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
It is substantiated that the processes of transformation of the economic structure are becoming more relevant in the current conditions and are gaining systemic and security significance. It is noted that the experience of post-war economies proves that there is no simple and universal plan for structural modernization of the economy of countries that would allow solving long-standing and emerging problems of their economic development. The article substantiates the role of entrepreneurial activity in the processes of spatial and structural transformation of the Ukrainian economy. The purpose of the article is to analyze the peculiarities of entrepreneurial activity in the current conditions of spatial and structural transformation of Ukraine’s economy and to substantiate the priorities for modernizing the structure of the national economy in the post-war period. The article analyses the peculiarities of entrepreneurial activity in the conditions of war, in particular in the context of changes in the dynamics of territorial concentration of business, interregional distribution of closures and openings of enterprises, and the structural and spatial distribution of Ukrainian exporters. The geography of the founders of newly created enterprises and their sectoral and industrial distribution are analyzed. Based on the analysis of the interregional and intersectoral distribution of capital investments, the investment activity of Ukrainian regions in the context of limited investment resources is characterized. The priorities of spatial and structural changes in the economy of Ukrainian regions, which have the potential for development and in the future will ensure innovation and technological progress and improve the quality of life of the population, have been determined. It is proposed to develop a comprehensive strategy for the recovery of Ukraine and its regions, which will take into account all aspects of the restructuring of the Ukrainian economy and use all available resources, including international assistance. It is noted that successful recovery of Ukraine will require not only significant financial resources, but also systemic reforms aimed at improving the business climate, fighting corruption and the rule of law.
entrepreneurial activity, spatial and structural transformation of the economy, interregional distribution of capital investments, structural and spatial distribution of exporters
Active innovation activity is the key to achieving long-term social and economic development of the country and its regions, which will facilitate the introduction of new technologies and processes that increase productivity and reduce the cost of the economy and ensure the production of new or improved goods and services that are in demand in the market. The article considers the role of innovations in increasing the productive capacity of the economy of Ukrainian regions. Ukraine’s position in the rankings of the Global Innovation Index is assessed. The article analyzes the changes in Ukraine’s ranking across the subindices in the Bloomberg Innovation Index over the past seven years. The article aims to model the impact of innovation activity on the productive capacity of the economy of Ukrainian regions. The authors build a matrix of the level of productivity of innovation activity, which includes key parameters of innovation activity in the context of its six components. Based on the construction of a linear model of 14-factor multiple regression, the relationship between multifactor productivity and innovation activity of regions is assessed, in particular, the degree of influence of innovation activity of enterprises, technological efficiency of production, self-sufficiency in innovative developments, productivity of research and development, innovation cooperation and the level of financing of innovation activity on regional productivity is determined. The modeling results indicate an increase in the trends of the negative impact of innovation on multifactor productivity in 2021 compared to 2013. The article emphasizes that the intensification of innovation processes leads to an increase in the productive capacity of the regional economy up to a certain time, while not all innovation processes have a direct or significant impact on the growth of the multifactor productivity of Ukrainian regions, and some of the considered factors, on the contrary, have the opposite effect on its development since they lead to its reduction. Special attention is paid to the main points of the existing “innovation paradox and productivity”, the essence of which is that the economic development of regions is not always determined and depends on the intensification of innovation processes and the introduction of technological developments. The article shows that the main goal of innovation is to promote productivity growth, but productivity growth is not always observed in the most innovatively developed regions as the direct relationship between innovation and productivity is much more complex and unpredictable. These linkages are not necessarily direct and linear, and in some cases may even be negative, depending on the various constraints that hinder and limit innovation.
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.
In the pre-war period, the stagnation of economic productivity was observed in Ukraine. It was manifested by a decrease in the annual growth rates of labor and capital productivity. The natural consequences of this include the inability to increase the growth rate of employees’ wages and their purchasing power, the increase in the share of raw material exports in the total volume, the country's growing dependence on energy imports, etc. The lack of positive productivity dynamics is related to the lack of active encouragement of domestic enterprises to improve resource efficiency. The article aims to substantiate the theoretical and methodological foundations of the study of the productive capacity of the regional economy in Ukraine and determine its potential growth accelerators across spatial and sectoral determinants. The evolution of the theoretical basis of the concept of economic productivity at the national and regional levels is examined. Based on the interpretation of the concepts of “productivity” and “capacity”, the authors offer their definition of the meaning of the term “regional productive capacity”. The article characterizes the achievements of foreign researchers regarding the study of regional development features and problems of productivity; identification and assessment of the impact of spatial factors on the productivity of the economy of territorial systems of different hierarchical levels; identification of spatial determinants of regional productive capacity. Based on the analysis of the experience of empirical research on assessing the impact of spatial factors on economic productivity, the article outlines a number of its growth patterns. The specific nature of interregional and intraregional productivity disparities is presented. The article proves that the interaction of spatial and sectoral determinants determines the level of productivity of the national, regional, and individual territorial communities’ economies. Special attention is paid to the issue of resource productivity. Ways for further theoretical and practical studies of regional productive capacity are suggested.
The article argues that the developed transport infrastructure is quite essential for the maintenance of dynamic, balanced, and efficient functioning of all economic sectors in Ukrainian regions and the socio-economic development of the country as a whole. It emphasizes that as of the beginning of the war, Ukraine had a well-developed and powerful transport infrastructure that included railway, marine, river, road, air, and pipeline transport. The authors point out that the damage and destruction of transport infrastructure in Ukraine is currently a substantial problem for the shipment and delivery of humanitarian aid to the northern regions of Ukraine. The article aims to research the transport infrastructure losses in Ukrainian regions caused by hostilities and determine the perspectives of recovery and diversification of the transport logistics routes. It provides the analysis of the pre-war transport infrastructure condition in Ukraine, which shows that the development of public automobile routes in the country fails to meet the motorization needs and paces. The level of pre-war transport infrastructure development in Ukraine is compared to those of developed countries. The functioning problems of transport infrastructure and logistics centers caused by the Russian military aggression are analyzed, including the main transport infrastructure losses in Ukrainian regions from hostilities. The article argues that it is not sufficient to assess the efficiency of the transport network spatial distribution only based on the density of transport networks. European methodology based on the parameters displaying the person-centered approach to the assessment of the transport infrastructure efficiency and opportunities for its improvement should be applied to assess transport productivity. The approach provides that the productivity of transport networks is assessed by the parameters of their accessibility and proximity to the population. The article emphasizes the features of the pre-war regulatory and program frameworks for the processes of transport infrastructure modernization. A range of regulatory innovations developed by the Government to improve logistics and transportation in current realities is analyzed. The major obstacles to efficient transport logistics are outlined. The main constraints are determined, and favorable factors of the transport infrastructure development in Ukraine are identified. The article addresses the issues of transport routes and cargo traffic diversification. The main attention is focused on the perspectives of the transport infrastructure recovery and the search for new logistics routes for goods promotion.
transport, transport infrastructure, automobile routes, logistics, transport logistics, logistics flows, logistics system
The paper aims to analyze the dynamics and trends in structural-technological changes across the levels of production performance and sectoral structure of the economy in terms of determining the smart specialization development perspectives in Ukrainian regions. Special attention is paid to the fact that nowadays European countries are intensively using smart specialization strategies (S3) to accelerate innovative development, carry out structural-technological modernization, and improve regional competitiveness. The experience of EU Member States in smart specialization directed at abandoning the traditional policy of public support of certain economic activity types to support technological innovations in the most promising economic sectors is analyzed. The paper focuses on the evaluation of structural-technological changes in the economies of Ukrainian regions. The technological structure of manufacturing in Ukrainian regions is evaluated across three main production levels: high-tech, medium-tech, and low-tech. The fact that the dominating share of production in the structure of manufacture of Ukrainian regions belongs to medium- and low-tech levels, which does not correspond to global trends, is emphasized. Regional distribution by the share of high- and medium-tech products in total production, the dynamics of structural changes in Ukrainian industry by the production performance level, and sectoral structure of GVA in the context of determining the smart specialization of regional economies are analyzed. Special attention is paid to the main tasks of improving the structural policy efficiency towards the development of regions based on smart specialization. The paper argues that the analysis of technological and sectoral structures of the economies of regions in the context of smart specialization testifies to the need to develop an active public position regarding the introduction of a range of measures of public regional policy, structural policy, and a range of sectoral policies.
Technological development of society is of unequal cyclic nature and is characterized by changing periods of economic growth, stagnation phases, and technological crises. The new wave of technological changes and new technological basis corresponding to the technological paradigm boost the role of innovations and displace the traditional factors of economic growth. Currently, intellectual and scientific-technical capacity are the main economic development resources. The use of innovation and new knowledge change the technological structure of the economy, increase the elements of the innovative economy, knowledge economy, and digital economy, i.e. the new technological paradigm is formed. The paper aims to research the basic determinants of technological paradigms’ forming and development, and determining their key features, as well as to analyze social transformations of the EU Member States and Ukraine. The paper focuses attention on the research of the features of social transformations. The structural transformations are analyzed based on the Bertelsmann Transformation Index that estimates the quality of democracy, market economy, and political governance. The transformation processes are assessed on the example of the EU Member States and Ukraine. The authors argue that social transformations and structural changes in the economy are related to the change of technological paradigms that boost the economic modernization and gradual progressive development of humanity in general. The nature and main determinants of 5 industrial and 2 post-industrial technological paradigms are outlined. Their general features and main areas of basic technologies implementation emerging in the realization of a certain technological paradigm are explained. The conclusions regarding the fact that innovative technologies and available scientific-technological resources define the main vector of economic development are made. The new emerging technological paradigm is of strategic importance for society development.
The paper emphasizes that development of border infrastructure according to standards and requirements of international standards is one of the major tasks of the measures taken to increase transit capacity of border areas. Therefore, the issues of border infrastructure development should be one of the priority tasks of both central and local authorities. Nowadays, although there is a range of regulative, legal and strategic documents developed to support the functioning of border infrastructure, they need improvement oriented on new requirements and European integration course of Ukraine. The paper aims to analyze regulative, legal and program documents to develop border infrastructure, reveal problem and controversial points in them and suggest recommendations regarding their elimination. Special attention is paid to analysis of the range of legal, regulative, strategic and program documents to support the development of border infrastructure. In the first place, they are the documents that regulate the activity in cross-border cooperation, spatial development and territorial planning, transport activity and transport networks functioning as well as regulative acts regarding the activity of state border service and border crossing points, etc. Among the analyzed documents are the Laws of Ukraine “On Cross-Border Cooperation”, “On General Scheme of Planning of the Territory of Ukraine”, “On Regulation of Urban Planning Activity”, “On Automobile Roads”, “On the Sources of Funding of Road Economy of Ukraine”, “On Concessions to Build and Maintain Roads”, “On Public-Private Partnership”. Moreover, a range of documents of strategic nature, which substantiate the place of border infrastructure in implementation of long-term priorities of Ukraine’s development and defines the perspectives of its modernization, is analyzed, namely 2020 State Regional Development Strategy, Concept of Creation and Functioning of National Network of International Transport Corridors in Ukraine, State Border Service Development Strategy, 2030 National Transport Strategy of Ukraine, Concept of Reforming of Transport Sector of Economy, Concept of State Targeted Law Enforcement Program “2020 Development and Reconstruction of State Border”. Program documents of border infrastructure development support are also analyzed, namely 2016-2020 State Program of Cross-Border Cooperation Development and 2018-2022State Targeted Economic Program of Public Automobile Roads Development.
The article examines strategic and program tools of EU innovative policy forming and implementation. EU innovative development strategic priorities are defined. The reasons of EU lag in the intensity of innovative processes conducting from the countries (i.e. USA, Japan, North Korea and China) successful in innovative policy implementation are analyzed. Condition and tendencies of EU innovative development are outlined. In particular, the author emphasizes the fact that according to Innovation Union Scoreboard, which provides comparison of scientific and innovative activity of EU member states by compound indicator, the EU has become more innovative last years. In 28 EU member countries (EU-28) innovative index grew from 0,519 in 2007 to 0,555 in 2014. Peculiarities of innovative processes’ dynamics in EU member countries in 2007 – 2014 are analyzed. The reasons that stipulate certain positive changes in the sphere are defined. Increase of transparency and attractiveness of EU scientific research system, improvement of human capital quality and growth of intellectual assets are among them. Strategies and Programs of EU innovative development maintenance are analyzed. Their major priorities and implementation directions are outlined. European experience of innovative activity management is generalized and systematized and major directions of EU innovative processes accomplishment are examined. The role and place of innovative cooperation in strengthening of enterprises’ innovative activity in the EU and its certain member countries are outlined. The most efficient instruments of innovative activity stimulation in the EU are evaluated. Major advantages of 8th framework program compared to the previous ones are defined. Key principle, major objectives and strategic priorities of the program are examined. Main EU investment development maintenance directions indicated by Horizon 2020 are analyzed. The range of new positive points of the program compared to the previous 7 is emphasized. Financial maintenance of Horizon 2020 implementation is analyzed. Horizon 2020 funding budget allocations by EU economic activity priority directions is examined. The author emphasizes the constant activities monitoring in order to evaluate the level of innovative policy long-term goals achievement, define strong and weak points of its implementation and adjust innovative course on the basis of modern methods and parameters of innovative activity monitoring as the distinctive feature of EU innovative policy. Peculiarities of innovative policy implementation in certain EU member countries are analyzed, in particular Polish innovative policy implementation features, German innovative policy key directions and implementation instruments, British key national priorities of science and technologies development. Directions of Ukrainian innovative policy improvement on the basis of European experience are defined.
innovative policy, strategies, program maintenance, program documents, innovative activity, innovative processes
The article focused on the fact that the main structural imbalances of the economy of Ukrainian regions are: high resource, material and energy intensity of production, excessive extensive development of primary industries, low level of innovation, the infrastructure gap, the gap between the financial sector and the real economy, with inefficient functioning of sectors, providing innovative technological development. It is also noted that in the future regresses technological structure of the Ukrainian economy, worsening the state of scientific and technical potential, reduced the share of high-tech industries and the like. The author is defined the main reason of the existence of structural imbalances, among them noted: limited resources (material, intellectual, financial, investment, innovation); reduction of innovative production; high material and energy intensity of production; a high share of intermediate consumption in the structure of GRP, which is evidence of a slight production of products and services with a high share of GVA; low development of innovation infrastructure. The author focuses on the assessment of trends and extent of structural changes in the economy of the regions of Ukraine by type of economic activity according to the index of GVA during 2006-2013. In particular, the estimated rate of change of the specific weight of the structural weight of the regional economy that occurred over this period of time. It is noted that the high rate was reduced such economic activities as industry, construction and finance. Regionally the most significant reduction of the mass of structural changes in the industry structure of regional economies was observed in Khmelnytsk, Sumy, Lugansk, and Zaporozhska regions; construction in most regions of Ukraine, except Donetsk and Ivano-Frankivsk; finance – in addition to Volyn, Zhytomyr, Transcarpathian, Sumy, Ternopil, Kherson, Khmelnytsky regions and Kyiv. The dynamic processes that have occurred in the structure of the economy of Ukrainian regions for 7 years are estimated. The results show that the highest rate of structural change took place in Donetsk, Sumy, Ivano-Frankivsk, Luhansk, Zakarpatska, Ternopil, Rivne and Chernivtsi regions, while the lowest – in Kyiv, Sevastopol and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Kirovohrad and Cherkasy regions. On the basis of the calculation of the integral coefficient of structural change the author estimated the intensity of their course. Most high-speed positive structural changes have taken place in some service industries, namely real estate transactions and trade, along with the fact that for the analyzed period in Ukraine has been some negative trends, namely the losses in industry, construction and financial activities. The main trends are clarified and significant disparities in the economic structure of regions and orientation are identified, the vast majority of regions on the development of innovative areas of economic activity. The main problems that characterize the economies of Ukrainian regions are selected and ways to improve the structure of their economies are suggested.
economic structure, economic activities sector, mass of structural changes, temp of structural changes, speed of structural changes, intensity of economic processes, innovation activities
The focus of the article is drawn to the fact that economic modeling plays an important role in predicting the economic development of the regional economy. Among the indicators indicating the state of economic development we have selected the GRP. Therefore it till be used as a resulting value in the simulation of structural changes. To investigate the liaison between the resulting value (in this case GRP) and the selected factors we applied correlation and regression analysis. An econometric model of quantitative and qualitative assessment of the impact of internal and external factors on the GRP is constructed. As a results of modeling the factors are ranked in terms of their impact on the resulting indicator. The simulation results show that the greatest positive effect on GRP growth comes from increasing employment, and the least – from the volume of goods (works, services) sold. However, the two other factors (import goods and the amount of innovation expenditures) have the opposite effect on the formation of GRP and lead to its reduction. Mutual GRP and employment liaison is modeled in the context of various fields of economic activity. Calculations held show that increasing employment in the financial sector has the greatest positive impact on the growth of GRP, while in a number of other economic sectors this will lead to reduction of the GRP. In particular, the increase in the number of employed in temporary accommodation and catering, public administration and defense and in the field of information technologies and telecommunications will impede the GRP growth. Proportionality coefficient is the main indicator that most accurately reflects the dynamics and nature of structural changes on the meso-economy level. Using it to analyze the qualitative changes in species structure of the regional economy of the Western Ukraine in relation to the region in general and in relation to the structure of the national economy makes it possible to distinguish the two groups of regions, one of which is close to the quality structure of the region’s and the state economy (Lviv, Zakarpattia Chernivtsi region) and shows trends of structural stability; while the other group – appears to be more remote from the standard quality structures both, the state and the region (Volyn, Ivano-Frankivsk, Rivne and Ternopil region) and has a clear evidence of structural instability. The predicted integral coefficient of structural changes (ICSC) for the economy of Ukraine, which was calculated basing on the period 2012-2013 data, during the first period (2014) will range from 0.9% to 7.6% with an average of 3.8% and median value of 3.6%; during the second period (2015) we expect changes in the structure of 1.7% to 14.1%, average is equal to 6.8% and the median - 6.4%; and the third period (2016) will be characterized by the following changes of the ICSC: minimum will be the value of 2.5%, and maximum – 22.7%, average changes expected are of 10.9%, median value – 10.1%. All the distribution histograms achieved as a result of the simulation modeling are characterized by the left-sided asymmetry; the probability to reach the maximum values slightly exceeds 5%. Further studies in this direction should be concerned with modeling of structural processes in the composition of other indicators that characterize the dynamics and trends in socio-economic development of Ukraine, and with improvement of the parametric model that will determine the quality-biased impact of structural parameters on the dynamics of economic development, in our case the GRP growth.
structural changes, economic structure, modeling, gross regional product, factors of influence, structural instability, coefficient of proportionality
The article reveals the essence, purpose and goals of regional innovation policy, to its subjects and objects. The features of the formation and implementation of regional innovation policy in the context of improving the competitiveness of the regional economy are considered. Stated that the regional innovation policy is formed by the local authorities in the form of regional programmes of innovative development, which were approved by the Regional councils and which were implemented by the relevant local authorities. The attention is focused on the fact that the main goal of regional innovation policy as a factor of growth of the national economy is to ensure the conservation and enhancement of scientific and technological potential, attraction innovation, development of knowledge-intensive industries, overcoming resource cost nature of production and its technological upgrading. It is indicated that at the regional level are determined by the priorities of innovation development of the region, are developed program of innovative development, can be imposed additional tax incentives and can be used other mechanisms of influence on development and support of innovative processes in the region. The key measures for support innovation at different hierarchical levels are identified. The attention is focused on the fact that it is the regional level of management becomes crucial for the activation of innovative processes that provide targeted support for innovative enterprises and scientific institutions. The main priorities of regional economic policy are determined in this paper. Indicated that each region has its own specific, reproductive, sectoral and technological structure, its system of priorities and should rely on their own strength and resources in the implementing of this strategy. Effective regional innovation policy should be based on an objective analysis of economic situation, detailed assessment of the available resources and opportunities, focusing on realistic, achievable goals. Analysis of innovative activity of regions of Ukraine is given. The instruments of stimulate regional authorities innovative activity of industrial enterprises are defined. The main barriers of the effectiveness of implementation of regional innovation policy and the ways of overcoming of them are outlined.
Basic concepts and draft conceptual foundations of institutional frameworks of regional structural policy, which includes the activities of the public authorities at regional and sub-regional level, aimed at achieving a balanced and effective structure of the regional economy of the state is determined. Objectives, strategic goals and priorities of regional structural policy of Ukraine and the proposed conceptual and methodological tools, the system measures selected to achieve strategic goals and priorities are outlined. The problems of institutional frameworks of regional structural policy are researched.
The main attention in the article paid to determining basic concepts and delineation of conceptual foundations of institutional frameworks of regional structural policy, formulation of proposals for monitoring implementation of structural policies, including based on the introduction of structural standards and benchmarks. Using the method of assessing structural changes were evaluated internal and external structural standards for short, medium and long term perspective by major branches of economy of Western Ukraine. According to the chosen methodology for assessing the long-term perspective is matched with three groups of highly developed countries. Because of the comparative studies of the selected structural standards and guidelines range of structural problems of the economy and its western region, proposed solutions to these problems are defined.
The main obstacles to the implementation of effective structural changes in the economy of the region and submitted proposals for their elimination are defined. In particular, the focus is primarily on the decorrupted and demonopolised institutional environment that inhibits structural changes, preserves inefficient economic structure of regions of the state. The proposals for the transformation of regional and district state administration and formation on the basis of their administrative structures of the European model. Special attention is focused on the formation mechanism of formation mechanism of the regional budget and expenditure management budgets regions; instability and imperfection of the legislation concerning the mechanism of budget resources of the region; absence of legally enforceable fiscal powers to regional authorities; inadequacies of the system of intergovernmental transfers.
Main priorities for structural transformation including the development of the tertiary (services and finance) and quaternary (information area) of regions sectors, as these sectors perform transactional function and generate the largest number of innovations that are able to qualitatively change the course of economic development are grounded.
Lutskiv, O. M. (2017). Prohramno-stratehichne zabezpechennya realizatsiyi innovatsiynoyi polityky YeS [Programmatic and strategic support for the implementation of EU innovation policy]. Rehional’na ekonomika – Regional economy, 2(84), 132-141. [in Ukrainian]. {re2019.01.076.003}
Lutskiv, O. M. (2016). Osoblyvosti dynamiky strukturnykh zrushen’ v ekonomitsi rehioniv Ukrayiny [Features of dynamics of structural changes in the economy of Ukrainian regions]. Rehional’na ekonomika – Regional Economy, 1, 39-50. [in Ukrainian]. {re2020.04.106.011}
Shults, S. L., & Lutskiv, O. M. (2021). Strukturno-tekhnolohichni zrushennya v ekonomitsi rehioniv u konteksti perspektyv rozvytku smart-spetsializatsiyi [Structural and technological shifts in the economy of regions in the context of prospects for the development of smart specialization]. Rehional’na ekonomika – Regional economy, 2(100), 15-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36818/1562-0905-2021-2-2 [in Ukrainian]. {re2022.04.021.012}
Shults, S. L., & Lutskiv, O. M. (2021). Strukturno-tekhnolohichni zrushennya v ekonomitsi rehioniv u konteksti perspektyv rozvytku smart-spetsializatsiyi [Structural and technological shifts in the economy of regions in the context of prospects for the development of smart specialization]. Rehional'na ekonomika – Regional economy, 2(100), 15-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36818/1562-0905-2021-2-2 [in Ukrainian]. {re2022.04.027.012}
Shults, S. L., & Lutskiv, O. M. (2021). Strukturno-tekhnolohichni zrushennya v ekonomitsi rehioniv u konteksti perspektyv rozvytku smart-spetsializatsiyi [Structural and technological shifts in the economy of regions in the context of prospects for the development of smart specialization]. Rehional'na ekonomika – Regional economy, 2(100), 15-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36818/1562-0905-2021-2-2 [in Ukrainian]. {re2022.04.033.012}
Shults, S. L., & Lutskiv, O. M. (2021). Strukturno-tekhnolohichni zrushennya v ekonomitsi rehioniv u konteksti perspektyv rozvytku smart-spetsializatsiyi [Structural and technological shifts in the economy of regions in the context of prospects for the development of smart specialization]. Rehional’na ekonomika – Regional economy, 2(100), 15-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36818/1562-0905-2021-2-2 [in Ukrainian]. {re2023.02.041.009}
Shults, S. L., & Lutskiv, O. M. (2021). Strukturno-tekhnolohichni zrushennya v ekonomitsi rehioniv u konteksti perspektyv rozvytku smart-spetsializatsiyi [Structural-technological changes in the economies of regions in the context of smart specialization development perspectives]. Rehional’na ekonomika – Regional economy, 2(100), 15-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36818/1562-0905-2021-2-2 [in Ukrainian]. {re2023.03.028.011}
Shults, S. L., & Lutskiv, O. M. (2022). Prostorovi ta sektoral’ni determinanty produktyvnoyi spromozhnosti rehioniv: teoretychna heneza ta metodolohichni zasady doslidzhennya [Spatial and sectoral determinants of regional productive capacity: theoretical genesis and methodological principles of the study]. Rehional’na ekonomika – Regional Economy, 106(4), 5-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36818/1562-0905-2022-4-1 [in Ukrainian]. {re2024.02.041.008}
Shults, S. L., Lutskiv, O. M., & Ozarkiv, K. S. (2022). Metodychni pidkhody do otsinky produktyvnoyi spromozhnosti ekonomiky: svitovyy ta yevropeys’kyy dosvid [Methodological approaches to the assessment of economic productivity: global and european experience]. Naukovi innovatsiyi ta peredovi tekhnolohiyi – Scientific innovations and advanced technologies, 12(14), 188-198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52058/2786-5274-2022-12(14)-188-198 [in Ukrainian]. {re2024.02.041.010}
УКР 
ENG
lutolen@i.ua
(032)270-7089
UDC 338.1:330.3:658.11(477); JEL М21, О10