Scientific Journal SPATIAL ECONOMICS - Testing Alternative Models of Regional Economic Growth: The Boundaries of the Possible (On the Book by A.G. Isaev ‘Economic Growth of Russian Regions: Exogenous and Endogenous Sources’)

In the section	Review, Discussion, Criticism
Title of the article	Testing Alternative Models of Regional Economic Growth: The Boundaries of the Possible (On the Book by A.G. Isaev ‘Economic Growth of Russian Regions: Exogenous and Endogenous Sources’)
Pages	168-183
Author	Natalya Gennadievna Dzhurka Candidate of Sciences (Economics), Senior Research Fellow Economic Research Institute FEB RAS 153 Tikhookeanskaya St., Khabarovsk, 680042, Russian Federation Institute of Economics RAS 32 Nakhimovsky Prospect, Moscow, 117218, Russian Federation This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ORCID: 0000-0001-9242-5636
Abstract	In this work we analyse the main results on the study of the factors of the regional economic growth in Russia that are presented in ‘Economic Growth of Russian Regions: exogenous and endogenous Sources’ by A.G. Isaev. The emphasis is made on the features of the instrumental base of the study. A.G. Isaev makes an attempt to test alternative macroeconomic models, adapted to varying degree to the tasks of interpreting the phenomena of regional growth, which inevitably raises questions about the possibilities of gaining synthetic knowledge based on such testing. We discuss two problems using the example of the results of conditional convergence assessment, verification of Verdoorn’s law, and determination of the potential for generating endogenous impulses in regional economies, presented in the book. The first problem of equifinality is common to all studies of economic dynamics, regardless of the objects that are considered in them, whether it is the economies of countries or regions. The second problem of determining the sources of spatial dependence and options for taking them into account is specific for studies of regional economic growth. The general conclusions are that the task of obtaining meaningful, internally consistent conclusions based on neoclassical and Keynesian models of economic growth is not trivial; the problem of equifinality for the models under consideration is imaginary, since their estimates of conditional convergence coincide at least on a qualitative level and they cannot tells us anything specific about the trends of interregional income inequality; there are issues arising from the use of neoclassical models that are still at the forefront of research on regional economic dynamics, including the issues related to the choice of the method of taking into account spatial dependence, the solution of which requires a certain reorientation of research work from the detection of particular causal effects to the analysis of universal patterns; models that are unpopular but at the same time transparent in the way they describe the channels of interregional influences can be useful in studies of the mechanisms of generation and absorption of impulses in the economy of the region
Code	330.4+332.1
JEL	C10, C60, R10
DOI	https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2022.1.168-183
Keywords	economic growth ♦ model ♦ region ♦ equifinality problem ♦ conditional convergence ♦ cumulative causality ♦ spatial dependence ♦ factors of growth
Download	SE.2022.1.168-183.Dzhurka.pdf
For citation	Dzhurka N.G. Testing Alternative Models of Regional Economic Growth: The Boundaries of the Possible (On the Book by A.G. Isaev ‘Economic Growth of Russian Regions: Exogenous and Endogenous Sources’). Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2022, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 168–183. https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2022.1.168-183 (In Russian)
References	1. Barro R.J., Sala-i-Martin X. Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 1992, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 223–251. https://doi.org/10.1086/261816 2. Corrado L., Fingleton B. Where is the Economics in Spatial Econometrics? Journal of Regional Science, 2012, vol. 52, issue 2, pp. 210–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2011.00726.x 3. Davis D.R., Weinstein D.E. Economic Geography and Regional Production Structure: An Empirical Investigation. European Economic Review, 1999, vol. 43, issue 2, pp. 379–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00063-4 4. Dixon R., Thirlwall A.P. A Model of Regional Growth-Rate Differences on Kaldorian Lines. Oxford Economic Papers, 1975, vol. 27, issue 2, pp. 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041312 5. Dzhurka N.G. Spatial Concentration of Industrial Production in Russia: Testing the Home Market Effect. Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2018, no. 3, pp. 19-42. https://doi.org/10.14530/se.2018.3.019-042 (In Russian). 6. Fingleton B., Lopez-Bazo E. Empirical Growth Models with Spatial Effects. Papers in Regional Science, 2006, vol. 85, issue 2, pp. 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2006.00074.x 7. Fingleton B., McCombie J.S.L. Increasing Returns and Economic Growth: Some Evidence for Manufacturing from the European Union Regions. Oxford Economic Papers, 1998, vol. 50, issue 1, pp. 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a028638 8. Glushchenko К.P. Methodologies of Analyzing Inter-Regional Income Inequalities. Region: Ekonomika i Sotsiologiya = Regional Research of Russia, 2010, no. 1, pp. 54–87. (In Russian). 9. Hartman L.M., Seckler D. Toward the Application of Dynamic Growth Theory to Regions. Journal of Regional Science, 1967, vol. 7, issue 2, pp. 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1967.tb01433.x 10. Head K., Mayer Th., Ries J. On the Pervasiveness of Home Market Effects. Economica, 2002, vol. 69, issue 275, pp. 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0335.00289 11. Isaev А.G. Economic Growth of Russian Regions: Exogenous and Endogenous Sources. Edited by E.A. Kolomak. Khabarovsk: ERI FEB RAS, 2022, 208 p. (In Russian). 12. Islam N. Growth Empirics: A Panel Data Approach. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1995, vol. 110, issue 4, pp. 1127–1170. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946651 13. Kolomak Е.А. Uneven Spatial Development in Russia: Explanations of New Economic Geography. Voprosy Ekonomiki [Economic Issues], 2013, no. 2, pp. 132–150. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2013-2-132-150 (In Russian). 14. Mankiw N.G., Romer D., Weil D.N. A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1992, vol. 107, issue 2, pp. 407–437. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118477 15. Margrini S. Regional (Di)Convergence. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Edited by J.V. Henderson, J.F. Thisse. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: Elsevier Science, 2004, vol. 4, pp. 2741–2796. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0080(04)80019-1 16. Richardson H.W. Regional Growth Theory. London: Palgrave Macmilan, 1973, 264 p. 17. Roberts M. The Conditional Convergence Properties of Simple Kaldorian Growth Models. International Review of Applied Economics, 2007, vol. 21, issue 5, pp. 619–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692170701474678 18. Sala-i-Martin X. The Classical Approach to Convergence Analysis. The Economic Journal, 1996, vol. 106, issue 437, pp. 1019–1036. https://doi.org/10.2307/2235375 19. Yi G.J.L. Towards the Application of Dynamic Growth Theory to Regions: Generalizations and Comments. Journal of Regional Science, 1976, vol. 16, issue 1, pp. 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1976.tb00956.x 20. Yu Zh. Trade, Market Size, and Industrial Structure: Revisiting the Home-Market Effect. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2005, vol. 38, issue 1, pp. 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0008-4085.2005.00279.x
Submitted	14.03.2022
Approved after reviewing	16.03.2022
Accepted for publication	17.03.2022
Available online	30.03.2022