Index Method of Evaluating the Performance of Economic Activities

The subject of the research is the economies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the branches of economic activity functioning in their territories. The aim of the study is to develop methods for assessing the efficiency of economic sectors and types of economic activity within the boundaries of 85 constituent entities of the Russian Federation and to create a rating of the efficiency of the constituent entities by the type of economic activity “Production and distribution of electricity, gas and water”. Economic and statistical methods, system analysis, as well as general scientific methods of comparison were used. The main calculations are based on the tax revenue efficiency index developed by the authors by types of economic activity. It is based on 13 indicators, where each corresponds to the type of economic activity and assesses the level of economic development of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. The authors analyzed the reports on tax revenues and the number of employed population in the context of economic activities. Data analysis and parameter estimation were carried out by means of the statistical information processing program IBM SPSS Statistics 20, the analytical module of the Russian Taxes regional tax revenue information analysis system and the MS Excel 365 tabular processor. Based on the proposed method, the distribution of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation was obtained according to the values index of tax revenues for all types of economic activity in 2016. The effectiveness of tax revenues for individual indicators included in the index was considered. The distribution of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation by the type of economic activity “Production and distribution of electricity, gas and water” was obtained. The distribution indicators for each constituent entity of the Russian Federation were calculated. Graphs showing the structure of the tax revenues efficiency index in the Moscow region and in the Altai Republic in 2016 were built. The proposed method allows to obtain a comprehensive indicator of the system’s activities and development, to assess its potential, to define goals, to identify infrastructural problems and the shortcomings in economic diversification, as well as to evaluate investment risks and threats.

1. Kamaletdinov A. Sh., Ksenofontov A. A. Modeling of the income of social and economic systems on the basis of the production function. Finansy: teoriya i praktika = Finance: Theory and Practice. 2018;22(1):118–127. DOI: 10.26794/2587–5671–2018–22–1–118–127 (In Russ.).

2. Cobb C. W., Douglas P.H. A theory of production. The American Economic Review. 1928;18(1-Suppl.):139–165.

3. Ksenofontov A. A., Kamaletdinov A. Sh. Financial management of social and economic systems. Vestnik Universiteta (Gosudarstvennyi universitet upravleniya). 2017;(3):120–127. (In Russ.).

4. Kamaletdinov A. Sh., Ksenofontov A. A. Assessment of the economic state of the subjects of the Russian Federation based on the index method. Finansy: teoriya i praktika = Finance: Theory and Practice. 2016;20;(6):63–70. DOI: 10.26794/2587–5671–2016–20–6–63–70 (In Russ.).

5. Kamaletdinov A. Sh., Ksenofontov A. A. Applied methods for marketing of territories of the Russian Federation. Innovatsii i investitsii = Innovation & Investment. 2017;(10):53–57. (In Russ.).

6. Frenkel’ A.A. et al. Russian economy in 2011–2013: Trends, analysis, forecast. Analytical report. Moscow: Financial University; 2013. 118 p. (In Russ.).

7. Kasaev B. S., Rtishchev A. V. Three-sector model of the economy and the problem of reducing the spatial polarization of Russia’s regions. Innovatsii i investitsii = Innovation & Investment. 2013;(5):113–116. (In Russ.).

8. Trifonov P. V. Assessment of the investment climate and mechanisms for the implementation of innovative projects in the Republic of Crimea. Ekonomika i upravlenie: problemy, resheniya. 2015;2(10):7–10. (In Russ.).

9. Daly H. E., Cobb J. B., Jr. For the common good: Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Boston, MA: Beacon Press; 1989. 534 p.

10. Hamilton C. The genuine progress indicator methodological developments and results from Australia. Ecological Economics. 1999;30(1):13–28. DOI: 10.1016/S 0921–8009(98)00099–8

11. Bleys B., Whitby A. Barriers and opportunities for alternative measures of economic welfare. Ecological Economics. 2015;117:162–172. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.06.021

12. Bagstad K. J., Shammin M. R. Can the Genuine Progress Indicator better inform sustainable regional progress? — A case study for Northeast Ohio. Ecological Indicators. 2012;18:330–341. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.11.026

13. Saprykina A. K., Dadonov V. A. Analysis of the factors of increasing Russia’s competitiveness on the international market. Gumanitarnyi vestnik MGTU im. N. E. Baumana = Humanities Bulletin of BMSTU. 2016;(7):6. (In Russ.).

14. Grevtsev A. A. Estimation of economic development of countries based on the global competitiveness index. Problemy prognozirovaniya = Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2009;(6):128–138. (In Russ.).

15. Sales B., Rover S., da Silva Ferreira J. Coherence in the disclosure of environmental practices of companies listed on the Business Sustainability Index (ISE). Revista Ambiente Contábil. 2018;10(2):1–22. DOI: 10.21680/2176–9036.2018v10n2ID 12641 (In Portug.).

16. López M. V., Garcia A., Rodriguez L. Sustainable development and corporate performance: A study based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Journal of Business Ethics. 2007;75(3):285–300. DOI: 10.1007/s10551–006–9253–8

17. Rezaei J., van Roekel W.S., Tavasszy L. Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method. Transport Policy. 2018;68:158–169. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.05.007

18. Meng B., Chi G. Evaluation index system of green industry based on maximum information content. The Singapore Economic Review. 2018;63(2):229–248. DOI: 10.1142/S 0217590817400094

19. Azapagic A. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2004;12(6):639–662. DOI: 10.1016/S 0959–6526(03)00075–1

20. Azapagic A., Perdan S. Indicators of sustainable development for industry: A general framework. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2000;78(4):243–261. DOI: 10.1205/095758200530763

21. Kosarev I. M. Information technologies in the system analysis of tax statistics. In: Proc. 3 rd Int. sci.-pract. conf. “System analysis in the economy-2014” (Moscow, 13–14 Nov., 2014). Moscow: Financial University; 2015:56–57. (In Russ.).