Investments in the Digitalization of service Companies as a source of Well-being of the Population of the Regions

The article assesses the impact of investments in the digitization of service organizations on population well-being indices across Russia’s regions. The relevance of the study is reduced to the fact that in the context of digitalization of the economy there is a dynamic development of the service sector, which becomes a driver of the growth of the quality and standard of living of the population. The purpose of the study is to determine the presence of economic effects from investments in digitalization that contribute to the improvement of the level and quality of life of the population in the region. The objectives of the study are theoretically justify the selection of indicators for assessing the well-being of the regional population, investments in the digitalization of service organizations depending on the type of region, and the calculation of digital effects. Methods of assessment of par correlations, typology, and panel data used to conduct spatial-time analysis. 85 regions of Russia were selected as the objects of study, and the research period includes the pre-pandemic and pandemic period, the impact of which led to an increase in investment in digital technologies in the service sector. The study tested the scientific hypothesis that investment in the digitalization of the service sector contributes to an increase in the volume of services, their availability and their quality, which, in turn, leads to an increase in the well-being of the population. The analysis carried out did not allow us to fully confirm the hypothesis, since there are differences between regions and types of services. The novelty of the study is in the formed spatial-time models, reflecting the relationship between investment in the digitalization of the services sphere and the factors determining the quality of life of the population of the regions of Russia. The analysis did not fully support the hypothesis, as there were differences between regions and types of services. It concluded that the investment increased the population’s use of computer equipment and service volumes, as well as their ability to save more money and use services for managing their personal finances.

1. Ткаченко И. Н., Стариков Е. Н. Цифровая экономика: основные тренды и задачи развития. Известия Саратовского университета. Новая серия. Серия: Экономика. Управление. Право. 2020;20(3):244–255. DOI: 10.18500/1994–2540–2020–20–3–244–255 Tkachenko I. N., Starikov E. N. Digital economy: Key trends and development objectives. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya Seriya. Seriya: Ekonomika. Upravlenie. Pravo = Izvestiya of Saratov University. New Series. Series: Economics. Management. Law. 2020;20(3):244–255. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18500/1994–2540–2020–20–3–244–255

2. Xiang S., Rasool S., Hang Y., Javid K., Javed T., Artene A. E. The effect of COVID-19 pandemic on service sector sustainability and growth. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:633597. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633597

3. Grybauskas A., Stefanini А., Ghobakhloo М. Social sustainability in the age of digitalization: A systematic literature review on the social implications of Industry 4.0. Technology in Society. 2022; 70:101997. DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101997

4. Spence M. Government and economics in the digital economy. Journal of Government and Economics. 2021;3:100020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jge.2021.100020

5. Воронцовский А. В. Цифровизация экономики и ее влияние на экономическое развитие и общественное благосостояние. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Экономика. 2020;36(2):189–216. DOI: 10.21638/spbu05.2020.202 Vorontsovskiy A.V. Digitalization of the economy and its impact on economic development and social welfare. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Ekonomika = St. Petersburg University Journal of Economic Studies (SUJES). 2020;36(2):189–216. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21638/spbu05.2020.202

6. Якимова Т. Б. Цифровая экономика и ее влияние на уровень и качество жизни населения. Russian Economic Bulletin. 2022;5(1):245–250. Yakimova T. B. Digital economy and its impact on the level and quality of life of the population. Russian Economic Bulletin. 2022;5(1):245–250. (In Russ.).

7. Литвинцева Г. П., Карелин И. Н. Эффекты и риски цифрового качества жизни населения в регионах России. Экономика региона. 2022;18(1):146–158. DOI: 10.17059/ekon.reg.2022–1–11 Litvintseva G. P., Karelin I. N. Effects and risks of the digital quality of life in Russian regions. Ekonomika regiona = Economy of Regions. 2022;18(1):146–158. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17059/ekon.reg.2022–1–11

8. Печеркина М. С., Коробков И. В. Оценка рисков, влияющих на благосостояние регионов. Экономика региона. 2019;15(4):1077–1087. DOI: 10.17059/2019–4–9 Pecherkina M. S., Korobkov I. V. Assessment of the risks impacting the regions’ welfare. Ekonomika regiona = Economy of Regions. 2019;15(4):1077–1087. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17059/2019–4–9

9. Baujard A. Values in welfare economics. GATE Lyon St-Étienne Working Paper. 2021;(2112). URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03244909/document

10. Grüne-Yanoff Т. What preferences for behavioral welfare economics? Journal of Economic Methodology. 2022;29(2):153–165. DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2022.2061721

11. Булгаков В. В. Методологические аспекты анализа благосостояния населения. Вестник Саратовского государственного социально-экономического университета. 2020;(2):26–29. Bulgakov V.V. Methodological aspects of social welfare analysis. Vestnik Saratovskogo gosudarstvennogo sotsial’no-ekonomicheskogo universiteta = Vestnik of Saratov State Socio-Economic University. 2020;(2):26– 29. (In Russ.).

12. Пахомов Е. В. Анализ подходов к оценке влияния цифровизации на качество жизни населения. Управленческий учет. 2021;(12–1):198–206. DOI: 10.25806/uu12–12021198–206 Pakhomov E.V. Analysis of approaches to assessing the impacts of digitalization on people’s well-being. Upravlencheskii uchet = The Management Accounting Journal. 2021;(12–1):198–206. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.25806/uu12–12021198–206

13. Hausmann R., Schetter U. Horrible trade-offs in a pandemic: Lockdowns, transfers, fiscal space, and compliance. CID Faculty Working Paper. 2020;(382). URL: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/cid/files/publications/faculty-working-papers/2020–06-cid-wp-382-pandemic-trade-offs.pdf

14. Артемова О. В., Меленькина С. А., Савченко А. Н. Основные подходы и методический инструментарий оценки качества жизни населения. Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. 2022;(4):10–20. DOI: 10.47475/1994–2796–2022–10402 Artemova O. V., Melen’kina S.A., Savchenko A. N. The main approaches and methodological tools for estimating the quality of life of the population. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 2022;(4):10–20. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.47475/1994–2796–2022–10402

15. Ерохина Е. В., Гретченко А. И. Основные акценты и стартовые условия для развития цифровой экономики в России (на материалах регионов Центрального федерального округа). Вестник НГУЭУ. 2019;(4):41–58. DOI: 10.34020/2073–6495–2019–4–041–058 Erokhina E.V., Gretchenko A. I. Basic accents and starting conditions for the development of the digital economy in Russia (on the materials of the regions of the Central Federal District). Vestnik NGUEU = Vestnik NSUEM. 2019;(4):41–58. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.34020/2073–6495–2019–4–041–058

16. Теске Г. П. Методология исследования цифровой составляющей качества жизни. Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. 2020;(11): 79–84. DOI: 10.47475/1994–2796–2020–11109 Teske G. P. Methodology for researching of the digital component of the quality of life. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 2020;(11):79–84. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.47475/1994–2796–2020–11109

17. Окрепилов В. В., Гагулина Н. Л. Развитие оценки качества жизни населения региона. Журнал экономической теории. 2019;16(3):318–330. DOI: 10.31063/2073–6517/2019.16–3.1 Okrepilov V.V., Gagulina N. L. Development of estimating quality of life of regional population. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoi teorii = Russian Journal of the Economic Theory. 2019;16(3):318–330. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31063/2073–6517/2019.16–3.1

18. Селиверстов Ю. И. Влияние цифровой экономики на конкурентную среду: возможности и риски. Белгородский экономический вестник. 2022;(3):3–10. Seliverstov Yu.I. The impact of the digital economy on the competitive environment: Opportunities and risks. Belgorodskii ekonomicheskii vestnik. 2022;(3):3–10. (In Russ.).

19. Kaplinsky R., Kraemer-Mbula E. Innovation and uneven development: The challenge for low- and middle-income economies. Research Policy. 2022;51(2):104394. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104394

20. Friesenbichler K. S., Kügler A. Servitization across countries and sectors: Evidence from world inputoutput data. Economic Systems. 2022;46(3):101014. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecosys.2022.101014

21. Witt U., Gross C. The rise of the “service economy” in the second half of the twentieth century and its energetic contingencies. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 2020;30(2):231–246. DOI: 10.1007/s00191–019–00649–4