Let's analyze the reproductive structure of the region.

Let us consider the dynamics of the gross regional product (Table 1; Fig. 1) and the dynamics of GRP per capita (Table 1; Fig. 2).

These indicators most comprehensively show the economic activity of the region.

table

Figure 1 - Dynamics of GRP

Figure 2 - Dynamics of GRP per capita, rubles

Conclusion: The dynamics of the absolute indicator of GRP and the indicator of GRP per capita in the Ulyanovsk region for the period from 2008 to 2010 tended to grow.

The Ulyanovsk region is the "average" region of the Russian Federation in terms of production volumes. The region ranks 47th among all constituent entities of the Russian Federation in terms of the absolute volume of GRP in 2010 and 9th in the Volga Federal District (Volga Federal District).

The volume of GRP per one resident of the Ulyanovsk region at the end of 2010 amounted to 134,902.9 rubles. per person. According to this indicator, the region ranks 57th in Russia and 9th in the Volga Federal District. The GRP per capita is lower than in Russia as a whole (261,705.3 rubles). This lag is partly due to the rather high population density (29th place in the Russian Federation), in addition, in the Ulyanovsk region, the bulk of production is provided by manufacturing industries, and the share of mining is significantly lower than the average share in Russia.

Let us consider the structure (Table 2; Fig. 5) of the GRP of the Ulyanovsk region, the dynamics of its change (Table 2; Fig. 3), comparable with the average value for the RF (Table 2; Fig. 4).

table 2 - GRP structure

1. Agriculture, hunting and forestry
2. Fishing, fish farming
3. Extraction of minerals
4. Manufacturing industries
5. Production and distribution of electricity, gas and water
6. Construction
7. Wholesale and retail trade; repair of auto-, motor vehicles, household products
8. Hotels and restaurants
9. Transport and communications
10. Financial activities
11. Operations with real estate, rent and provision of services
12. Public administration and military security; social insurance
13. Education
14. Health care and social services
15. Provision of other communal, social and personal services

Figure 3 - Dynamics of changes in the structure of GRP,%

Figure 4 - Comparison of the structure of the GRP of the Ulyanovsk region with the average for the Russian Federation in 2010

Figure 5 - GRP structure in 2010

Conclusion: During the analyzed period, the GRP structure did not undergo significant changes.

Compared with the average GRP in Russia, it should be noted that this indicator is exceeded in the Ulyanovsk region in the following industries:

· Agriculture(excess by 2.1%);

· Manufacturing (by 3.4%);

· Production and distribution of electricity, gas and water (by 2.3%);

· Transport and communications (by 3.7%);

· public administration and ensuring military security, social insurance (by 2.3%);

· Education (by 0.9%);

· Healthcare and provision of social services (by 0.8%);

Lagging behind the average for the Russian Federation:

· Mining (lagging by 8.4%);

· Wholesale and retail trade (by 2.7%);

· Operations with real estate (by 2.9%);

In 2010, more than half of the share of GRP was made up of manufacturing (21.1%), wholesale and retail trade (16.7%), transport and communications (14.2%).

The Ulyanovsk region is characterized by a high degree of industrial orientation with a predominance of the processing sector. Among industrial branches in the Ulyanovsk region, the most developed are mechanical engineering and the food industry. The region has a traditionally well-developed automotive industry and the production of auto components. The basic enterprise of the industry is the Ulyanovsk Automobile Plant (UAZ). In the Ulyanovsk region, an aviation cluster with the base enterprise of the cluster, AVIASTAR, is already functioning.

The most important direction in the development of the economy of the Ulyanovsk region is the functioning of the nuclear innovation cluster in Dmitrovgrad on the basis of the Research Institute of Nuclear Reactors (NIIAR).

It should be noted that the share of industries social sphere, first of all, health care and education exceed the share of the national average, which indicates their fairly high development.

Vladimir Stepanovich Bochko

PhD in Economics, Professor, Honored Economist Russian Federation, Deputy Director of the Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT:

ASSESSMENT OF TERRITORY DEVELOPMENT

In the context of the increasing role of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the economic development of the country, it is necessary to more actively use modern indicators to assess the dynamics and socio-economic potential of the regions.

The logical continuation of the used system of national accounts (SNA), which Russia is switching to, is the system of regional accounts (SRC). This is pointed out by A.G. Granberg, Yu.S. Zaitseva, N.N. Mikheeva, A.A. Miroedov, O. A. Sharamygina and other researchers.

The key indicator of the system of national accounts at the regional level is the gross regional product (GRP). The methodological principles of its construction were developed by the Nobel laureate R. Stone in the 50s of the twentieth century. Currently, regional accounts are used in many countries around the world. In Russia, GRP has been calculated since 1994. At the same time, the first steps are being taken to create a CDS. At the same time, the Goskomstat of the Russian Federation follows the methodological provisions of the European Statistical Committee, which recommends starting work on CDS with calculations for the regions of gross value added and gross capital formation.

Special meaning acquires the use of the GRP indicator in the conditions of the formation of a new scientific direction for the study of territories, which is called "spatial economy". A significant contribution to the development of its theoretical and methodological foundations was made by E.G. Animation,

N.M. Surnina and other Ural researchers.

In this article, an attempt is made to analyze the gross regional product of the Sverdlovsk region in terms of assessing economic development region.

The advantage of GRP is that it can be used not only to assess the development of a particular constituent entity of the Federation, but also to carry out

objective comparison of the level of development of various constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as comparison with data for Russia as a whole.

To characterize the results economic activity nationwide, the indicator of gross domestic product(GDP).

Although in terms of the economic content, GRP and GDP are very close indicators, they do not coincide with each other either quantitatively or qualitatively.

First, the difference between GRP and GDP lies in the scale of coverage of performance results. GRP is limited to accounting for goods and services created in a certain territory of the country, called a region. Since the region, as a rule, is understood as the territory that coincides with the borders of the constituent entity of the Federation, then in the statistical accounting the GRP reflects the results of the activities of regions, republics and autonomous regions which are subjects of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Secondly, GDP is greater than the total GRP for Russia, since, in addition to it, it includes added value that relates to the country as a whole and is not distributed to individual regions. At the federal level, GDP includes the value added of non-market collective services provided by state institutions to society as a whole (defense, public administration, etc.), the added value created by financial and foreign trade intermediaries, as well as taxes on foreign economic activity.

The sectoral structure of GRP can be represented as a diagram (Fig. 1), which includes two large groups of sectors and the value of net taxes on products.

Rice. 1. The structure of the gross regional product

The first group of industries providing the creation of the gross regional product includes industries that produce goods. The most important among them are industry, agriculture,

construction, as well as forestry and other activities for the production of goods.

The second group includes industries producing services. These include transport, communications, trade and catering, communal services, information and computing services, science, health care, education, management, etc. All services, in turn, are divided into market and non-market. At the same time, services in the field of health care, education, housing, culture and art, as well as geology and exploration of mineral resources can be both market and non-market in nature, and in trade, transport, communications and some other industries - only market.

Net taxes on products are taxes on products minus the subsidy on products. As you know, a subsidy is considered an allowance in cash or in kind, provided by the state at the expense of state or local budgets, as well as from special funds for legal and individuals, local authorities authorities. Distinguish between direct subsidies aimed at the development of the necessary sectors of the economy, and indirect subsidies, which are a system of preferential tax rates, accelerated depreciation policy, etc.

Subsidies for products are a type of subsidies paid by the government to a manufacturer per unit of a product (service) produced. Most often, socially significant types of goods (services) are subsidized, the prices of which, in the absence of subsidies, would be too high for the mass consumer. With the help of subsidies, losses from the sale of products are compensated for at prices that do not cover production costs and do not bring a certain amount of profit.

Since GRP is the newly created value of goods and services produced in the territory, it is calculated as the aggregate of the added values ​​of the sectors of the regional economy, or, in other words, as gross value added. GRP is calculated in current market and basic prices (nominal GRP) and in comparable prices (real GRP) 1.

The sectoral structure of the GRP of the Sverdlovsk region. The main volumetric characteristics of the structure of the gross regional product in the Sverdlovsk region are given in table. 1.

1 Market price is the price of the end customer. It includes trade and transport margins, taxes on production and imports, and does not include subsidies on production and imports. To eliminate the impact of different tax and subsidy rates in different sectors of the economy on the structure of production and income generation, sectoral indicators are given in the valuation at basic prices. Base price is the price received by a manufacturer for a unit of a good or service, excluding taxes on products, but including subsidies on products. Non-market goods and services are valued using the market price of similar goods and services sold on the market, if it is possible to establish it, or at the cost of production, if market price absent (in particular, this is how services are assessed government agencies and non-profit organizations).

Table 1

Sectoral structure of the gross regional product of the Sverdlovsk region,% of the gross regional product

Year Industries producing goods Of which Industries producing services Of which Net taxes on products

Industry Agriculture ovt s l C o ort S Transport Communication Trade and public catering

1995 53,2 36,3 10,5

1996* 51,7 36,6 5,8 8,9 40,3 10,8 1,1 9,0 8,0

1997* 47,1 34,0 6,3 6,1 44,0 11,2 1,2 10,0 8,9

1998 51,6 39,2 5,6 6,0 41,8 10,3 1,2 10,8 6,6

1999 55,6 42,2 6,6 6,3 37,7 8,3 1,0 10,8 6,7

2000 55,9 43,5 5,5 6,2 38,1 9,5 1,2 10,7 6,0

2001* 54,7 42,2 5,9 5,9 39,9 9,4 1,3 11,7 5,4

Note. * Calculated on the basis of data from the Sverdlovsk Regional State Statistics Committee.

In first place in terms of specific gravity, as can be seen from the table. 1, there are industries producing goods. They account for more than half of the production of the gross regional product. Moreover, their share not only remains, but is gradually increasing. So, in 1995 it was 53.2%, then it decreased slightly, but at the end of the 1990s it began to increase again and reached 55.9% in 2000. In 2001, there was a decrease to 54.7%, but the total share of industries producing goods remains quite high and there are no signs that it will decrease.

If we compare similar processes in Russia as a whole and in highly developed industrialized countries, then it should be noted that in comparison with the Sverdlovsk region, they are going in the opposite direction: the share of industries producing services is growing in them, and not vice versa.

With the strengthening of market reform industry structure GDP of Russia is gradually but steadily changing in favor of service industries. So, in 1995, the share of industries producing goods in Russia was almost the same as in the Sverdlovsk region, i.e. equaled 53.3%, and

by 2000, it had dropped to 47.6%. At the same time, the share of industries producing services increased from 38.1% in 1995 to 45.0% in 2000. There is an increase in the share of trade and public catering in this area (14.0% in 1998 and 19.3% in 2000), which naturally reflects the development of market relations and the direction of economic development to meet the needs of people in accordance with the demand of the population.

So, with almost the same for the Sverdlovsk region and Russia, the initial 1995 values ​​of the share of industries producing goods (53.2% - Sverdlovsk region; 53.3% - Russia), by 2000 the situation had changed.

so much so that the Sverdlovsk region has overtaken Russia by more than 7 percentage points (55.9% - Sverdlovsk region; 47.6% - Russia). This is negative from the point of view of the development of market relations economic process continues to be consolidated by the economic and investment policy pursued in the field.

The deterioration of the GRP structure in the Sverdlovsk region is caused by the growth among industries producing goods, the share of industry (from 36.6% in 1996 to 42.2% in 2001), including due to the metallurgical complex. In 1993, ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy together accounted for 45.9% of industrial production, and in 2000 already 50.2%. According to the Ministry of Economy and Labor of the Sverdlovsk Region, their share in 2003 was 52.5%. At the same time, the share of agriculture, transport, communications, trade and public catering changed insignificantly.

In itself, the fact of strengthening the industrial-production orientation of development does not bear anything negative. Each region must use its resources and capabilities. Focusing on them, the subjects of the Federation are looking for ways to raise the level of their economic development. Following this methodological approach, it is natural to consider that the Sverdlovsk region in modern conditions ensures its development precisely on the basis of the use of existing objective prerequisites and material conditions. In other words, being industrial region, it continues to build up primarily its industrial potential.

But such conclusions are correct only as long as we remain at the level of aggregated indicators. If we go from analyzing the industry as a whole to considering its structure by industry and clarifying the role and share of each industry in the development of the regional economy, then some generally correct provisions will have to be slightly adjusted and clarified. The most important among them will be the assertion that only such an industrial structure is optimal in which the processing industries take a worthy place, and among them the main role belongs to high-tech industries. Therefore, the raw material orientation of the industry structure cannot be considered its best option.

A positive process in the changes in the GRP structure should consist in increasing the share of industries producing services. The need for such a focus on transforming the structure of the gross regional product is associated, firstly, with the creation of a market infrastructure, especially with the development of banking, lending, insurance, real estate transactions, etc., secondly, with the restructuring of production for the manufacture of those goods and services that are increasingly focused on the diverse demand of the population both in terms of price parameters and quality characteristics.

GRP per capita. In the analysis of GRP, an important place is occupied by the identification of trends in the value of the gross regional product per capita. This indicator is possibly the largest

measure, reflects the dynamics of economic activity unfolding in the region.

In statistics, data on GRP per capita are presented not in comparable, but in current prices. This makes it difficult to carry out some calculations, for example, comparisons of the dynamics of the GRP of the same region over a number of years, since the actual data include price increases due to inflation. Depending on how different the inflation rates were in the compared periods, the degree of errors in the calculations changes.

If comparisons are made for the same year between different regions, then the inflation rate does not matter, since both in the country as a whole and in individual regions, prices in a given period of time grew approximately at the same rate. Therefore, the value of GRP per capita makes it possible to objectively compare the position of some regions with others for a certain year, since in this case inflationary processes practically do not affect the value of calculations. The existing insignificant differences in inflation rates across different regions are so small that they should be taken into account only when performing special calculations. For a general comparison of the activities of the regions and the establishment of correlations in their development, the differences in regional inflation are not of fundamental importance.

In the case when comparisons are made for different years, it is possible to compare the data only "horizontally", i.e. take different regions and compare their development over a certain year. The transition to comparison "vertically" is possible only when the comparison over the years will act not as a ratio in time of the indicators of a given region to itself, but as a result of comparing different regions with each other "horizontally".

Let us analyze the ratio of changes in the GRP of the Sverdlovsk region and the GDP of the Russian Federation. The data given in table. 2, reveal two trends characteristic of the region. The first is that the GRP per capita in the region is constantly increasing. In nominal terms, it increased from 4,240.1 rubles. in 1994 up to 47,028.0 rubles. in 2001, i.e. more than 11 times. Naturally, inflation was the main component of this growth. At the same time, a certain share is made up of the actual increase in GRP due to the growth in production in the second half of the 90s of the twentieth century. The second trend is less rosy and even alarming. It consists in a relative decrease in the value of the gross regional product per one inhabitant of the region, compared with the indicator for the whole of the Russian Federation.

table 2

The ratio of GRP per capita in the Sverdlovsk region and the Russian Federation,

R., until 1998 - thousand rubles.

Year Sverdlovsk region Russian Federation Sverdlovsk region in relation to the Russian Federation,%

1994 4 240,1 3 583,7 (+) 18,3

1995 12 376,0 9 566,3 (+) 29,4

1996 14 378,4 13 230,0 (+) 8,7

1997 15 902,2 15 212,3 (+) 4,5

1998 16 832,7 16 590,8 (+) 1,5

1999 26 044,6 28 492,1 (-) 8,6

2000 36 094,1 42 902,1 (-) 15,9

2001 47 028,0 54 325,8 (-) 13,4

From table. 2, it can be seen that from 1994 to 1998 inclusive, there was an excess of the GRP per capita in the Sverdlovsk region in comparison with Russia. In 1994 it was 18.3%, in 1995 it increased to 29.4%. But since 1996, the value of the excess has gradually decreased and in

1998 was only 1.5%.

Since 1999, the level of GRP per capita in the Sverdlovsk region has become lower than in Russia, and remained in this form in subsequent years. In 2001, it was 13.4% lower than the national average.

Such a steady downward process can only indicate that the real development of the regional economy over the years under review is experiencing significant difficulties. One of the reasons for this situation is not only the preservation of a high proportion of industries producing goods in the region, but also the growth within them of the share of raw materials-oriented industries, primarily ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy.

The ratio of the dynamics of the gross regional product per capita in the Sverdlovsk region and in the Russian Federation is clearly shown in Fig. 2. Initially, the Sverdlovsk region steadily overtook the Russian Federation, and then just as steadily began to lag behind it.

Sverdlovsk region - ■ -Russian Federation

Rice. 2. Ratio of GRP per capita of the Sverdlovsk region and the Russian Federation

To verify this alarming conclusion and establish its objectivity, we decided to carry out additional calculations by comparing the development of the Sverdlovsk region with neighboring regions, which are located in approximately the same geographic,

climatic and economic and industrial conditions. These regions, naturally, are primarily the Chelyabinsk and Perm regions. They are so close in terms of general industrial potential and other indicators of development that in the scientific literature, all three areas are often referred to as “old industrial regions”.

First glance at tab. 3 shows that the Sverdlovsk region is developing better than the Chelyabinsk region, but inferior to the Perm region.

Table 3

The ratio of GRP per capita in the Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk and Perm regions, rubles, before 1998 - thousand rubles.

Year Sverdlovsk region Chelyabinsk region Perm region Ratio of the indicator of the Sverdlovsk region,%

with Chelyabinsk region with the Perm region

1994 4 240,1 3 844,5 4 436,5 (+) 10,3 (-) 4,4

1995 12 376,0 8 967,3 12 291,5 (+) 38,0 (+) 0,7

1996 14 378,4 13 193,2 14 481,8 (+) 9,0 (-) 0,7

1997 15 902,2 14 110,6 16 724,4 (+) 12,7 (-) 5,0

1998 16 832,7 12 700,5 18 615,5 (+) 32,5 (-) 9,6

1999 26 044,6 22 713,7 31 571,7 (+) 14,7 (-) 17,5

2000 36 094,1 36 908,7 43 869,7 (-) 2,2 (-) 17,7

2001 47 028,0 41 557,4 63 183,0 (+) 13,2 (-) 25,6

However, if the general assessment conclusion is correct, attention should be paid to the emerging trend of a gradual deterioration in the dynamics of indicators of the Sverdlovsk region in relation to both the Chelyabinsk and Perm regions. So, in the mid-1990s, the Sverdlovsk region had a significant superiority over the Chelyabinsk region, reaching, for example, in 1998 up to 32.5%. But since the end of the 1990s, the gap began to narrow and in 2000 had a negative value.

When comparing the indicators with the Perm region, one can also see the dynamics of development not in favor of the Sverdlovsk region. Thus, in the mid-1990s, the GRP per capita in both oblasts was practically the same: in 1995, the GRP of the Sverdlovsk Oblast exceeded the similar indicator of the Perm Oblast by 0.7%, and in 1996 it was lower by the same amount. In other words, development in neighboring regions followed "the same scenarios." However, since 1997 a clear separation of the Perm region begins, it is actively moving forward, increasing the distance every year. In 1997, the difference was 5.0%, in 1998 - 9.6, in

1999 - 17.5, and in 2001 already 25.6%.

How is the gap widening? Does the revitalization of economic activity in the Perm region play a role here, or is the situation deteriorating in the Sverdlovsk region? Most likely, both are taking place.

If the reason for the success of the Perm region in comparison with the Sverdlovsk region was only in the factors of the Perm region itself, then with the competition of such regions with the same production and economic potential, the gap in indicators would be much smaller, as evidenced by the development data before 1996. is also associated with some negative processes taking place in the Sverdlovsk region itself. One of the reasons for this situation was the consolidation of its focus on raw materials.

Dynamics of growth in the physical volume of the GRP of the Sverdlovsk region. Since the cost indicators of changes in the gross regional product are largely burdened by the inflationary component, they cannot reflect the real changes that are taking place with the GRP. The greatest difficulties arise with obtaining objective data when it is necessary to compare the indicators of the same region over a number of years. Therefore, to obtain a real picture, which should reflect the actual processes in the dynamics of GRP, the index of the physical volume of GRP is used. In this case, the gross regional product is calculated in comparable prices and reflects the real volume.

In connection with a certain more rapid development of Russia as a whole and its individual regions, the share of the Sverdlovsk region in the total volume of the country's gross regional product is gradually decreasing. If in 1995 the share of the GRP of the Sverdlovsk region in the all-Russian volume was 4.1%, then in 2001 it was only 2.7%.

The index of the physical volume of the gross regional product of the Sverdlovsk region also varies unevenly (Table 4).

Table 4

Index of physical volume of GRP of the Sverdlovsk region,% to the previous year

Year Sverdlovsk region For reference: change in the physical volume of the aggregate GRP in the Russian Federation

1999 101,8 105,6

2000 112,2 110,7

2001 108,7 106,0

2002* 103,8 104,3

2003* 106,5 106,9

Note. * For the Sverdlovsk Region - according to the data of the Sverdlovsk Regional Committee for State Statistics, for the Russian Federation - the current data of the State Committee for Statistics of the Russian Federation.

From table. 4 shows that the GRP of the Sverdlovsk region in its real terms began to grow since 1999. The most successful period was 2000, when the GRP increased by 12.2%. There were hopes for maintaining such high rates in subsequent years. Although 2001 ended with a slowdown in growth rates, the latter were at such a high level that one could expect a new positive development of the economy. These two successful years were also significant because for the first time the Sverdlovsk Region in terms of GRP growth rates overtook the Russian Federation. If in 2000 the GRP growth rate in Russia was 110.7%, then in the Sverdlovsk Region its growth was 1.5 percentage points higher and amounted to 112.2%. In 2001, a favorable outcome was again on the side of our region. It seemed that the region's economy had entered the right track and would continue to develop in a given rhythm.

However, the next year undermined hopes for a sustainable advanced development of the region, not only in relation to the Russian Federation. In 2002, the region's GRP grew by only 3.8%, which in itself was a low increase. In addition, this indicator has again become less than the national average.

It was hoped that this was an accidental breakdown. But the data for 2003 again showed the result not in favor of the Sverdlovsk region. This leads to the idea that the region's lower GRP growth rates compared to Russia may become a recurring phenomenon.

The likelihood of such consequences is evidenced by the dynamics of the GRP of the Sverdlovsk region and the GRP in Russia as a whole over the past 7 years, shown in Fig. 3. Except 2000 and 2001. for the rest of the period, the growth rates of the physical volume of the region's GRP were lower than the growth rates of the aggregate GRP of the Russian Federation.

/ 1Ї0 // 105U, h. ^% H108.7 ChL0bh 106.9 104, ^ 106.5

Ш 101.2 G / / /> 101.8 / / "Chg 103.8

* h9b \ h \ // // 93 / b /

Sverdlovsk Region - ■ --- Russian Federation

Rice. 3. Comparative dynamics of the physical volume of the GRP of the Sverdlovsk region and the GRP of the Russian Federation as a whole

The problem of doubling the GRP of the Sverdlovsk region in relation to

2000 Since the gross regional product in a synthesized form reflects the results of the region's work, and the gross domestic product is the results of the country's economic activity, the leaders of the state and regions began to refer precisely to these indicators. This made it possible to focus the attention of entrepreneurs and the entire population on solving a problem that, on the one hand, would be understandable to everyone, and on the other, would not simplify the essence of the proposed guidelines.

Both GRP and GDP characterize the final result of the production activity of economic units. These indicators reflect the cost of final goods and services produced by these units during the reporting period in the prices of the final buyer. Consequently, they orient the population and business entities to the production of not just finished products and services, but exclusively those that are in effective demand.

V economically GRP, as well as GDP, when calculating production method represents the sum of the gross value added of all industries. This means that society should organize the activities of enterprises, organizations and spheres of social production in such a way that the share of value added in the product (service) tends to increase. This will reflect the growth of efficiency and labor productivity. But not only that. It is important that part of the added value appears for workers in the form of their wages, and ultimately - their income. Therefore, it becomes clear that an increase in GRP (or GDP) is tantamount to an increase in the well-being of the population of a region or country.

Based on this economic understanding of GRP (GDP), the problem of its growth is indeed the most important both for the leaders of regions and the country, and for performers of any level, rank, position and qualifications. The increase in GRP (GDP) is based on the success of the development of society, an individual, his material wealth and conditions for the multiplication of spiritual culture. Therefore, the task (and problem) of actively increasing GRP and GDP may become the main mobilizing economic slogan for the next 20-25 years both for individual regions and for Russia as a whole.

Currently, the leadership of the Sverdlovsk region has set the task of doubling the GRP by 2010. It followed the call of the President of the country to double Russia's GDP by the same date.

How much is it possible to solve the named problem in the specified time interval? To answer this question, it is necessary to find out, firstly, how the region “walks” in GRP increment, and secondly, how it should “walk” in order to reach the specified finish line in time.

The movement of the Sverdlovsk region to increase the GRP was discussed above. If we take 2000 as the basis for doubling the GRP, then the “step” of the region was slowing down: in 2001, the GRP growth was 8.7%, in 2002 - 3.8%. The situation improved somewhat in 2003: the growth rate of GRP was 6.5%. The average annual growth over this period was 6.3%.

Our calculations show that if we take the level of GRP of the Sverdlovsk region in 2000 as a unit, then to double it in 10 years, i.e. by 2010, it is necessary to ensure an average annual increase in GRP of at least 7.5% \

If in any year the growth rates are lower than this indicator, then in subsequent years it will be necessary to exceed 7.5% growth.

The regional government has an intention to finish 2004 with an increase in GRP of 7.5%. If this happens, then the Sverdlovsk region can enter the rhythm of movement, which will enable it to actually achieve the stated goal by 2010.

1 Calculations for the Sverdlovsk region correspond to the dynamics of the indices of the gross domestic product for Russia as a whole. In 2000, its GDP was 66% of the 1990 level. To double this value by 2010, it is necessary to have a GDP growth rate of at least 7.5-7.7% per year. However, practice shows that Russia has not yet approached the level of 7.5% GDP growth per year. In any case, in 2001, GDP growth was 5.0%, in 2002 - 4.3%, and in 2003 - 6.9%.

At the same time, from the point of view of increasing the welfare of the entire population, one should not overestimate the significance of the growth of the gross regional product of the Sverdlovsk region by 2 times by 2010, since even a doubled GRP in its physical volume will only approach the 1990 level or slightly. will exceed.

Fundamentally important point revealing and putting into operation the base that will provide the required level of growth of the gross regional product becomes. It is necessary to proceed, firstly, from the analysis of the share of industries in the structure of GRP and their growth rates, and secondly, from the direction of economic development of the region as a whole.

Table data. 5 show that over the six analyzed years, serious changes, both positive and negative, have taken place in the structure and share of individual industries.

Table 5

Dynamics of the structure of GRP of the Sverdlovsk region by industry (calculated on the basis)

Specific gravity of gross added

Branches of the industry value,%

1996 2001

Manufacture of goods 51.75 54.73

Including by industry:

industry 36.61 42.18

agriculture 5.76 5.93

forestry 0.13 0.11

construction 8.90 5.87

other activities for the production of goods 0.34 0.63

Production of services 40.29 39.86

Market services 31.34 33.33

Including by industry:

transport 10.75 9.44

bond 1.14 1.27

trade and catering 8.97 11.69

information and computing services 0.04 0.30

real estate transactions 1.49 3.58

utilities 2.61 1.24

insurance 0.18 0.43

housing 1.39 0.87

collateral 0.59 1.48

public education 0.27 0.57

culture and art 0.08 0.11

control 1.06 0.58

other market services 2.77 1.77

Non-market services 8.95 6.53

Including by industry:

housing 0.95 0.37

healthcare, physical education and social

collateral 3.06 1.85

public education 3.20 2.27

culture and art 0.29 0.22

management 1.01 1.77

other non-market services 0.44 0.05

Net taxes on products 7.96 5.41

Among positive aspects it is necessary to mention the preservation of the share of services in the total volume of GRP. In 1996, they were 40.29%, and by 2001 they had only slightly decreased and amounted to 39.86%. But this is relative prosperity, since the share of services should still grow, not decrease. In addition, it is important to note such a phenomenon as an increase in the share of market services and, accordingly, a decrease in the share of non-market services.

A more important positive shift is a significant increase in the share of trade and public catering, information and computing services, and real estate transactions among market services. The named series of positive changes testifies to the gradual consolidation of market relations in the economy of the region and the creation of the necessary infrastructure for them.

There is also a significant amount of negative progress. First, there has been an increase in the share of industries producing goods, which does not correspond to Russian and global trends in the transformation of the GRP structure. Second, the share of industry continues to grow. In general, this is not a negative characteristic, but on condition that manufacturing industries will prevail among industrial sectors, rather than raw materials. Third, the share of construction has decreased, which may lead to a decrease in the growth of GRP, since construction usually acts as one of the locomotives of the overall increase in growth rates. Fourth, among market services, the share of transport and housing is falling, although usually it is these sectors, along with communications, that rush forward in the development of market relations. Fifth, an increase in the share of management in the system of non-market services may become a restraining factor in increasing GRP growth rates: from 1996 to 2001, it grew from 1.01 to 1.77%. Multiplying management costs from budget funds testify not only to an increase in wages and incomes of officials, but also to an increase in their number, which leads to bureaucratization of the system of economic and social management.

The aforementioned positive and negative trends in the change in the GRP structure do not exhaust the entire depth of the changes that took place in the period from 1996 to 2001 inclusive. But they suggest ways of choosing directions for improving the structure of the regional economy in order to increase the growth rate of GRP and the economic well-being of the population.

It should be understood that the focus on raw materials will not save the region. Its wealth is not in natural resources, but in the ability to use them. Therefore, it is necessary to develop intelligent industries, primarily manufacturing, and rely on knowledge-intensive industries.

Literature

1. Granberg A., Zaitseva Yu. Production and use of the gross regional product: interregional comparisons // Russian economic journal. 2002. No. 10.

2. Miroedov A.A., Sharamygina O.A. The use of the gross regional product indicator in assessing the economic development of the region // Questions of statistics. 2003. No. 9.

3. Mikheeva N.N. Macroeconomic Analysis based on regional accounts. Khabarovsk-Vladivostok: Dalnauka, 1998.

4. Surnina N.M. Spatial economics: problems of theory, methodology and practice / Nauch. ed. E.G. Animitsa. Yekaterinburg: Ural Publishing House. state econom. University, 2003.

5. Regions of Russia: Stat. Sat: In 2 volumes / Goskomstat of Russia. M., 1998.Vol. 2.

6. Regions of Russia: Stat. Sat: In 2 volumes / Goskomstat of Russia. M., 2001.Vol. 2.

7. Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators. 2002: Stat. Sat. / Goskomstat of Russia. M., 2002.

8. Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators. 2003: Stat. Sat. / Goskomstat of Russia. M., 2003.

9. Russian statistical yearbook. 2002: Stat. Sat. / Goskomstat of Russia. M., 2002.

10. Russian statistical yearbook. 2003: Stat. Sat. / Goskomstat of Russia. M., 2003.

11. "Express information" of the Sverdlovsk Regional Committee state statistics for 1996 and 2001

Description:

The correct calculation of the energy intensity of the gross regional product and the determination of its dynamics by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is one of the most important conditions for achieving the state goal - to reduce by 2020 the energy intensity of GDP by 40% compared to 2007. Let's look at the example of Moscow, which has reduced the energy intensity of the gross regional product by a third over the past decade: how to correctly calculate the energy intensity of the GRP? What is the difficulty in assessing the dynamics of GRP energy efficiency? What factors influenced the decrease in the GRP energy intensity?

Dynamics of the energy intensity of the gross regional product of Moscow

Dynamics of the energy intensity of the GRP of Moscow

The GRP energy intensity can be expressed as:

where EIgrp t is the GRP energy intensity in the year t;

PEC t is the primary energy consumption in year t, which is defined as the sum of:

(2)

where ein it is the energy intensity of production of goods or services in sector i in year t;

AC it is an indicator of economic activity in sector i (indicator of the volume of production of goods or services, area of ​​residential or public buildings, number of cars, population, etc.) in year t;

GRP t - GRP of the city in year t.

Then the change in the GRP energy intensity can be decomposed into two components:

The first term gives an estimate of the effect of changes in energy intensity due to the structural factor or due to the uneven growth of indicators of economic activity in different sectors of energy consumption in relation to GRP. For example, for high rates of GRP growth, the area of ​​the housing stock is growing slowly, but it can continue to grow even if the GRP falls.

The second term reflects the effect of reducing energy intensity in certain sectors of the economy.

This component is often referred to as the technological factor contribution. However, a decrease in energy intensity in a particular sector of the economy may also be the result of structural shifts in this sector itself (for example, a decrease in the share of energy-intensive industrial products due to a slower growth in their production) or as a result of changes in the utilization of production capacity, changes in energy prices, weather conditions, growth of energy -arms and, finally, the actual changes in the energy technological characteristics of the objects used - buildings, structures and equipment.

When considering the city's economy as producing only one product - GRP - the role of the structural factor is zero, and the share of the factor of reducing energy intensity is 100%. The more detailed the analysis, the higher the role of the structural factor.

If the change in the GRP energy intensity is multiplied by the GRP value, then it is possible to obtain an estimate of the scale of energy savings due to a decrease in the GRP energy intensity (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Energy saving by reducing the energy intensity of the GRP of Moscow

For each sector, energy consumption was estimated as a function of energy demand from the main factors:

where PEC it is the primary energy consumption in sector i in year t;

AC it is an indicator of economic activity in sector i in year t;

TEC it is the technical factor for reducing the specific energy consumption in sector i in year t;

CU it is the factor of change in the load of available equipment in sector i in year t;

DD t is the number of heating degree days in the year t;

EP it / PI t - ratio average price for energy resources in sector i in year t to the price of products, works or services of this sector in year t;

Other it is the impact of all other factors not listed above in sector i in year t.

To assess the contribution of all these factors over the period under consideration, the parameters of the corresponding energy demand functions were determined and, on this basis, more detailed description the structure of factors that determined energy savings in Moscow in 2001-2009 (Fig. 3).

Analysis of these data shows:

■ that the main contribution to the reduction of energy intensity - 71% - was made by structural changes. Of these, shifts in the structure of energy consumption sectors accounted for 53.7%, the contribution of product shifts in industry - 13.8%, the contribution of differences in the dynamics of population and living space in the housing sector - another 3.5%;

■ the factor of change in the utilization of production capacity in industry accounted for 10.2% of energy savings.

With an increase in production due to the utilization of existing production capacities, the growth in energy consumption occurs the slower, the higher the share of conditionally constant energy consumption (idling, lighting, heating, ventilation and air conditioning, etc.);

■ the growth factor in relative prices for energy amounted to 7.3% of energy savings;

■ the climate factor accounted for 3.2% of the additional energy consumption. The fact is that 2000 was quite warm and during the period under review only 2008 was warmer;

■ the technological factor gave only slightly more than 1% reduction in energy consumption and the energy intensity of Moscow's GRP:

a) for end consumers, the technological factor accounted for only 3% of energy savings and a corresponding decrease in the energy intensity of the GRP. The higher energy efficiency of new equipment was in many cases overshadowed by an increase in the power-to-weight ratio (for example, for passenger cars the average engine power increased) or the technological effect was not reflected statistically. During the construction of new energy efficient buildings, only for a small share of them, consumers paid for heat using metering devices. Therefore, the effect of the construction of new energy-efficient buildings and the insulation of buildings in the process of major repairs was not reflected in the statistics. Only since 2010, city residents began to pay for heat based on metering devices. The first massive data on heat consumption for heating in 2010 will be received only at the beginning of 2011;

b) the equipment of Moscow power plants was modernized, the specific consumption for electricity generation decreased, according to statistics, from 308 to 288 gt / kWh in 2000-2009, but this happened against the background of an increase in the specific consumption of heat energy from 134 to 139 kgt / Gcal and with a decrease in the share of electricity generation in the heating cycle. Therefore, the fuel efficiency decreased. The technological factor in the production of electric and heat energy as a whole contributed not to a decrease, but to an increase in energy consumption by 1.8%;

■ Other factors accounted for 13.4% of the reduction in energy consumption. These include both errors and inaccuracies of statistics, and other factors not reflected in expression (4).

Some of the "other" factors can theoretically reflect the contribution of technological factors. However, even if we assume that half of the contribution of other factors is the contribution of the technological factor, which could not be adequately identified by statistical methods, then even then its integral contribution will not exceed 8%. This was the contribution of technological factors in 2008.

Thus, the analysis allows us to formulate an important conclusion that the decrease in the energy intensity of Moscow's GRP in 2000-2009 by 31.5% was mainly due to structural shifts in the economy with the contribution of the technological factor in the range from 1 to 8%. The relative role of the technological factor turned out to be the most significant for the housing sector.

The increase in energy intensity in the crisis year of 2009 was determined by the contribution of structural shifts by 81%, by another 12% - by colder weather, and by another 3% - by a decrease in the utilization of production capacities. Other factors accounted for 20% of the increase in energy intensity. In 2009, the technological factor (12%) and the price factor (5%) worked in the opposite direction - reducing the GRP energy intensity.

Energy efficiency index

One of the ways to reflect the contribution of the technological factor is the assessment of the energy efficiency index (ODEX ODYSSEE). It is defined as a weighted average index of the dynamics of specific energy consumption using the shares of each sector in the total energy consumption as weights:

where de it is the share of primary energy consumption in sector i in year t or in base year b in the total primary energy consumption;

ein i and ein tb are the energy intensity of production of goods or services in sector i in year t or in base year b (2007).

With a decrease in the value of the energy efficiency index, technological energy efficiency increases, and vice versa. Expression (5) allows you to eliminate the role of the structural factor and reflect the dynamics of energy consumption by reducing the specific energy consumption. The assessment of the energy efficiency index for all sectors (for 17 sectors), industry (for five products), transport (for five types) and the residential sector (it distinguishes three components: energy consumption for heating, hot water supply and other needs) is shown in Fig. 4.

In industry, the energy efficiency index in 2000-2008 declined by an average of 9% per year. This is significantly higher than in the EU countries (2.1% per year) 3. The most significant decline in this index was in 2000-2006, but it was mainly due to recovery economic growth with a significant increase in the utilization of previously built production facilities, and not due to the accelerated introduction of new technologies. In 2009, due to the crisis, the energy efficiency index rose sharply by 19% and returned to the 2004 level. In general, over 2000-2009, the index declined by an average of 6.5% per year.

The energy efficiency index for transport in Moscow was declining by only 0.5% per year, which is twice as slow as in the EU4. The ODEX index for the population began to decline dynamically since 2005. The instability of its dynamics is partly the result of insufficient reliability of statistical data. In 2000-2009, on average per year, it decreased by 0.8%, that is, almost the same as in the EU 4.

For all sectors, the index declined evenly, but rather slowly. In 2000-2009, it decreased by an average of 2.3% per year. In the EU countries, the decline in this index was 1.3% per year. In 2005-2009, the decline in the index slowed sharply to 0.9% per year. This is already slower than in the EU countries. But even this slow decline was largely determined not by the introduction of new technologies, but by the impact of factors such as rising energy prices and increased utilization of production capacities.

Analysis of the dynamics of the ODEX energy efficiency index allows us to provide additional justification for the conclusion that the role of the technological factor in reducing the energy intensity of Moscow's GRP in the last five years has been limited. Due to this factor, the energy intensity decreased by no more than 0.4–0.5% per year, which is equal to only 10% of the total rate of decrease in the GRP energy intensity.

Factors Determining the Dynamics of Energy Consumption in Certain Sectors of the Moscow Economy in 2000-2009

Industry... Analysis for industry was carried out for five products: oil refining (for primary oil refining), production of sulfur, textiles, bread and bakery products, as well as other industrial production.

The contribution of the technological factor was most noticeable in oil refining. It also played a certain role in the production of sulfur and textiles. The change in production volumes took place mainly due to an increase in the utilization of production capacities. Therefore, the latter factor to a certain extent neutralized the change in energy consumption due to the change in output. Its impact was especially significant for “other industrial production”. Price and climate factors also played an important role.

Transport... The analysis was carried out for four types of transport: metro, tram and trolleybus (in total), road and other transport (air and river). Data on the operation of railway transport are not reliable enough to identify the role of factors that determined the dynamics of energy consumption.

Consumption by road transport grew mainly due to the growth of the car fleet. For electrified urban transport, the main factors were the dynamics of transport work, a decrease in the load of trams and trolleybuses. The operation of outdated equipment led to the fact that for the metro, as well as trams and trolleybuses, the technological factor led not to a decrease, but to an increase in energy consumption. It is possible that this result is partly due to the low reliability of data on the operation of trams and trolleybuses, which is expressed in thousand gross tonnes km. For the metro, these data are more reliable; nevertheless, statistics show an increase in the specific consumption of electricity for the electric traction of metro trains. For other types of transport, the dynamics of energy consumption was mainly determined by the passenger turnover of air transport. The technological factor, as the fleet of old aircraft was replaced, had the effect of curbing the growth of energy consumption.

Services sector. The analysis for the service sector is carried out as a whole. It should be noted that in the indicator “energy consumption in service sector»Energy consumption by small industrial enterprises that do not report on Form 11-TER. For example, small bakeries that operate at shopping centers, are reflected not in the industry, but in the service sector.

The main factor behind the growth in consumption in the service sector was the growth in the area of ​​institutions and enterprises in this sector and the growth in the volume of sales of services per unit area (income), including due to an increase in the number of hours of their work. The technological factor did not restrain the growth of energy consumption in the service sector, since the effects of the use of more energy efficient equipment were offset by an increase in the power availability per unit area of ​​the service sector facilities.

Housing sector. The analysis of the factors that determined the dynamics of energy consumption in the housing sector was carried out separately for heating, for hot water supply and for all other needs. In addition, the final distribution of factors for the housing sector is shown (Fig. 5).

The growth in the number and income of the population, as well as in the area of ​​residential buildings, contributed to an increase in energy consumption. However, rising energy prices, increasing energy efficiency housing construction, metering of hot water and an increase in the efficiency of water-folding equipment, as well as an increase in the energy efficiency of household appliances, significantly constrained the increase in energy consumption in the residential sector. The relative role of the technological factor turned out to be the most significant for the housing sector.

conclusions

The assessment of the dynamics of the energy intensity of Moscow's GRP depends on the accuracy of the data on the consumption of primary energy. Accounting for the consumption of liquid fuel by road is especially difficult. It is determined on the basis of data on the size of the vehicle fleet.

In 2000-2009, 54% of the increase in primary energy consumption in Moscow was accounted for by road transport, another 35% - by the service sector, 6% - by other transport, and 4% each - by the population and industry. The growth structure was changing under the influence of changes in the city's economy. The sharpest increase in consumption took place in 2006. In 2008, the increase was small, and in the crisis year of 2009, consumption decreased.

In 2000-2008, the energy intensity of Moscow's GRP decreased by one and a half times, or 34%. On average, it decreased by 4.6% per year. However, in the crisis year of 2009, with a significant decrease in the city's GRP, the consumption of primary energy decreased insignificantly, so the energy intensity of the GRP increased by 11% and amounted to 104.2% of the 2007 level. This circumstance significantly complicates the solution of the problem of reducing the GRP energy intensity by 40% by 2020 from the 2007 level.

The decrease in the energy intensity of Moscow's GRP in 2000-2009 was mainly (by 71%) due to structural shifts in the economy. Big influence the dynamics of energy intensity was also influenced by the factors of changes in the utilization of production capacities, prices for energy carriers and the climate. The role of the technological factor has been limited in the past five years. Its contribution to the reduction of the GRP energy intensity did not exceed 10%.

The most important task of the city target program“Energy Saving in the City of Moscow for 2009–2011 and in the Long Term until 2020” - to significantly increase the contribution of the technological factor to the reduction of Moscow's GRP in the future until 2020.

1 In 2004-2005, the number of motor vehicles in Moscow reached 2.7 and 2.79 million units, respectively, the consumption of liquid fuel, in accordance with the IFEB, amounted to 997 thousand tons of fuel equivalent. and 1 417 thousand tons of fuel equivalent. In this case, the average mileage of one car (including cars, buses, trucks and special vehicles) is only 1,500-2,500 km per year, which is significantly less than the real value.

2 All figures and the table given in the article are based on the data of the CENEF assessment.

3 Energy efficiency and energy consumption in industry. European Environment Agency // www.eea.europa.eu.

4 Energy efficiency and energy consumption in the transport sector. European Environment Agency // www.eea.europa.eu.

Federal Agency for Education
State educational institution of higher professional education
Russian University of Economics. G. V. Plekhanov "

Faculty of Economics and Mathematics
Department of Statistics

COURSE WORK
in the discipline "Socio-economic statistics"
On the topic “Statistical study of the volume and dynamics of GRP in the Central Federal District. Revealing the presence of the dependence of the volume of GRP on the size of the Economically active population in the Central Federal District of the Russian Federation "

Completed
student group 423
full-time education
Faculty of Economics and Mathematics
Osmanov N.K.

Supervisor:
assistant of the department, Chuiko M.A.

Moscow - 2011

Table of contents.

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… .3

Chapter 1 " Theoretical basis studying GRP in SES "…………………………… ... 5
Basic concepts and categories ……………………………………………………. 5
Statistical methods and indicators …………………………………………… ... 6

Chapter 2 “Analysis of the distribution, dynamics and dependence of GRP on the number of EAN by regions of the Central Federal District.” …………………………………………………………………. nine
Analysis of GRP distribution by regions ………………………………………… .9
Analysis of GRP dynamics by regions of the Central Federal District ……………………………………… ..10

Chapter 3 “Chapter 3. Calculation of predicted GRP values. Analysis of the dependence of GRP on the amount of EAN. "……………………………………………………………………… 12
Analysis of the dependence of GRP on the number of EAN ………………………………… ... 12
Calculation of predicted GRP values ​​until 2013 ………………………………… .13

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… ... 14

Sources ……………………………………………………………………………… .15

Introduction.

The system of national accounts is a modern information system that is used to describe and analyze the development of a market economy at the macro level in almost all countries of the world. The indicators and classifications of this system reflect the structure of the market economy, its institutions and mechanisms of functioning. The central position in the SNA is occupied by the gross domestic product, and in the CDS - its regional counterpart - the gross regional product (GRP). Without it, it is impossible to build the most important regional accounts. GRP in modern world is increasingly used as a major instrument of regional policy.
Gross regional product is an indicator that characterizes the results of the production of goods and services in the region in accordance with the principles of the SNA, calculated as the difference between the output of goods and services and intermediate consumption. It is reasonable to say that the higher the volume of GRP in a particular region, the better the welfare of the country as a whole becomes. That is why it can be argued that the calculation and study of volumes, dynamics of GRP is relevant and necessary for further determining the directions of economic development in Russia.
The purpose of this work is to analyze these indicators, as well as to identify the dependence of the volume of GRP on the size of the economically active population in the Central Federal District of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CFD). The object of study is the economics of the Central Federal District, and the subject is GRP.
Let's highlight the main tasks of our research:

Study the volume of GRP in different regions of the Central Federal District.
Consider the dynamics of GRP and the main trends.
Analyze the dependence of GRP on the size of the economically active population in the region.

The information is taken from special educational literature and official data from Rosstat.

Main tables:
Table 1 GRP.

Region	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Central federal district	19795,1	19808,1	19858,7	20191,2	20215,3	20180
Belgorod region	730,6	713,8	752	735,3	759,2	793
Bryansk region	658,6	648	659,6	661	655,5	637,8
Vladimir region	806,2	809,3	792	787,4	776,2	754,8
Voronezh region	1091,1	1135,8	1148,5	1120	1135,1	1141,1
Ivanovo region	576,5	574,7	560,4	570,8	576,4	550,6
Kaluga region	550,8	547,4	538,5	547,8	548,9	565,5
Kostroma region	369,6	367	371,5	376,8	376,8	371,7
Kursk region	593,4	609,2	592,5	599,7	599,3	588,1
Lipetsk region	589	585,3	597,5	600	608,5	609,8
Moscow region	3682,3	3580,6	3603,3	3772,1	3764,2	3738,6
Oryol Region	432,9	425	438,6	426,9	416,4	416,1
Ryazan Oblast	584,8	606,7	576,3	596,3	570,6	574,8
Smolensk region	528	535	528,6	532,3	519,4	547,8
Tambov Region	520,5	555,4	556,1	547,8	566,1	549,5
Tver region	716,3	734,4	719,6	733	711,5	745,1
Tula region	826,6	804,7	814,5	818,7	784,2	794,8
Yaroslavskaya oblast	702,8	709,4	716,9	705,4	729,7	719,3
Moscow city	5836	5866,3	5892,5	6059,9	6117,1	6081,7

We also need data on the size of the economically active population:
Table 2.EAN.

Region	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Central Federal District	4617086,1	6278359,2	7965169,5	10208917,7	12674395,4	11445214,5
Belgorod region	114409,3	144987,8	178846,1	237013,3	317656,3	304343
Bryansk region	51003,4	66692,3	82100,4	102706,2	125834,4	126199,3
Vladimir region	74207	86926,8	112841,7	146663	175395,7	188466,3
Voronezh region	117197,6	133586,6	166176,5	222811,9	287072,1	302510,1
Ivanovo region	40159,4	44415,4	55090	74752	86980,3	86572,8
Kaluga region	57993,8	70953,9	86150,5	111869	150394,4	156646,2
Kostroma region	37787,4	44684,7	54351,1	65700,4	81040,7	78700,7
Kursk region	76506,1	86624,9	104035,7	128799	167865,8	161473,3
Lipetsk region	141778,3	145194,4	179057,3	209821,5	259532,2	226464
Moscow region	535204,4	708062,1	934328,9	1295649,9	1645753	1530623
Oryol Region	46042,3	53181,9	64801,6	77101,2	96669,9	89733,5
Ryazan Oblast	69996	84382,7	105491,9	121305,2	150151,2	152805,8
Smolensk region	56113,9	65525,6	79043,4	95703,4	121601,3	125237,3
Tambov Region	56775	63614,8	79766,2	106039,6	120836	133587
Tver region	88081,5	96897,4	127363,8	156034,6	192283	197892
Tula region	88119,6	116221,2	142240,1	174110,9	231730,8	213621,7
Yaroslavskaya oblast	112438,7	131252,1	153251,5	186577,5	214946,3	212801,7
Moscow city	2853272,4	4135154,6	5260232,8	6696259,1	8248652	7157536,8

Chapter 1. Theoretical foundations for the study of GRP in SES
1.1 Basic concepts and categories
Gross Regional Product (GRP) is a generalized indicator of the economic activity of a region that characterizes the process of production of goods and services for end use. GRP is calculated in current basic prices (nominal GRP), as well as in comparable prices (real GRP).
Gross Regional Product (GRP) is the gross value added of goods and services created by residents of a region and is defined as the difference between output and intermediate consumption. In terms of its economic content, the GRP indicator is very close to the gross domestic product (GDP) indicator. However, there is a significant difference between the indicators of GDP (at the federal level) and GRP (at the regional level).
The sum of gross regional products in Russia is not equal to GDP, since it does not include the added value of non-market collective services (defense, public administration, etc.) provided by state institutions to society as a whole.
The index of the physical volume of the gross regional product is a relative indicator characterizing the change in the volume of the gross regional product in the current period compared to the baseline. This index shows how much the physical volume of GRP has increased (i.e., the influence of price changes is excluded).
Actual final consumption of households - the most important indicator characterizing the end use of goods and services on the territory of the subject. Households consume goods and services at the expense of their own income, as well as individual non-market services of health care, education, culture, etc. at the expense of the state and non-profit organizations, transferred to households in the form of transfers in kind.
This indicator is important not only from the point of view of comparing the production and use of the gross regional product, but, especially, from the point of view of studying the level of well-being of the population of the subject.
Due to the great openness of the regional economy, consumption indicators are calculated not only for resident units of a given household entity, but for all resident and non-resident units that actually consumed in the territory of this entity.
Gross fixed capital formation is an investment by resident units of funds in an object of fixed capital to create new income in the future by using them in production.
Gross fixed capital formation in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation characterizes the investment activity of the constituent entities.
The indicator "economically active population" (hereinafter EAP) measures the supply of labor in the labor market. The economically active population includes a part of the population (labor resources) that offers its labor to produce goods, perform work and provide services. The economically active population is measured in individuals as of a particular point in time.
1.2 Statistical methods and indicators.
The work will use the following statistical methods: identifying the main trends and calculating the prospects for the dynamics of GRP. We will also analyze the dependence of GRP on EAN. The following indicators will help us in this:

Indicators of GRP composition: relative structure size (ОВ р) gross product, calculated in fractions or specific weights.

To analyze a number of GRP dynamics:
The absolute increase shows how many units (in absolute terms) the level of the current period has changed in comparison with the level taken as the comparison base, since we choose a chain indicator, then the comparison base will be the level of the previous period.

The growth coefficient shows how many times the level of the current period exceeds the level taken as the comparison base (if K p> 1) or what part of it is (if K p<1).

The growth rate is K p, expressed as a percentage T p = K p * 100 (%)
The growth rate shows how many percent (in relative terms) the level of the current period has changed compared to the level selected for the comparison base.

T pr = T p -100 (%)

The average level of a number of dynamics according to the method of simple chronological average, tk. we have a momentary series of dynamics with equal time intervals

, where n- the number of levels of the row

The average absolute growth shows how many units in absolute terms the levels of a number of dynamics changed on average annually during the studied period of time.

, where n- the number of levels of the row

The average growth rate shows how many times, on average, the levels of a series of dynamics increased annually during the studied period of time (if> 1) or what part were (if<1).

Average growth rate is the average growth rate expressed as a percentage.

The average growth rate shows the percentage of changes in the levels of a number of dynamics on average annually during the studied period of time.

To calculate the predicted values ​​and identify the main trends in a number of dynamics, we use the method of analytical alignment.

The alignment will be carried out according to a linear function, which will most fully reflect the main trend of change in a number of dynamics:
y t = a 0 + a 1 t, where a 0, a 1 are the parameters of the linear function, and t is the time parameter.

To find the parameters of a linear function, it is necessary to solve a system of two equations:

Also, to study the dynamics of GRP, the index method is used, in particular, the index of the physical volume of the GRP. This is an indicator representing the deviation of the volumes of GDP of the given and previous periods, expressed in the same constant prices:. The indices of the physical volume of GRP are the most important indicators of the growth of GRP all over the world.
To characterize the variation and dependence of GRP on the number of EAN, we use the following formulas:

- a measure of the spread of the values ​​of a variable relative to its mean value.

V is the coefficient of variation, that is, the standard deviation, normalized in relation to the average value of the indicator

r - linear correlation coefficient.

Chapter 2. Analysis of the distribution, dynamics and dependence of GRP on the number of EAN in the regions of the Central Federal District.
2.1 Analysis of the distribution of GRP by region.
In this section, we will consider the volumes of GRP in various subjects of the Central Federal District of the Russian Federation.
The GRP of the city of Moscow (from 61.8% at the beginning of the study period, to 65.30% at the end) makes up the greater part of the GRP of the entire region, the second place is occupied by the Moscow region (11.59% -13.04%) ... All other regions have a share of less than 5% during the entire study period (see Appendix 1). Fluctuations in the shares of different regions are relatively insignificant, only there is a slight tendency towards an increase in the role of Moscow and the Moscow region and a decline in the share of GRP of other regions. This distribution is associated with the old tendency of “cash flows” to flow to the capital, as well as the high concentration of various enterprises and organizations in it. A high proportion of IOs is also associated with this. Moscow is a full-fledged economic center not only of the Central Federal District but of the whole of Russia. You can clearly see the difference on the chart:
Chart 1 GRP distribution.

2.2 Analysis of GRP dynamics.
The GRP of the Central Federal District of the Okrug has been steadily growing throughout the entire study period, which is easily explained by the growth of the Russian economy as a whole, as well as by the relatively high inflation rate. Annual growth rates ranged from 35.98% in 2005 to 26.63% in 2008. As a result, over 4 years, the district's GRP increased by 179.99% (see Appendix 2)
Graph 2. Dynamics of GRP as a whole.

Let us consider the dynamics of GRP in the regions included in the Central Federal District. To begin with, let us single out the regions in terms of the total growth over 4 years - the best according to the results of the period under review were: the Moscow region showed an increase of 214.92%, the second was Moscow (195.84%), then Belgorod (178.89%), Kaluga (164.26%) and the Tula region (161.7%). In general, it can be noted that it was Moscow and the Moscow Region (the largest regions in terms of GRP) that provided the final growth of 179.99%, since all other regions showed lower absolute dynamics of GRP (all regions, except for the ones highlighted above, showed a total increase of less than 150% ). But the worst regions were Lipetsk and Yaroslavl regions with a total growth of less than 100% (85.62% and 95.62%, respectively).

Graph 3: GRP volumes by region.
Next, we will study the relative dynamics of GRP and also highlight the worst and best indicators (see Appendix 3). The absolute best indicator was achieved by Moscow in 2005 (+ 44.93%) and largely due to this value, the district as a whole achieved the best indicator of GRP growth in that year. But at the same time in 2005 the worst indicator was demonstrated - this is the Lipetsk region, only + 2.41%. In subsequent years, there was less differentiation of indicators: from 16.76% to 31.96% in 2006; 14.99% and 38.67% in 2007; 15.16% and 36.99% in 2008.
Summing up, it can be noted that the Central Federal District as a whole demonstrated good growth rates of GRP, but unfortunately the high inflation rate makes the indicators of “real” GRP growth not so optimistic. As can be seen from the appendix, the index of the physical volume of GRP (in percent, see Appendix 4) in the regions of the Central Federal District for the period under study ranged from 99.9% in the Ivanovo region in 2008 (i.e., the GRP for the year decreased by 0.1%) to 115.8% in the Kaluga region in 2008, and the average index for the entire district for the period under study was 109.025%.

Chapter 3. Calculation of predicted GRP values. Analysis of the dependence of GRP on the number of EAN.
3.1 Analysis of the dependence of GRP on the number of EAN.
To analyze the dependence of the region's GRP on the number of EANs, we use correlation-regression analysis. All calculations are given in the appendix, and here I will consider the main conclusions of the correlation analysis.
To begin with, consider the volume of GRP / EAN, which will be shown by the volume of GRP per 1 economically active person. The table is shown in Appendix 5.
In general, the level of GRP / EAN is fairly even - in all regions except for Moscow, the indicator is lower than the average for the district (the exception is the Lipetsk region in 2004). It can also be noted that the Moscow region in terms of GRP significantly surpassed other regions (except for Moscow) demonstrates GRP / EAN values ​​only slightly higher than most regions. From this diagram, we can conclude that, in terms of quality, only Moscow significantly surpasses the rest of the regions. You can also note the Lipetsk (432,492 rubles in 2008), Moscow (447,768 rubles) and Belgorod (420,273 rubles) regions. If we consider the dynamics of GRP / EAN, it is clear that the indicator showed a fairly stable growth in all regions, and in general for the district, the GRP per EAN increased from 233,243 rubles. up to 639,485 rubles (+174.2%) (see Appendix 6.7).
Chart 4.GRP / EAN

We begin the statistical analysis of the dependence of GRP on EAN with the calculation of the variance and the variation index. The dispersion of the GRP / EAN indicator in 2008 amounted to 70038268436 rubles (see Appendix 8) The values ​​of the indicator indicate a fairly strong dispersion of the GRP / EAN across the regions.
It is customary to use correlation as the main indicator characterizing the dependence of GRP on the number of economically active population (see Appendix 9). Correlation was calculated up to 2008; all calculations are given in the tables in the appendix. The statistical toolkit MS Excel was used. The value of the correlation indicator was 0.935763288, which indicates a very strong relationship between the gross regional product and the number of economically active population.
3.2 Calculation of predicted GRP values ​​until 2013.
We will calculate the predicted values ​​in accordance with the algorithm described in the first chapter, using Excel add-ins. All the necessary components of the system of equations, the coefficients of the linear function, as well as the predicted value for 2013 itself can be seen in Appendix 10. The analysis was carried out in the Central Federal District as a whole, as well as separately in Moscow, as in the city with the highest GRP and GRP growth rates and the economic center of all of Russia and the Central Federal District in particular.
As a result, it was found that the main trend in the dynamics of GRP can be expressed using the following linear function:
Y = 2234030.89+ 2055118.49 * t
Substituting the value t = 10 into this function, we obtain the GRP of the region in 2013 equal to 22,785,215.79 million rubles. This data is displayed on the graph.
Graph 5. Forecast of GRP.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the analysis of GRP and its dependence on EAN, several important conclusions can be drawn:
In the first chapter, the main categories and indicators used to disclose the topic of this work were identified.
The second chapter analyzes the distribution of GRP by region and its dynamics for 2004-2008.
Moscow and the Moscow Region occupy a dominant position in terms of GRP in the district, and therefore in the entire economy of the Central Federal District. At the same time, there was a slight tendency towards a further increase in their share in the district. In general, the okrug showed good growth rates of GRP, the index of physical volume also showed an increase in the “real” volume of GRP. The pace of development was fairly stable.
In the third chapter, the relationship between GRP and EAN was studied, and the predicted values ​​of GRP in 2020 were calculated. Based on the results of studying the GRP / EAN indicator, the correlation between the volume of GRP and the number of EAN, we can say that there is a fairly strong relationship between the GRP and EAN in this district.
Based on the results of studying the growth of GRP, the predicted value of the GRP of the district in 2013 was found to be 22,785,215.79
In the end, it can be summed up that the author has achieved the set goal of the study and solved all the main tasks of the course work.

Bibliography

The course of socio-economic statistics: textbook for universities / ed. M.G. Nazarov. 6th ed., Rev. and add. M .: OMEGA-L, 2007. Pp. 350-380
Statistics: training manual / ed. M.G. Nazarov. M .: KNORUS, 2008. Pp. 193-205.
Practical work on socio-economic statistics: teaching aid / ed. M.G. Nazarov. M .: KNORUS, 2009.-368 p.
Salin V.N., Shpakovskaya E.P. Socio-economic statistics: textbook. - M .: Jurist, 2004 .-- 461 p.
www.gks.ru - the official website of the Federal State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation
Grishin V.I., Arkhipova L.S., Belchuk E.V., Gagarina G.Yu., Chernov V.V. Regional economy. Lecture notes. - M .: GOU VPO "PRUE im. G.V. Plekhanov ", 2010. - 375 p.

Applications.

Annex 1.
Table 3. Share of regions by GRP
1,42% 1,44% 1,36% Voronezh region 2,54% 2,13% 2,09% 2,18% 2,24% Ivanovo region 0,87% 0,71% 0,69% 0,73% 0,67% Kaluga region 1,26% 1,13% 1,08% 1,10% 1,19% Kostroma region 0,82% 0,71% 0,68% 0,64% 0,63% Kursk region 1,66% 1,38% 1,31% 1,26% 1,30% Lipetsk region 3,07% 2,31% 2,25% 2,06% 2,04% Moscow region 11,59% 11,28% 11,73% 12,69% 13,04% Oryol Region 1,00% 0,85% 0,81% 0,76% 0,74% Ryazan Oblast 1,52% 1,34% 1,32% 1,19% 1,16% Smolensk region 1,22% 1,04% 0,99% 0,94% 0,94% Tambov Region 1,23% 1,01% 1,00% 1,04% 0,95% Tver region 1,91% 1,54% 1,60% 1,53% 1,52% Tula region 1,91% 1,85% 1,79% 1,71% 1,78% Yaroslavskaya oblast 2,44% 2,09% 1,92% 1,83% 1,70% Moscow city 61,80% 65,86% 66,04% 65,59% 65,30% Appendix 2.
Table 4. Absolute GRP dynamics.