Institutional Innovations for the Development of the East of Russia: Effects of Implementation in the Resource Region

In the macro-region as a whole, the activity of investors from NRS does not look as high in the share of declared projects as one might expect, taking into account the natural resource specialization of the FEFD. The analysis by regions shows that in the northern regions of the FEFD, where the economy is predominantly resource-based (Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Kamchatka Territory) there is a higher share of NRS projects (mainly in mining and fishery) compared to the regions of the southern zone of the FEFD with a more diversified economy (Khabarovsk and Primorsky Territories, Amur Region). Nevertheless, in the ASEZ of the southern regions there are a lot of projects both in mining and fishery, and in the forest industry. It should be noted the high degree of implementation of NRS projects in almost all regions (except for the ASEZs in the Trans-Baikal Territory and the Republic of Buryatia, which are just being created).

Table 1. NRS projects in investment projects in the ASEZ, 2015-2019

Source: calculated according to the data from the website of the Far East Development Corporation. Available at: https://erdc.ru

Much more realistically, the situation is reflected not in the share of projects, but in the structure of investment in projects, showing the investment activity of the residents of the ASEZ. Figure 1 shows the share of investments in NRS projects in the total number of projects implemented under the ASEZ.

In most regions of the FEFD, the share of investments in NRS projects is dominant, including in the four regions the natural resource sector accounts for almost all of the investments in the ASEZs. Investors prefer to invest in projects that guarantee the highest commercial efficiency from capital.

Taking into account the natural resource specialization of the economy of the FEFD, such projects have always referred, first of all, to the mining, fisheries and the forest industry, and these types of activities accounted for the bulk of investment in the ASEZs.

Fig. 1. The share of investments in NRS projects implemented in the ASEZ, located in the regions of the FEED

Source: calculated according to the data of the Far East Development Corporation. Available at: https://erdc.ru

The above analysis shows the preservation and consolidation of the trend of the predominance of investments in resource projects in the total volume of investments in fixed assets in the FEFD (Lomakina, 2018). Moreover, in our opinion, in the institutional field of the “new model” for the development of the FEFD, a new trend is also emerging - the modification of the instruments of state support for regional development under the objective influence of the predominantly raw nature of the region's economy.

One example illustrating such processes can be the formation of the ASEZ “Komso- molsk” in the Khabarovsk Territory, which, when created in 2015, had three sites. The key activities of this ASEZ at that time were declared metal and wood processing, food industry, mechanical engineering, mechanical processing, tourism. By 2018, another 4 new sites were added to this ASEZ, on three of which (located quite far from the original ASEZ border) resource projects are being implemented: a timber processing complex (investment volume 1.1 billion rubles) and two projects for the extraction and enrichment of tin (total investment of 10.5 billion rubles.). At the beginning of 2020, at the proposal of the regional authorities, the expansion of the boundaries of this ASEZ was again discussed by joining four land plots for mineral resource projects (development of the Malmyzh gold-copper deposit, processing of tailings at the Solnechnyi mining plant). Such processes, firstly, violate the principle of the formation of the ASEZ - the provision of preferences in localized territories, and, secondly, demonstrate the intensification of the provision of benefits to mainly resource based companies. The authorities are encouraged by the existing system for evaluating their activities: one of the key indicators of creating conditions for the accelerated development of the FEFD is the number of created ASEZs and the accumulated amount of residents' investments. Based on the volume of investments implemented in the ASEZ projects, NRS projects are the most attractive in these respects. macroregion far eastern economy institutional

The instrument for obtaining tax preferences outside special territories - obtaining the status of a “regional investment project ” (RIP) - was also in demand in the resource sector of the Far East. The key preferences in the framework of this instrument are income tax benefits and mineral extraction tax, so mineral companies have become the main applicants for them. The RIP regime has passed several stages in its development. For the initial period of launching this instrument (2014-2016), there were quite strict legal requirements for applicants of benefits, the formation of a special RIP Register and inclusion of projects into it by decision of regional government bodies. The result of this period was the registration as a RIP of a small number of mineral projects in selected Far Eastern regions.

In 2016, under the pressure of resource based companies, at the federal level significant amendments were made to the RIP formation procedure: liberalization of the financial barrier (by volume of investments), change in the validity period of preferences (for investments made since January 1, 2013), introduction of a notification procedure for receiving benefits (without coordination with regional authorities and inclusion in the register) (Lomakina, 2018). The unexpected loss of control over these processes at the regional level, the threat of the growth of uncontrolled shortfalls in regional budgets led to active actions by the governing bodies of several regions to refuse these preferences. For example, in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, currently only three large gold mining companies form more than half of the region's own revenues. According to experts, the annual falling-out incomes of the regional budget only due to preferences under the RIP can amount to more than 1 billion rubles (from 50% to 70% of all mineral extraction tax). Therefore, in 2018, a legislative initiative was launched in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug to exclude it from the regions, in the territory of which, when implementing the RIP, it is not necessary to include the organization in the register of participants and, accordingly, to coordinate with the regional authorities. In the Khabarovsk Territory, in the structure of the economy of which the resource sectors are not dominant, at the beginning of 2020, logging, coal mining and processing, mining of metallurgical ores and other minerals, as well as production of precious metals were excluded from the list of activities covered by the RIP regime. Thus, the liberalization of the RIP regime in the interests of resource based companies has led to the emergence of negative “institutional externalities” for the regions, which, in our opinion, is also a confirmation of the emerging modification of state support tools for regional development under the objective influence of the predominantly raw materials nature of the economy of the Far East.

An equally important mechanism of the “new model” for the development of the macroregion is government support for investment projects, the practical implementation of which can give a significant effect for the Far East. To date, this procedure has not only been worked out normatively, but the results have already been obtained. In 2015-2018 several stages of the selection of investment projects for direct state support in the form of subsidies for the creation and reconstruction of infrastructure in the framework of investment projects were carried out. During the selection process, more than fifty projects in various sectors were considered and 13 investment projects were selected for state support, 8 of which were in mining and 1 in the forest industry. Subsidies from the federal budget in 2015-2020 were planned at 32.5 billion rubles, with more than 90% of these funds being allocated to support mineral projects. At the beginning of 2020, the Government of the Russian Federation decided to supplement the list with two more mineral resources projects - development of the Pravourmiysky tin ore deposit (Khabarovsk Territory) and the Nasedkino gold deposit (Trans-Baikal Territory). State support for these projects will amount to more than 1.6 billion rubles. The mechanism of direct state support of investment projects for solving infrastructure problems is of a general nature. However, in fact, resource projects are still recognized as being in line with the strategic goals of the region's development and creating the maximum social and economic effect in the region, competitive both for private investors and the state. It should be noted the positive importance of the state support instrument for expanding the raw material base. Firstly, new deposits that did not have such prospects before could be involved in the development, and secondly, this expands the development opportunities for “junior” companies in the Far East. But all together, this is still aimed at the growth of the mineral sector in the structure of the economy of the macro-region.

2. Dynamics of resource dependence of the regions of the FEFD during the implementation of the “new model” of development. One of the objectives of our study is to find out whether the role of resource industries in the macro-region's economy is reduced in terms of contribution to GRP. This paper presents a classification of resource-type regions based on the following criteria: the share of the extractive sector in GRP and the ratio of the share of extractive and manufacturing sectors in GRP. The authors ranked and distributed among the selected groups the regions of the Russian Federation. Using this approach, but with the inclusion of all natural resource sectors in the assessment, we obtained a ranked characteristic of the resource dependence of the regions of the FEFD (Table 2). The study showed that all regions of the Far Eastern Federal District belong to resource-type regions, but of varying degrees of dependence. This was reflected in their distribution into 3 groups: with very high, high and middle levels of resource dependence. It should be noted that the regions of the FEFD that were not included in the group of resource-dependent in the classification in the article (Kurbatova et al., 2019), with more complete consideration of natural resource sectors, fell into regions with a middle level of resource dependence. Moreover, the consideration of indicators in dynamics shows an increase in the resource dependence of the regions. For example, if the Jewish Autonomous Region at the beginning of the period could be characterized as a region with a middle level of resource dependence, then by 2017 its characteristic is a region with a high level of resource dependence. This reflects the real situation in this region: at present, the main macroeconomic indicators of the economy in the region are determined by the launch of a large-scale resource project (Kimkano-Sutarsky mining plant).