nep-cis New Economics Papers
on Confederation of Independent States
Issue of 2006‒06‒03
five papers chosen by
Anna Y. Borodina
Perm State University

  1. Comparative social capital: Networks of entrepreneurs and investors in China and Russia By Bat Batjargal; Bat Batjargal;
  2. Programs of regional development revisited - case of the Russian Federation By Alexander Granberg; Alexander Pelyasov
  3. Clusters and Territorial-Industrial Complexes - Similar Approaches or Different Concepts? - first Evidence from Analysis of Development of Russian Regions By Igor Pilipenko
  4. Dynamiques de pauvreté en Russie : une analyse en termes d'entrées et sorties à l'aide des modèles de durée By Matthieu Clément
  5. Realising the Oil Supply Potential of the CIS: The Impact of Institutions and Policies By Rudiger Ahrend; William Tompson

  1. By: Bat Batjargal; Bat Batjargal;
    Abstract: Most studies on entrepreneurs’ networks incorporate social capital and networks as independent variables that affect entrepreneurs’ actions and its outcomes. By contrast, this article examines social capital of the Chinese and Russian entrepreneurs and venture capitalists as dependent variables, and it examines entrepreneurs’ social capital from the perspectives of institutional theory and cultural theory. The empirical data are composed of structured telephone interviews with 159 software entrepreneurs, and the data of 124 venture capital decisions in Beijing and Moscow. The study found that social networks of the Chinese entrepreneurs are smaller in size, denser in structure, and more homogeneous in composition compared to networks of the Russian entrepreneurs due to the institutional and cultural differences between the two countries. Furthermore, the study revealed that dyadic (two-person) ties are stronger and interpersonal trust is greater in China than in Russia. The research and practical implications are discussed.
    Keywords: Social capital, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, China and Russia.
    JEL: M13 F23 G24
    Date: 2005–07–01
  2. By: Alexander Granberg; Alexander Pelyasov
    Abstract: One of unexpected results of the economic reform in Russia was the rebirth of interest for regional programs and schemes as documents of strategic planning. Regional and municipal authorities, scientific community (not only Keynesian-like, but liberal economist Friedman-style as well), big and small business community, and civil society structures, now emerging in the Russian regions, all demonstrate their interest towards regional programs and schemes. Of course these documents are not of directive character now. They are of coordinative, partnership nature, oriented to consolidate efforts and resources of the state, business, citizens for modernization of the regional economy and increase of the GRP. Their ideology is based not only on principles of Soviet economists under the Gosplan era but on the achievements of institutional theory, theory of regional markets and the experience of regional policy in the European Union. However, in spite of new methodology of contemporary Russian regional programs and schemes, they neglect post-industrial challenges ahead of the country, in their concrete projects. For instance, cluster of federal programs of regional parity (“Diminishing discrepancies between Russian regions”, “Socio-economic development of Kaliningrad; the Kurils Islands; Far-Eastern regions; Southern republics in the European Russia”), in contrast with cluster of federal programs on the new economy, deals only with current social problems. These defects of contemporary federal and regional programs of socio-economic development can be seen precisely in the federal Program “Diminishing discrepancies between Russian regions intil 2015” approved by federal government in 2001. In this document possibilities to decrease striking contrasts between leaders and outsiders are connected with state financed projects of social and communal infrastructure in the 40 oblasts, republics and okrugs, whose level of social and economic development is beyond the average. Same problems in the EU regions are solved by projects directed to increase the quality of human resources. They are proved to be very efficient. During the last years Council for Research for Productive Forces (CRPF) has been eleborated four programs of socio-economic development: for Republic of Komi, Kemerovo and Jewish Oblasts, Khanty-Mansi autonomous Okrug. These documents are not comprehensive in contrast with their Soviet predecessors. They deal with numbered list of problems. They admit that regional development is multi-actors process. Structures of regional authorities, business, civil society participate in the projects under the Program. Many program measures are oriented to provide balance of interest for economic agents. Special attention is devoted to improve regional norms and rules of economic behaviour for economic actors in the new section titled “Development of the regional normative base”. CRPF is working under schemes of development and allocation of productive forces for Khanty-mansy autonomous Okrug and Chechen Republic. In comparison with programs schemes are more long-term documents of territorial planning. Also they include different variants of future development for every municipality. Experience of several federative states in the European Union meeting the challenge of striking inter-regional contrasts proves the necessity to elaborate new federal program “Innovative region” for the Russian Federation. It can be seen as analogue of the German program “Innoregio”. This new program should affirm new perception of creative region (now dominating perception in the federal programs is about region as the location of social problems), stimulate build-up of regional innovative systems, development of post-industrial activities. Russian programs and schemes as tools of regional policy which in the Soviet era were so distinct from Europeans by their directive ideology, central role of the state, slowly but straightforwardly are synchronizing with their analogues in the EU by their goals, tasks, and mechanisms.
    Date: 2005–08
  3. By: Igor Pilipenko
    Abstract: The cluster concept has been attracting a special attention of scholars and policymakers since almost 15 years due to considerable contribution of its theoretical results to practical rising of national and regional competitiveness. The concept of territorial-industrial complex (TIC) elaborated by Soviet regional economists and economic geographers in 1920-1980s realised the idea of optimisation of industrial production within a certain territory in the planning economy according to its endowments of natural and labour resources. At the first sight, these two concepts have many things in common, but in reality they have many differences. First, they were elaborated in different economic systems, which have various aims of economic activity. Secondly, clusters and TICs have different genesis, because in case of TICs theoretical and applied research resulted in practical construction of TICs, while clusters are generally forming themselves as a result of the market “invisible hand”. Thirdly, clusters and TICs are normally located in different types of regions: clusters tend to form in within agglomerations, while TICs were constructed mainly in newly developed regions with low population density. Fourthly, they differ also in terms of their structure. Clusters are groups of companies from one or related in industries often connected to R&D institutions and government structures, but TICs are inter-industrial complexes that involve production chains between different industries. Fifthly, cluster firms specialise in production of buyer-oriented good and services, while TICs' plants and factories represented producer-oriented heavy industries and machinery. Sixthly, the role of information flows between cluster SMEs and their staffs makes one of key distinctions between these two concepts. Seventhly, higher wages in cluster labour pools and higher productivity in cluster firms lead to raising of regional competitiveness while in the concept of TICs people are considered to be one of factors of TIC's development as well as natural resources, infrastructure, etc. A general weak development of SMEs in Russia restricts so far the development of regional/local clusters, but nevertheless some examples of local clusters can be found. One of them is an expanding cluster of small and medium IT-enterprises in Novosibirsk (Western Siberia) that has been developing since the beginning of 1990s in the region that inherits its original industrial specialization from TICs. The cluster firms have tight connections to R&D institutions from Akademgorodok (Science city), Novosibirsk State University, and Technopark Novosibirsk; the intensive information flows and exchange of know-how can be observed between cluster firms and their staffs; the productivity and wages within cluster are higher than in surrounding districts. Development of clusters of SMEs makes differences between clusters and TICs more obvious. The further development of Russian economy may lead to its dual spatial structure – combination of big and medium plants established within TIC concept till the end of 1980s and clusters of SMEs developing since the beginning of 1990s in agglomerations.
    Date: 2005–08
  4. By: Matthieu Clément (CED, IFReDE/GRES, Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV)
    Abstract: La pauvreté en Russie est un phénomène principalement transitoire, signifiant par là même l'existence de nombreux mouvements d'entrées et sorties dans/de de la pauvreté. L'analyse des dynamiques de pauvreté requiert par conséquent d'évaluer des probabilités de transition. A cet égard, les modèles de durée offre certaines promesses dans la mesure où ils visent à évaluer la probabilité d'occurrence d'un évènement conditionnelle à la durée passée dans un état particulier. Cet article utilise les données longitudinales des enquêtes Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey afin d'étudier les transitions de pauvreté en Russie entre 1994 et 2000 à l'aide des modèles de durée. Dans un premier temps, l'estimation des probabilités de transition à l'aide d'une méthode non paramétrique montre que les taux d'entrée et de sortie dépendent négativement de la durée des épisodes de non pauvreté et de pauvreté. De plus, même si les taux de sortie sont supérieurs aux taux d'entrée, l'importance des taux de retour dans la pauvreté suggère que la plupart du temps, les sorties ne sont pas définitives. Dans un second temps, nous estimons des modèles logistiques à temps discret, séparément pour les sorties et les entrées, afin d'identifier les facteurs associés aux transitions de pauvreté. Les résultats indiquent d'une part que les caractéristiques du marché du travail sont cruciales dans l'explication des entrées dans la pauvreté, mais ont moins d'influence sur les sorties. D'autre part, nous soulignons la situation paradoxale des ménages de retraités en montrant qu'ils ont une probabilité de rester pauvres plus élevée que la moyenne, mais présente un risque d'entrée dans la pauvreté moindre. Enfin, nous introduisons dans les modèles des variables censées rendre compte de l'influence du comportement stratégique des ménages et insistons sur la distinction entre stratégies de promotion et stratégies de prévention. A titre d'illustration, les résultats indiquent que l'accès à la terre facilite les sorties de pauvreté alors que les transferts publics sont décisifs pour protéger les ménages faisant face à un risque d'entrée dans la pauvreté. Poverty in Russia is mainly a transitory phenomenon which means that there are a lot of transitions in and out of poverty. As a consequence, the analysis of poverty dynamics requires to evaluate transition probabilities. In this respect, duration models offer some promises in so far as they aim at measuring the probability of occurence of an event, conditional at the duration spent in a particular state. This paper uses longitudinal data from the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey to study poverty transitions in Russia between 1994 and 2000, using duration analysis. In a first time, the estimation of transition rates for Russia with a non parametric method show that exit and entry rates depend negatively on poverty and non poverty spells duration. Moreover, even if exit rates are higher than entry rates, the importance of reentry rates suggest that most of the time, poverty exits are not definitive. In a second time, we estimate logistic discrete-time models, separately for poverty exits and poverty entries, in order to identify factors which are associated with poverty transitions. On the one hand, the results indicate that labour market characteristics are crucial in the explanation of poverty entries but have less influence on poverty exits. On the other hand, we point out the paradoxal situation of elderly people showing that they have more risk to stay in poverty than other people but less risk to enter it. Finally we introduce variables which take into account the strategic behaviour of households and insist on the distinction between promotion strategies and protection strategies. As an example, the results show that land access facilitate poverty exit whereas public transfers are decisive in order to prevent households falling into poverty. (Full text in french)
    JEL: C41 I32 P20
    Date: 2004–11
  5. By: Rudiger Ahrend; William Tompson
    Abstract: This paper provides an overview of the political economy of oil in the CIS. It briefly situates the region?s oil sector potential in the global context, before analysing the structural features of the oil sectors by country. It examines the ways in which CIS oil industries have been organised and governed since 1991, as well as questions of transport infrastructure and export routes, which are especially critical for Central Asia?s landlocked producers. The paper finally considers the causes and likely consequences of the recent shift towards greater state ownership and control in Russia and Kazakhstan, the region?s most important oil producers. The paper?s central argument is that these changes have increased the risk that the full hydrocarbon potential of the CIS may not be developed in a timely and economically efficient way. <P>Réaliser le potentiel pétrolier des pays de la CEI Cette étude présente un panorama de l?économie politique du secteur pétrolier dans les pays de la CEI. Après une brève description du potentiel de la région, vu dans un contexte global, une analyse des caractéristiques structurelles des secteurs pétroliers pays par pays est présentée. L?étude propose également un examen des modes d?organisation et de gestion des industries pétrolières depuis 1991, ainsi que des questions d?infrastructure de transport et des routes de transit pour l?exportation, qui sont particulièrement cruciales pour les producteurs enclavés d?Asie Centrale. Enfin, les causes et les conséquences probables du mouvement récent vers un contrôle croissant du secteur par l?état en Russie et au Kazakhstan, les deux plus importants producteurs de la région, sont analysées. La conclusion principale de l?étude est que ces changements ont accru le risque que le plein potentiel des pays de la CEI ne soit pas développé de manière opportune et économiquement efficiente.
    Keywords: growth, corruption, croissance, privatisation, privatisation, energy, énergie, Russia, pipelines, state ownership, Russie, entreprise d'État, oil, property rights, pétrole, droit de propriété, corruption, political economy, économie politique, CIS, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Caspian, CEI, Kazakhstan, Azerbaïdjan, Ouzbékistan, Turkménistan, Caspienne, oléoducs, Azerbaijan
    JEL: L71 O57 P28 Q41
    Date: 2006–06–12

This nep-cis issue is ©2006 by Anna Y. Borodina. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.