***	-0.0638***	-0.0733***
	(0.0163)	(0.0152)	(0.0137)	(0.0228)	(0.0182)
Saint Petersburg	-0.0206	0.185*	0.0776	-0.0739	-0.214**
	(0.116)	(0.0954)	(0.0679)	(0.147)	(0.103)
Republic of Tatarstan	-0.0215	-0.189	0.0484	-0.00864	0.162
	(0.196)	(0.215)	(0.196)	(0.223)	(0.251)
Krasnodar region	0.161	0.0859	-0.0359	-0.184	-0.202
	(0.154)	(0.141)	(0.118)	(0.188)	(0.131)
Nizhniy Novgorod	-0.161	-0.180	-0.138	0.312	-0.00470
	(0.216)	(0.137)	(0.120)	(0.279)	(0.156)
Rostov on Don	0.291*	-0.0697	-0.0451	-0.273*	-0.0456
	(0.152)	(0.137)	(0.125)	(0.152)	(0.187)
Sverdlovsk region	-0.314*	-0.207	-0.0890	0.436*	0.0479
	(0.167)	(0.146)	(0.124)	(0.238)	(0.172)
Volgograd	-0.00405	-0.136	0.0339	0.176	0.0859
	(0.178)	(0.129)	(0.137)	(0.233)	(0.153)
Republic of Mordovia	-0.349**	-0.344**	-0.372*	0.399*	0.231
	(0.149)	(0.150)	(0.195)	(0.218)	(0.241)
Samara Region	-0.107	-0.0305	0.198	-0.0239	-0.193
	(0.143)	(0.154)	(0.159)	(0.184)	(0.183)
Kaliningrad	-0.00613	-0.0632	0.145	0.200	-0.141
	(0.210)	(0.191)	(0.191)	(0.248)	(0.233)
Construction works	-0.0385	-0.154**	-0.0169	0.0675	0.0272
	(0.0886)	(0.0767)	(0.0586)	(0.110)	(0.0933)
Architectural works	-0.254*	-0.357***	-0.133	0.133	0.124
	(0.139)	(0.123)	(0.116)	(0.193)	(0.145)
Engineering works	0.170	0.140	0.0240	-0.166	-0.423***
	(0.120)	(0.0996)	(0.0979)	(0.182)	(0.104)
Production works	0.0866	0.0687	0.177	0.276	-0.119
	(0.162)	(0.150)	(0.145)	(0.295)	(0.178)
Total Assets 2013	0.806***
	(0.0233)
Total Assets 2014		0.759***		-0.712***
		(0.0235)		(0.0348)
Total Assets 2015			0.744***		-0.693***
			(0.0169)		(0.0263)
Constant	3.388***	3.873***	3.820***	-1.534***	-1.633***
	(0.363)	(0.342)	(0.248)	(0.518)	(0.408)
Observations	703	910	1,058	668	872
R-squared	0.780	0.754	0.801	0.598	0.627
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

a) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2013 will increase by 4 percent, considering all other things being equal.

b) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2014 will increase by 7 percent, considering all other things being equal.

c) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2015 will increase by 8 percent, considering all other things being equal.

d) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue growth rate 2014/2013 will decrease by 6 percent, considering all other things being equal.

e) If the amount of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue growth rate 2015/2014 will decrease by 7 percent, considering all other things being equal.

Table 18

Descriptive statistics variables used in the regression

Variable	Obs	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Amount of contracts (RUB)	643	14.71618	2.503242	-6.907755	21.24681
Revenue 2013	643	2.06e+08	8.23e+08	14000	1.78e+10
Revenue 2014	643	2.29e+08	8.93e+08	99000	2.02e+10
Revenue 2015	643	2.60e+08	1.04e+09	312000	2.34e+10
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	643	-14.60017	1.878414	-20.43372	-6.883409
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	643	-14.93209	1.649728	-20.55732	-8.945708

Table 19

Multicollinearity analysis of regression indicators with independent variable amount of contracts (VIF-test)

	VIF value
Revenue 2013	1.11
Revenue 2014	1.11
Revenue 2015	1.1
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	1.13
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	1.11

Result: Multicollinearity not detected. None of the values exceed 5

Table 20

Multicollinearity analysis of regression indicators with independent variable amount of contracts (correlation)

	Amount of contracts (RUB)	Revenue 2013	Revenue 2014	Revenue 2015	Revenue growth rate 2013/2014	Revenue growth rate 2014/2015
Amount of contracts (RUB)	1.0000
Revenue 2013	0.4132	1.0000
Revenue 2014	0.4564	0.8142	1.0000
Revenue 2015	0.5075	0.7335	0.8226	1.0000
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	-0.4162	-0.9995	-0.7957	-0.7283	1.0000
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	-0.4447	-0.8155	-0.9995	-0.8047	0.7973	1.0000

A multicollinearity regression analysis was performed. According to the results - all revenues and all revenue growth rates have an average dependence on the amount of state orders.

Table 21

Analysis of the impact of the number of state contracts on revenue and revenue

VARIABLES	Revenue 2013	Revenue 2014	Revenue 2015	Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	Revenue growth rate 2015/2014
Number of state contracts	-0.0116	0.0164	0.0210*	0.0246	-0.0151
	(0.0253)	(0.0149)	(0.0112)	(0.0377)	(0.0194)
Saint Petersburg	-0.0561	0.154	0.0170	-0.0153	-0.181*
	(0.117)	(0.0989)	(0.0704)	(0.149)	(0.107)
Republic of Tatarstan	0.0264	-0.105	0.141	-0.0672	0.0777
	(0.199)	(0.225)	(0.210)	(0.226)	(0.259)
Krasnodar region	0.123	0.0160	-0.111	-0.130	-0.132
	(0.158)	(0.150)	(0.118)	(0.194)	(0.130)
Nizhniy Novgorod	-0.204	-0.261*	-0.222*	0.374	0.0664
	(0.212)	(0.136)	(0.124)	(0.268)	(0.157)
Rostov on Don	0.263*	-0.0832	-0.0297	-0.236	-0.0606
	(0.154)	(0.128)	(0.125)	(0.156)	(0.182)
Sverdlovsk region	-0.307*	-0.209	-0.0832	0.436*	0.0463
	(0.166)	(0.148)	(0.128)	(0.235)	(0.176)
Volgograd	-0.0500	-0.197	-0.0210	0.244	0.143
	(0.184)	(0.146)	(0.141)	(0.239)	(0.169)
Republic of Mordovia	-0.396***	-0.442***	-0.483**	0.473**	0.333
	(0.144)	(0.147)	(0.194)	(0.216)	(0.236)
Samara Region	-0.141	-0.0856	0.128	0.0422	-0.145
	(0.141)	(0.154)	(0.160)	(0.168)	(0.183)
Kaliningrad	-0.0241	-0.100	0.119	0.241	-0.106
	(0.209)	(0.176)	(0.203)	(0.254)	(0.226)
Construction works	-0.0598	-0.178**	-0.0284	0.0965	0.0432
	(0.0885)	(0.0776)	(0.0602)	(0.111)	(0.0941)
Architectural works	-0.296**	-0.416***	-0.172	0.195	0.179
	(0.141)	(0.122)	(0.117)	(0.195)	(0.145)
Engineering works	0.128	0.0835	-0.0370	-0.0878	-0.362***
	(0.121)	(0.102)	(0.100)	(0.181)	(0.107)
Production works	0.0868	0.0491	0.172	0.287	-0.103
	(0.158)	(0.145)	(0.139)	(0.284)	(0.178)
Total Assets 2013	0.824***
	(0.0211)
Total Assets 2014		0.795***		-0.749***
		(0.0205)		(0.0303)
Total Assets 2015			0.794***		-0.739***
			(0.0146)		(0.0235)
Constant	3.715***	4.250***	4.170***	-1.898***	-1.935***
	(0.370)	(0.356)	(0.254)	(0.534)	(0.416)
Observations	703	910	1,058	668	872
R-squared	0.778	0.748	0.791	0.593	0.619
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

a) If the number of the state contract increases by 1 percent, we expect that revenue in 2015 will increase by 2 percent, considering all other things being equal.

Table 22

Descriptive statistics variables used in the regression

Variable	Obs	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Number of contracts	643	.4123722	1.787342	-6.907755	17.24462
Revenue 2013	643	2.06e+08	8.23e+08	14000	1.78e+10
Revenue 2014	643	2.29e+08	8.93e+08	99000	2.02e+10
Revenue 2015	643	2.60e+08	1.04e+09	312000	2.34e+10
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	643	-14.60017	1.878414	-20.43372	-6.883409
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	643	-14.93209	1.649728	-20.55732	-8.945708

Table 23

Multicollinearity analysis of regression indicators with independent variable number of contracts (VIF-test)

	VIF value
Revenue 2013	1.08
Revenue 2014	1.07
Revenue 2015	1.06
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	1.08
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	1.07

Result: Multicollinearity not detected. None of the values exceed 5.



Table 24

Multicollinearity analysis of regression indicators

	Number of contracts	Revenue 2013	Revenue 2014	Revenue 2015	Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	Revenue growth rate 2015/2014
Number of contracts	1.0000
Revenue 2013	-0.0517	1.0000
Revenue 2014	-0.0080	0.8142	1.0000
Revenue 2015	0.0132	0.7335	0.8226	1.0000
Revenue growth rate 2014/2013	0.0540	-0.9995	-0.7957	-0.7283	1.0000
Revenue growth rate 2015/2014	0.0117	-0.8155	-0.9995	-0.8047	0.7973	1.0000

A multicollinearity regression analysis was performed. According to the results - all revenues and all revenue growth rates have a weak dependence on the number of state orders.

Results

Based on the results of the regressions in Table 1, we can conclude that from companies that signed a government contract in 2013, we expect that with an increase in the amount of government contracts by 1 percent, they will receive a percentage of revenue more in 2013 than in 2014, all other things being equal. However, the growth rate of revenue with an increase in the amount of government contracts is 1 percent lower for the period 2015/2014 than for the period 2014/2013, since the percentage of their revenues in 2015 with an increase in the amount of government contracts is 1 percent higher than in 2013 and for 2014.

If we consider as an independent variable the number of government contracts that companies took in 2013, then we see that when the state contracts increase by 1 percent in 2013, we expect that the company will receive more revenue than in 2014 and in 2015, all other things being equal. The growth rate with the increase in government contracts is 1 percent lower for the period 2014/2013 than for the period 2015/2014, all other things being equal.

Considering the most important result for us - the companies that fulfilled the state order in 2014, we can conclude that with an increase in the amount of government contracts by 1 percent in 2014, we expect its revenue (12%) to be higher than in 2013 (5%). ) or 2015 (10%). The growth rate of revenue with an increase in the amount of government contracts by 1 percent will be several times higher for the period 2014/2013 than for the period 2015/2014, all other things being equal.

Taking as an independent variable the number of state orders, we can conclude that with an increase in the number of government contracts in 2014 by 1 percent, we expect 1 percent more revenue in 2015 than in 2014.

Considering the small and medium-sized enterprises that performed the state order in 2015, we can conclude that with an increase in the amount of the state order by 1 percent, we expect that the company's revenue in 2015 will be higher than in 2013 and in 2014, all other things being equal. The growth rate of revenue with an increase in the amount of government contracts by 1 percent will be higher in the period 2014/2013 than in the period 2015/2014 ceteris paribus.

Taking as an independent variable the number of state orders signed in 2015, we can conclude with an increase in the number of state orders by 1 percent, the only revenue for 2015 has a significant coefficient.



Conclusion

According to the results of the implementation of final qualifying work can be concluded. An analysis of the literature was conducted, which demonstrated the experience of taking the biggest sporting events such as the Olympic Games and the World Cup. Basically, the holding of these competitions has affected the host country positively because it contributed to improving the infrastructure, building new stadiums, attracting investment, increasing the level of tourism and a number of positive effects that could boost the country's economy. However, there are drawbacks - since the holding of the biggest sporting event is expensive, many countries have driven themselves into debt trap and for years to come take the country out of the economic crisis. There is also a legacy problem, because after a sporting event, sports facilities built specifically for the World Cup or the Olympic Games lose their relevance and demand, and the government has to pay for the maintenance of these facilities from the state budget.

A separate comment should be given to the impact of such events on the construction market, which takes on the greatest importance for their conduct. Many sports facilities are under construction, infrastructure is being improved to accommodate guests from other countries and to finish and reconstruct buildings to attract tourists. During the writing of the thesis, the specificity of the construction industry and its development were studied. The cooperation of the state with small and medium construction business was also studied, the main problems and advantages of fulfilling state contracts were considered.

The system of state regulation of small and medium-sized businesses through the implementation of state contracts has become one of the most important parts of the thesis. It is also an indicator of business development in Russia and an indicator of the development of the country's economy. The main problems of fulfilling the state order, their advantages and potential were considered. Based on data on state contracts for 2013, 2014, 2015, a study was conducted that showed the dependence of the revenue of small and medium enterprises on the amount of contracts executed and their number.

Based on the results of the work done, it can be concluded that the hypothesis about the positive impact of major sporting events on the development of small and medium-sized businesses can be confirmed because with an increase in the volume of government contracts in 2014 (the year of signing major construction contracts to prepare for the World Cup) in Russia) we expect revenue to increase by 12% this year, and in 2013 we expect revenue to grow only by 5%. We also expect a significant increase in revenue in 2014 and 2015 compared with 2013, with an increase in the number of government contracts. The same thing happens with the companies that signed the state order in 2014 and in 2015 - with an increase in the amount or quantity of the state order by 1 percent, we expect that the revenue of the companies in the year of signing the state order will be higher than in the year without the state order. Consequently, by fulfilling government orders a small and medium-sized enterprise can get more revenue and develop more quickly. Since the work considered years of preparation for the World Cup, it can be concluded that the most sporting events had a positive effect on the development of small and medium-sized businesses in Russia. Of course, there are many external factors that also contributed to the increase in revenues of these companies, but show the results of work, companies should receive more revenue in the same year when they fulfill government orders.

Summing up, it can be said that this work could have an impact on the decision of managers of small and medium-sized enterprises who are thinking about work or prospects for working with government contracts and those who are thinking about working with the state in terms of the country's adoption of the biggest sporting events.



List of references

1. Bajari, P., & Tadelis, S. (2001). Incentives versus transaction costs: a theory of procurement contracts. Journal of Economics, 387-407.

2. C. P. Mйndez, G. M. (2018). The role of the state in internacional sport past, present, future?. Foro Internacional, 343-380.

3. Gadzieva, V. (2011). Government orders as an instrument of state financial regulation of the economy. Business. Training. Right. Byddeteni Volgograd Institute of Business, 176-182.

4. Gafurova, G. T., Notfullina, G. N., & Fukina, S. P. (2016). Government procurement as a tool for the development of small and medium-sized businesses in Russia. Economy of the region, 1233-1244.

5. Gуrczyсska, A. (2015). The role of small and medium-sized enterprises in a sustainable public procurement system. International public procurement, 301-321.

6. Kaplanidou, K., Emadi, A., M.Sagas, & Fritz, G. (2016). Business legacy planning for mega events: The case of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Journal of business research, 4103-4111.

7. Kashelnikov, V. D., & Vasilenko, D. V. (2018). Small business development in Russia. Collection of reports of the international scientific-practical conference of young scientists, graduate students and students., 355-359.

8. Kosheev, V. A., & Asaul, A. N. (2009). State entrepreneurship in construction. Russia's economic revival, 4-8.

9. Kovalev, M. A. (2012). The State Procurement Market as an Institutional Instrument of State Regulation of the Country's Economy. Finance and credit, 69-74.

10. Ladauskas, S. V., & Izumova, O. N. (2016). The economic mechanism of crisis management in the system of small and medium businesses. Scientific Herald of the Southern Institute of Management, 8-12.

11. Litau, E. Y. (2013). Small and medium enterprises: criteria for delineation. Small and medium enterprises, 55-64.

12. M.Zitti, L. (2017). Sprawl and mega-events Economic growth and recent urban expansion in a city losing its competitive edge. Urbani Izziv, 110-121.

13. Malkov, D. G. (2008). State order as mechanism of state regulation of national economy. Problems of economics, finance and government, 210-213.

14. Moszoro, M., & Spiller, P. (2012). Third party opportunism and the nature of public contracts. NBER, 1-31.

15. P.Dawson, E. (2008). Assessing the impact of the 2004 Olympic Games on the Greek economy: A smallmacroeconometric model. Economic Modelling, 139-145.

16. Prasockaya, R., & Ramzanova, N. (2013). Interaction of the authority and business in the implementation of large national projects. Financial Life, 48-52.

17. Rausser, G., & Stevens, R. (2009). Public-Private Partnerships: Goods and the Structure of Contracts.

18. Serpuhova, E. P. (2016). Impact of construction sites for the World Cup on the socio-economic development. Tradition and innovation in construction and architecture, 1-4.

19. Singer, E. M. (2016). Competitative public contracts. Virginia Law Review, 1297-1354.

20. Sport-IN. (б.д.). sportin.su. Получено из "SPORT-IN": http://sportin.su/stadium/5/overview/history

21. T. Byers, E. H. (2019). A new conceaptulization of mega sports event legacy delivery: Wicked problems and critical realist solution. Sport management review, 1-4.

22. Tamrazyan, T. O., Butova, D. A., & Migusheva, T. V. (2012). Contents of the basic consepts of the public order management of the research. Economic theory, 14-16.

23. Telnih, D. A. (2019). Наследие чемпионата мира по футболу FIFA-2018 для городов-организаторов. Karelian scientific journal, 106-109.

24. Ugra, S. (2013). Sporting Mega-Events: What the Protesting Brazilians Learnt from Their BRICS Compatriots. Economic and Political Weekly, 17-20.

25. Wooldridge, J. M. (2015). Introductory Econometrics. Michigan: Sixth Edition.

26. Zhemchuzhnikov, A. A., & Domovec, S. S. (2014). Implementation of procurement: general provisions and methods for identifying contractors (performers, suppliers). 1-9.



Appendix 1

Do-file:

Independent variable - amount of state contracts (RUB) and average price of contract - ln_NN ; ln_average_g

Dependent variable - revenue 2013, revenue 2014, revenue 2015, revenue growth rate 2014/2013 and revenue growth rate 2015/2014 - ln_revenue_13, ln_revenue_14, ln_revenue_15, ln_revenue_2013_2014, ln_revenue_2014_2015. Control variables - type of construction activity,region, total assets 2013, total assets 2014 and total assets 2015 - num_dey ; num_adress; ln_TA13, ln_TA_14, ln_TA_15

quietly reg ln_revenue_13 ln_average_g i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_13, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel replace

quietly reg ln_revenue_14 ln_average_g i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_14, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel append

quietly reg ln_revenue_15 ln_average_g i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_15, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel append

quietly reg ln_revenue_13 ln_NN i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_13, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel replace

quietly reg ln_revenue_14 ln_NN i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_14, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel append

quietly reg ln_revenue_15 ln_NN i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_15, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel append

quietly reg ln_revenue_13_14 ln_NN i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_14, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel append

quietly reg ln_revenue_14_15 ln_NN i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_15, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel append



Appendix 2

Do-file: Independent variable - number of state contracts (RUB) and average price of contract - ln_GG ; ln_average_g

Dependent variable - revenue 2013, revenue 2014, revenue 2015, revenue growth rate 2014/2013 and revenue growth rate 2015/2014 - ln_revenue_13, ln_revenue_14, ln_revenue_15, ln_revenue_2013_2014, ln_revenue_2014_2015. Control variables - type of construction activity,region, total assets 2013, total assets 2014 and total assets 2015 - num_dey ; num_adress; ln_TA13, ln_TA_14, ln_TA_15

quietly reg ln_revenue_13 ln_average_g i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_13, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel replace

quietly reg ln_revenue_14 ln_average_g i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_14, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel append

quietly reg ln_revenue_15 ln_average_g i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_15, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel append

quietly reg ln_revenue_13 ln_GG i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_13, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel replace

quietly reg ln_revenue_14 ln_GG i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_14, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel append

quietly reg ln_revenue_15 ln_GG i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_15, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel append

quietly reg ln_revenue_13_14 ln_GG i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_14, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel append

quietly reg ln_revenue_14_15 ln_GG i.num_adress i.num_dey ln_TA_15, r

outreg2 using coursework, excel append

Размещено на Allbest.ru