I. R. Nasyrov, Yu. D. Yakubov. Representative Offices of the Federal Subjects as an Institute for Interregional Cooperation (Experience of the Republic of Tatarstan)

UDК 316.4(470.41)

doi: 10.15507/2413-1407.125.031.202304.684-700

Abstract

Introduction. The issues of interregional cooperation of Russian regions are of particular relevance in the face of drastic changes in the foreign economic relations. Reasons of interregional cooperation induce Russian regions to open representative offices in federal subjects. The purpose of the article is to consider the Republic of Tatarstan experience of using remote representative offices and improving their performance in order to suggest a generalized model for organizing the activities of representative offices taking into account the modern trends in the development of interregional cooperation.

Materials and Methods. The study includes analysis of up-to-date publications on the research topic, documents of state origin and is based on evaluation of the long-term experience of development the system of representative offices of the Republic of Tatarstan. The institutional and structural-functional methods of political science were used to determine the place of remote representative offices in the regional government authorities, the conditions of their activities, and the implemented functionality. General scientific methods of comparative analysis and classification were also used to develop a basic concept and work organization model of representative offices, to assess trends in the performance indicators of their activities, to work out development proposals for representative offices of federation subjects.

Results. The current trends in the development of interregional cooperation in Russia together with questions of using the representative offices of federal subjects are considered taking into account corresponding experience of the Republic of Tatarstan. Ways to organize the work of federal subjects’ representative offices and to estimate their efficiency were studied. Approaches to improve activities of the representative offices and to expand their operations to new sites are suggested.

Discussion and Conclusion. The study has showed the importance of the representative offices of the subjects of the Russian Federation for interregional cooperation. The authors describe a general model for organizing the work of regional representative offices and identify the ways to increase their contribution into interregional cooperation. The results of the study may be useful for experts in regional development policy and government officials.

Keywords: interregional cooperation, interaction of federal subjects, representative offices of regions, efficiency of representative offices, Republic of Tatarstan

Conflict of interests. The authors declare that there is not conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements. The authors are grateful to the staff of the Department of External Relations of the Head (Rais) of the Republic of Tatarstan and of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Republic of Tatarstan for reference information and consultations on organizing the work of the representative offices of Tatarstan.

For citation: Nasyrov I.R., Yakubov Yu.D. Representative Offices of the Federal Subjects as an Institute for Interregional Cooperation (Experience of the Republic of Tatarstan). Russian Journal of Regional Studies. 2023;31(4):684–700. https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.125.031.202304.684-700

REFERENCES

1. Bikbov R.Z. Representative Offices of Subject of Russian ‒ New Institute of Regional Policy. Economy of Regions. 2007;(2):271–275. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) EDN: JWVTMV

2. Latypov R.T., Shvedov V.V. The Institute’s Activities of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Tatarstan in the Russian Federation in the Field of Interregional Cooperation. Humanities Scientific Researches. 2016;(11). Available at: https://human.snauka.ru/2016/11/17243 (accessed 03.03.2023). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

3. Dubrovskaya Yu.V. Instruments and Institutions of Inter-Regional Interaction Activation in the Russian Economy. Herald of Omsk University. Series “Economics”. 2017;(4):34–44. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.25513/1812-3988.2017.4.34-44

4. Klimanov V.V., Kazakova S.M., Yagovkina V.A. Tools of Interregional Cooperation in the Public Administration System. Russian Journal of Regional Studies. 2021;29(2):250–282. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.115.029.202102.250-282

5. Leksin V.N., Porfirev B.N. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Government Programs of Socioeconomic Development Regions of Russia. Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2016;27(4):418–428. Available at: https://ecfor.ru/publication/08-rezultativnost-gosudarstvennyh-programm-razvitiya-regionov/ (accessed 03.03.2023). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

6. Lukin Ye.V. [Interregional Interaction in the System of Regional Economic Development: Theoretical and Practical Approaches]. Territorial Development Issues. 2013;(5):1‒9. Available at: http://vtr.isert-ran.ru/article/1333 (accessed 03.03.2023). (In Russ.)

7. Myamlin A.P. Territorial Division of Labor in the Russian Federation: A Factor that Influences. Economics and Management. 2014;(9):13–17. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) EDN: RAINPI

8. Kuznetsova O.V. Interregional Cooperation in Russia: Prospects of Regional Governments’ Cooperation. Regional Studies. 2019;(1):16–25. Available at: https://smolgu.ru/science/Межрегиональное сотрудничество в России перспективы кооперации региональных властей.htm (accessed 03.03.2023). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

9. Gontar N.W. Special Tools for the Development of Regions of Russia as a Resource of Interregional Integration. Journal of Volgograd State University. Economics. 2020;22(3):42–52. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.15688/ek.jvolsu.2020.3.4

10. Larionova N.A. Agreement on Cooperation between the Subjects of the Russian Federation as a Mechanism of State Regulation of Interregional Relations. Regional Economics: Theory and Practice. 2016;14(7):142–152. Available at: https://www.fin-izdat.ru/journal/region/detail.php?ID=69200 (accessed 03.03.2023). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

11. Rubtsov G.G., Litvinenko A.N. Role of Inter-Regional Cooperation in Modern Regional Economy of Russian Federation. Nauchno-tekhnicheskie vedomosti (St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal). 2019;12(1):97–110. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.18721/JE.12108

12. Burak P.I., Rostanets V.G., Topilin A.V. [Economic Interaction Associations of the Subjects of the Russian Federation: Systemic Crisis or Search for New Forms of Development?]. Problemy teorii i praktiki upravleniya. 2017;(10):66–73. Available at: https://ptpmag.ru/associacii-jekonomicheskogo-vzaimodejstvija-subektov-rossijskoj-federacii-sistemnyj-krizis-ili-poisk-novyh-form-razvitija/ (accessed 03.03.2023). (In Russ.)

13. Stepanov V.Ye. Status and Functional Features of Representations of Territorial Subjects of the Russian Federation in Moscow. Social-Economic Phenomena and Processes. 2018;13(1):43–49. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.20310/1819-8813-2018-13-1-43-49

14. Sakhieva R.A. Notion, Order of Organization and Functions of the Representatives of the Russian Federation Subjects. Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2016;10(3):116‒122. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.21202/1993-047X.10.2016.3.116-122

15. Joenniemi P., Sergunin A. Paradiplomacy as a Capacity-Building Strategy. The Case of Russia’s Northwestern Subnational Actors. Problems of Post-Communism. 2014;61(6):18–33. Available at: https://publications.hse.ru/pubs/share/folder/fn801x30ab/145718873.pdf (accessed 03.03.2023).

16. Ciesielska-Klikowska J., Kamiński T. Paradiplomacy and its Impact on EU Foreign Policy. Journal of Contemporary European Research. 2022;18(1):48–66. https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v18i1.1223

17. Curyło B. The European Union as a Laboratory of Paradiplomacy in the Context of International and Domestic Determinants of Regions’ Foreign Activities. Przegląd Europejski. 2019;2019(3):9–28. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.5838

18. Tatham M., Thau M. The More the Merrier: Accounting for Regional Paradiplomats in Brussels. European Union Politics. 2014;15(2):255–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116513512539

19. Basboga K. The Role of Open Borders and Cross-Border Cooperation in Regional Growth across Europe. Regional Studies, Regional Science. 2020;7(1):532–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2020.1842800

20. Marrocu E., Paci R., Rigby D., Usai S. Evaluating the Implementation of Smart Specialization Policy. Regional Studies. 2023;57(1):112‒128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2047915

21. Nowak P. Cooperation of Enterprises in Innovative Activities on the Example of Polish Regions. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy. 2021;16(4):839‒857. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2021.031

22. Kuczkowski P. Representations of Polish Regions in Brussels with Special Reference to the Regions of Northern Poland. Legal Status and Functioning. Annuals of the Administration and Law. 2023;23(1):51‒66. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0016.3777

23. Böhm H., Boháč A., Wróblewski L. Evaluation of Cross-Border Cooperation in Czechia Since 1993: Euroregions on the Way to Authentic Cross-Border Regions? Geographical Journal. 2023;75(3):253‒267. https://doi.org/10.31577/geogrcas.2023.75.3.13

24. Gridneva O.V., Shapovalov D.A. Professional Commercial Office. Economic Problems and Legal Practice. 2017;(6):144–147. Available at: https://www.urvak.ru/articles/probl-vypusk-6-professionalnoe-kommercheskoe-preds/ (accessed 03.03.2023). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

25. Stroev P.V., Milchakov M.V., Pivovarova O.V. Regions Supporting the Spatial Development of Russia: Budgetary Aspect. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2021;25(2):53‒75. https://doi.org/10.26794/2587-5671-2021-25-2-53-75

26. Stepanov V.E. Representative Offices of the Russian Federation Subjects in the System of State Representative Structures. Management Issues. 2020;(1):170–180. Available at: https://journal-management.com/issue/2020/01/14 (accessed 03.03.2023). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

27. Gimatdinov R.R., Nasyrov I.R. [Institute of Foreign Missions of the Republic of Tatarstan]. The International Affairs. 2015;(3):136–149. Available at: https://interaffairs.ru/jauthor/material/1227 (accessed 03.03.2023). (In Russ.)

28. Gimatdinov R.R., Nasyrov I.R. On the Question of Evaluation and Improvement Activities of Foreign Representations of the Russian Federation Subordinate Entities. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2018;(2):125‒144. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2018-2-59-125-144

Received 14.03.2023; revised 10.05.2023; accepted 19.05.2023.

About the authors:

Ildar R. Nasyrov, Dr. Sci. (Polit.), Associate Professor, Professor, Department of Regional and Digital Humanitaristics, Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University (18 Kremlin St., Kazan 420008, Russian Federation), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7117-3636, Scopus ID: 6603372898, ildar.nasyrov@tatar.ru

Yusup D. Yakubov, Dr. Sci. (Polit.), Associate Professor, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Tatarstan in the Republic of Bashkortostan (3 Karl Marx St., Ufa 450008, Russian Federation), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4766-7042, yus-yakubov@mail.ru

Contribution of the authors:

I. R. Nasyrov – setting the objectives and tasks of the study; review of the literature on the subject; aggregation the study results; formulation of conclusions and development of practical recommendations.

Yu. D. Yakubov – collection and aggregation of information; data analysis; substantiation the conclusions of the study.

The authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.