Scientific and practical journal
УКР   ENG
Regional Economy
   



Journal Regional Economy -- re2023.01.076

Repository of Institute of Regional Research UDC 338.24.01; JEL E22, C67, O40
Shults, S. L., Lutskiv, O. M., & Habrel, M. S. (2023). Metodychni pidkhody do otsinyuvannya produktyvnoyi spromozhnosti rehioniv: sektoral'nyy pidkhid [Methodological approaches to the assessment of regional productive capacity: the sectoral approach]. Rehional'na ekonomika - Regional Economy, 107 (1), 76-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36818/1562-0905-2023-1-8 [in Ukrainian].
Sources: 19

Authors



Shults Svitlana Leonidivna

Doctor of Economics, Professor

Head of the Department of regional economic policy of the Dolishniy Institute of Regional Research of NAS of Ukraine

Contacts: swetshul@i.ua, (032)270-70-89, (+38097)253-66-22

Webpages:



Lutskiv Olena Mykolayivna

Ph.D. of Economics, Senior Researcher

Senior Researcher, Scientific Secretary of the unit of the Department of regional economic policy of the Dolishniy Institute of Regional Research of NAS of Ukraine

Contacts: lutolen@i.ua, (032)270-7089

Webpages:



Habrel Marta Stepanivna

Ph.D. of Economics

Senior Researcher of the Department of regional economic policy of the Dolishniy Institute of Regional Research of NAS of Ukraine

Contacts: gab.martina@gmail.com

Webpages:

Resume

Productivity is an indicator of economic efficiency, the use of territorial resources, and the quality of life of the population. The stagnation of economic productivity reflected in the decline in annual growth rates of such partial indicators as labor and capital productivity has been a peculiar trend in Ukraine for many years. The article aims to analyze and systematize methodological approaches to the assessment of the productive capacity of economic sectors. The article analyzes, compares, and systematizes the methodological approaches to the assessment of the productive capacity of economic sectors. It is worth mentioning the lack of a single methodological approach to the assessment of the productive capacity of economic sectors. Moreover, each of the analyzed approaches involves a different set of indicators and analytical tools. Their main advantages and certain disadvantages are identified. In particular, the authors analyze the European and global experience in assessing the productive capacity of the economy. This methodology envisages the use of three areas of measurement of productive capacity, namely: structural-sectoral, spatial-sectoral, and innovation-sectoral. The main processes that American and European scholars focus on when studying economic productivity are highlighted. The article emphasizes the priority of certain factors in increasing the productivity of economic sectors: innovation and technology, capital, labor, foreign trade, etc. It presents the dynamics of Ukraine’s ratings by the level of innovation capacity in 2014-2021 and concludes that Ukraine lacks an active policy and breakthroughs in the promotion of innovation by the state and business. The list of determinants of the productive capacity of regions in the context of its structural-sectoral, spatial-sectoral, and innovation-sectoral dimensions is formed and the main directions of their assessment are determined.

Keywords:

methodological approaches, productive capacity, structural proportions, reproductive processes, sectoral structure

References

    
  1. Parshyn, Yu. I. (2017). Zabezpechennya staloho ekonomichnoho rozvytku natsional’noho hospodarstva: kontsepciya ta metodolohiya [Ensuring sustainable economic development of the national economy: concept and methodology] (Dr.Sci. in Econ. Dissertation, Alfred Nobel University, Dnipro, Ukraine). [in Ukrainian].
  2. Leontief, W. W. (1986). Input-Output Economics. Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Savona, M., & Lorentz, A. (2005). Demand and Technology Contribution to Structural Change and Tertiarisation: An Input-Output Structural Decomposition Analysis. Researchgate: Website. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237782469
  4. Okuyama, Y., Sonis, M., & Hewings, G. J. D. (2003). Typology of Structural Change in the Chicago Economy: A Temporal Inverse Analysis. Studies in Regional Science, 34(3), 237-249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2457/srs.34.3_237
  5. Rose, A., & Casler, S., (1996). Input-Output Structural Decomposition Analysis: A Critical Appraisal. Economic Systems Research, 8(1), 33-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09535319600000003
  6. O’Mahony, M., & van Ark, B. (Eds.) (2003). EU productivity and competitiveness: An industry perspective. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved from https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/docs/eu_productivity_and_competitiveness.pdf
  7. O’Mahony, M., & Timmer, M. P. (2013). Output, Input and Productivity Measures at the Industry Level: the EU KLEMS Database. Economic Journal, 119(538). 374-374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02280.x
  8. Nova industrializatsiya – real’nyy shans dlya Ukrayiny [New industrialization is a real chance for Ukraine]. Kyiv. Retrieved from https://uspp.ua/assets/doc/maket_nov_2019.pdf [in Ukrainian].
  9. Valovyy rehional’nyy produkt 2020 [Gross regional product 2020]: Statistical publication (2022). Kyiv: State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Retrieved from https://ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/2022/zb/05/zb_vvp_2020.pdf [in Ukrainian].
  10. Eurostat: Website (2022). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
  11. Fujita, M., Krugman, P., & Venables, A. (1999). The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6389.001.0001
  12. Bubenko, P. T. (2008). Instytutsiyna dynamika prostorovoyi orhanizatsiyi ekonomichnoho rozvytku [Institutional dynamics of spatial organization of economic development]. Kharkiv: Kharkiv National Academy of Urban Economy. [in Ukrainian].
  13. Andersson, M., Larsson, J. P., & Wernberg, J. (2019). The economic microgeography of diversity and specialization externalities – firm-level evidence from Swedish cities. Research Policy, 48(6), 1385-1398. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2019.02.003
  14. Alon, T., Berger, D., Dent, R., & Pugsley, B. (2018). Older and slower: The startup deficit’s lasting effects on aggregate productivity growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 93, 68-85. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JMONECO.2017.10.004
  15. Houseman, S. N., & Mandel, M. J. (Eds.) (2015). Measuring Globalization: Better Trade Statistics for Better Policy. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17848/9780880994903
  16. Graetz, G., & Michaels, G. (2018). Robots at work. MIT Press Journals, 100(5), 753-768. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00754
  17. Rivares, A. B., Gal, P., Millot, V., & Sorbe, S. (2019). Like it or not? The impact of online platforms on the productivity of incumbent service providers. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 1548. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/080a17ce-en
  18. Productivity. Integrated Automation and Information Is the Future of Productivity (2022). Rockwell Automation: Website. Retrieved from https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/capabilities/connected-enterprise/integrated-automation-creates-new-productivity.html
  19. European Innovation Scoreboard 2021 (2021). European Commission: Website. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/45973


Web Master P. Popadiuk