| In the section | Articles |
| Title of the article | Social Efficiency Indicators of Public Investment: The Case of the Far Eastern Regions |
| Pages | 23-43 |
| Author |
Artyom Gennadyevich Isaev Candidate of Sciences (Economics), Leading Research Fellow Economic Research Institute FEB RAS 153 Tikhookeanskaya St., Khabarovsk, 680042, Russian Federation This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ORCID: 0000-0001-6569-2982 |
| Abstract | The article provides estimates of the social discount rate and regional welfare weights for the Russian Far East territories. The key parameter for their calculations is the elasticity of the marginal utility of consumption, estimated for the Russian Federation as a whole on the basis of the consumer demand function for food products. It’s revealed that for different territories should be applied different social discount rates for to assess the social effects of projects with state participation. The reason is that territories differ in the quality of life, which can be traced through interregional differences in the level and dynamic of the domestic consumer market as well as the size and structure of household income and expenditure. The social discount rate is sensitive to the future annual growth rate of household consumption in the region. If we take the actual average annual rates for 2000–2018 as forecast values, the Sakhalin Oblast has the highest social discount rate (12 per cent), and the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug has the lowest rate (7.6 per cent). Regional welfare weights show how the regions of the Far East are ranked according to the degree of impact of public investment on marginal changes in the welfare of their households. Thus, the lowest marginal increase in welfare in the Far Eastern Federal District will be observed in the Sakhalin Region, followed by the Khabarovsk Territory. From the social efficiency point this casts doubt on the choice of these regions as priority locations for large-scale public projects. On the other hand the largest effect of public projects for the improving of welfare will be observed in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and the Zabaikalsky Krai. These regions are characterized by the highest values of regional welfare weights in the Far East for 2018, and consequently the highest marginal welfare growth for households due to public investment. It is worth noting that in 2010 the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug and Kamchatsky Krai were characterized by the highest values of the regional welfare weights in the Far East. By 2018 these two regions significantly improved their positions. Despite the fact that the regional welfare weights for most of the Far Eastern regions decreased significantly, for the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and the Zabaikalsky Krai this decrease was minimal (2 per cent and 5 per cent respectively) |
| Code | 332.4+330.12 |
| JEL | R13, D31, D63 |
| DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2020.4.023-043 |
| Keywords | household welfare ♦ social discount rate ♦ regional wealth weights ♦ public investment ♦ region ♦ Far Eastern Federal District |
| Download | |
| For citation | Isaev А.G. Social Efficiency Indicators of Public Investment: The Case of the Far Eastern Regions. Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2020, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 23–43. https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2020.4.023-043 (In Russian) |
| References | 1. Blundell R., Browning M., Meghir C. Consumer Demand and the Life-Cycle Allocation of Household Expenditures. Review of Economic Studies, 1994, vol. 61, issue 1, pp. 57–80. 2. Bohm-Bawerk E. von. Capital and Interest. Translated from English. Chelyabinsk, 2010, 916 p. (In Russian). 3. Costa A., Garcia J., Raymond J.L., Sanchez-Serra D. Subnational Purchasing Power of Parity in OECD Countries: Estimates Based on the Balassa-Samuelson Hypothesis. OECD Regional Development Working Papers No. 2019/12, 2019, 33 p. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/3d8f5f51-en 4. Cowell F., Gardiner K. Welfare Weights. STICERD, London School of Economics, 1999, 43 p. Available at: (accessed September 2020). 5. Dupuit J. On the Measurement of the Utility of Public Works. Milestones of Economic Thought. Vol. 1. Theory of Consumer Behavior and Demand. Edited by V.M. Galperin. Saint Petersburg, 2000, pp. 28–66. (In Russian). 6. Evans D., Kula E. Social Discount Rates and Welfare Weights for Public Investment Decisions under Budgetary Restrictions: The Case of Cyprus. Fiscal Studies, 2011, vol. 32, issue 1, pp. 73–107. 7. Evans D.J. The Elasticity of Marginal Utility of Consumption: Estimates for 20 OECD Countries. Fiscal Studies, 2005, vol. 26, pp. 197–224. 8. Fellner W. Operational Utility: The Theoretical Background and Measurement. Ten Economic Studies in the Tradition of Irving Fisher. Edited by W. Fellner. New York: John Wiley, 1967, pp. 17–37. 9. Frisch R. A Complete Scheme for Computing All Direct and Cross Demand Elasticities in a Model with Many Sectors. Econometrica, 1959, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 177–196. 10. Kadomsteva S.V. State Finance. Moscow, 2009, 352 p. (In Russian). 11. Kossova T.V., Sheluntsova M.A. A Social Discount Rate for Russia: Methodology, Appraisal, Regional Differences. Ekonomicheskaya Nauka Sovremennoy Rossii = Economics of Contemporary Russia, 2012, no. 3 (58), pp. 16–27. (In Russian). 12. Kula E. Derivation of Social Time Preference Rates for the United States and Canada. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1984, vol. 99, issue 4, pp. 873–882. 13. Kula E. Regional Welfare Weights in Investment Appraisal – The Case of India. The Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 2002, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 99–114. 14. Malkina M.Yu. Social Well-Being of the Russian Federation Regions. Ekonomika Regiona = Economy of Region, 2017, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 49–62. (In Russian). 15. Naiden S.N., Belousova A.V. Methodological Tools to Assess the Population Welfare: Interregional Comparison. Ekonomika Regiona = Economy of Region, 2018, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 53–68. (In Russian). 16. National Program of Socio-Economic Development of the Far East for the Period up to 2024 and for the Future up to 2035: Approved by Order of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 2464-r of September 24, 2020. Available at: (accessed September 2020). (In Russian). 17. Ramsey F.P. A Mathematical Theory of Saving. The Economic Journal, 1928, vol. 38, no. 152, pp. 543–559. 18. Suvorov A.V., Soloviev A.M. Forecasting the Structure of Population Expenditures on Goods and Services. Problemy Prognozirovaniya = Studies on Russian Economic Development, 2011, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 72–79. (In Russian). 19. Suvorov A.V., Sukhorukova G.M. The Methods for Building the Differentiated Balance of the Population’s Cash Incomes and Expenditures and the Prediction Calculations on its Basis Problemy Prognozirovaniya = Studies on Russian Economic Development, 2009, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 482–494. (In Russian). 20. Vilenskiy P.L., Livshist V.N., Smolyak S.A. Evaluating of Effectiveness of Investment Projects. Theory and Practice. Moscow, 2002, 888 p. (In Russian). 21. Zubarevich N.V., Safronov S.G. The Share of Food in Total Consumption of the Population of Russian Regions as an Indicator of the Standard of Living and Consumption Modernization. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 5, Geografiya = Moscow University Bulletin. Series 5, Geography, 2019, no. 2, pp. 61–68. (In Russian). |
| Financing | The study was supported by a grant RFBR 20-010-00818 ‘Study of the trajectories of the economic, structural, technological and social dynamics of the Far East in conditions for the implementation of the national program for the development of the macro region’ |
| Submitted | 03.11.2020 |
| Revised | 26.11.2020 |
| Published online | 25.12.2020 |