Priority development areas as a tool for enterprises support in Russian monotowns

This paper aims to estimate the effectiveness of the Priority Development Areas (PDA) program in Russian monotowns at the firm level. Using data from the SPARK-Interfax database on Russian companies in 2014–2018, the authors estimate the effect of the PDA residency on the firms’ revenue growth in monotowns in Russia. The authors test two hypotheses. First, the status of the PDA resident is obtained by firms that have been successful in previous periods. Second, the PDA resident status does not have a positive effect on firm growth. To measure the treatment effect, the authors use the nearest neighbor propensity score matching method, which allows drawing conclusions about causality, as opposed to the ordinary least squares (OLS) method. The regressions consider the firm size, industry, and geographic location of the city. According to the results of the study, both hypotheses are confirmed. Resident status is determined by the gains in the company’s revenue for the two previous periods (the coefficients are significant in all specifications at the 5% level). The influence of residency on the firm’s revenue growth is neglected (becomes insignificant) when comparing enterprises with the same pre-2015 trends. Thus, the authors conclude that the success of the PDA program in Russian monotowns in terms of business support is questionable. The findings of the study are valid for enterprises established before 2015.

1. Neumark D., Simpson H. Place-based policies. NBER Working Paper. 2014;(20049). URL: https://www.nber.org/papers/w20049.pdf (дата обращения: 19.05.2020).

2. Glaeser E.L., Gottlieb J.D. The economics of place-making policies. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. 2008;(Spring):155–239. URL: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/2008a_bpea_glaeser.pdf

3. Kline P., Moretti E. People, places, and public policy: Some simple welfare economics of local economic development programs. Annual Review of Economics. 2014;6:629–662. DOI: 10.1146/annureveconomics-080213–041024

4. Shastitko A. E., Fatikhova A. F. Company towns in Russia: Some thoughts on development alternatives. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie. Elektronnyi vestnik = Public Administration. E-Journal. 2019;(76):109–135. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24411/2070–1381–2019–10006

5. Duranton G., Puga D. Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies. In: Henderson J. V., Thisse J. F. Handbook of regional and urban economics. Amsterdam: North Holland; 2004:2063–2117. (Handbooks in Economics. Vol. 7). DOI: 10.1016/S 1574–0080(04)80005–1

6. Acs Z., Armington C. Employment growth and entrepreneurial activity in cities. Regional Studies. 2004;38(8):911–927. DOI: 10.1080/0034340042000280938

7. Glaeser E. L., Kallal H. D., Scheinkman J. A., Shleifer A. Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy.1992;100(6):1126–1152. DOI: 10.1086/261856

8. Francis J. Agglomeration, job flows and unemployment. The Annals of Regional Science. 2009;43(1):181–198. DOI 10.1007/s00168–007–0208–5

9. Gordeev V., Magomedov R., Mikhailova T. Agglomerative effects in Russian industry. Ekonomicheskoe razvitie Rossii = Russian Economic Developments. 2017;24(8):19–20. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/aglomeratsionnye-effekty-v-promyshlennosti-rossii/viewer (In Russ.).

10. Van Beveren I. Total factor productivity estimation: A practical review. Journal of Economic Surveys. 2012;26(1):98–128. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467–6419.2010.00631.x

11. Manaeva I.V. Method for assessment of monotowns (e.g. single-industry towns) social and economic development level. Rossiiskoe predprinimatel’stvo = Russian Journal of Entrepreneurship. 2013;(19):46–52. (In Russ.).

12. Criscuolo C., Martin R., Overman H., Van Reenen J. The causal effects of an industrial policy. NBER Working Paper. 2012;(17842). URL: https://www.nber.org/papers/w17842.pdf (дата обращения: 19.08.2020).

13. Deidda M., Di Liberto A., Foddi M., Sulis G. Employment subsidies, informal economy and women’s transition into work in a depressed area: Evidence from a matching approach. IZA Journal of Labor Policy. 2015;4:7. DOI: 10.1186/s40173–015–0034–9

14. Marx I. Job subsidies and cuts in employers’ social security contributions: The verdict of empirical evaluation studies. International Labour Review. 2001;140(1):69–83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1564–913X.2001.tb00213.x

15. Wang J. The economic impact of Special Economic Zones: Evidence from Chinese municipalities. Journal of Development Economics. 2013;101:133–147. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.10.009

16. Barone G., Mocetti S. Natural disasters, growth and institutions: A tale of two earthquakes. Journal of Urban Economics. 2014;84:52–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.jue.2014.09.002

17. Ahmed E. M. Are the FDI inflow spillover effects on Malaysia’s economic growth input driven? Economic Modelling. 2012;29(4):1498–1504. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2012.04.010

18. Best M. C., Hjort J., Szakonyi D. Individuals and organizations as sources of state effectiveness, and consequences for policy design. URL: https://economics.ubc.ca/files/2017/01/pdf_seminar_paper_MichaelBest.pdf (дата обращения: 19.08.2020).

19. Li H., Meng L., Wang Q., Zhou L.-A. Political connections, financing and firm performance: Evidence from Chinese private firms. Journal of Development Economics. 2008;87(2):283–299. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.03.001

20. Khwaja A.I., Mian A. Do lenders favor politically connected firms? Rent provision in an emerging financial market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2005;120(4):1371–1411. DOI: 10.1162/003355305775097524

21. Faccio M. Differences between politically connected and nonconnected firms: A cross-country analysis. Financial Management. 2010;39(3):905–928. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755–053X.2010.01099.x

22. Graham D. J. Productivity growth in British manufacturing: Spatial variation in the role of scale economies, technological growth and industrial structure. Applied Economics. 2001;33(6):811–821. DOI: 10.1080/00036840122333

23. Banerjee A. V., Duflo E. The experimental approach to development economics. Annual Review of Economics. 2009;1:151–178. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.143235

24. Rosenbaum P.R., Rubin D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41