Modeling Russian regional economic ripple effects of the oil and gas industry: Case study of the republic of Komi

Fjærtoft, Daniel

doi:10.1134/s2079970515020033

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, considering the equal conditions, the overall amount of ripple effects in Norway generated by only one investment project significantly exceeds the same effects observed in the Russian projects' development [20]. The revealed strong links between initial mining sector investments and other sectors of Norwegian economy contribute substantially to the development of gross domestic production and value added due to higher localization.…”

Section: Country Level Analysismentioning

confidence: 89%

Localization of the Arctic Mining Projects: Norwegian and Russian Experience

Mikhaylovna¹,

Vasilevna²,

Anatolevich³

2019

EoR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Localization is regarded as a milestone of economic and social development at national and regional levels since it may contribute to the growth of production capacity. Following the potential of localization, governments of various mining countries resort to such strategic solution aiming to boost the growth of remoted areas such as the Arctic region. However, the implementation of localization strategies, assessment methodology and intermediate consequences vary significantly. Thus, the theoretical underpinnings of localization regarding generation of ripple effects and analysis of current implications are essential are the basis of our research question. Norwegian localization experience is considered as the most successful, while Russian attempts to create local content in the Arctic are frequently criticized. Therefore, we focused on the comparative analysis of Norwegian and Russian localization experience. The study comprises examination of both national and regional levels aiming to reveal key components of success and potential burdens. On national level, the research addresses macroeconomic Input-Output model focused on assessing the cumulative impact and potential of mining industry. On regional level, we conducted analysis of the key socio-economic indicators affected mostly by mining activities as well as their localization. In this regard, we used available statistical microdata. Given the results, the success of localization in remoted regions is determined by intensification of inter-regional links and implementation of the governmental approach towards mining projects focusing on upstream and downstream industries. At the same time, narrow governmental regulation leads to leakage of potential benefits. The research results may contribute to increase of knowledge on localization and ripple effects dynamic. Moreover, they may be considered while developing localization solutions for the Arctic projects.

show abstract

Section: Country Level Analysismentioning

confidence: 89%

Localization of the Arctic Mining Projects: Norwegian and Russian Experience

Mikhaylovna¹,

Vasilevna²,

Anatolevich³

2019

EoR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the national level, benefits from resource projects are expected to derive from taxation and revenue distribution, job creation, project-related infrastructure and social services, and various multiplier effects such as the growth of secondary industries and increased purchasing power [12,13]. Governments are responsible for setting legislation and regulations related to the above, while benefit-sharing may also be managed by state-owned companies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is Benefit Sharing? Respecting Indigenous Rights and Addressing Inequities in Arctic Resource Projects

Wilson

2019

Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International standards refer to Indigenous peoples’ right to benefit from resource development, participate in decision-making and determine priorities in development planning that directly affects them. While good practice exists in benefit sharing, Indigenous peoples still lack opportunities for a meaningful role in strategic planning. In his role as UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya identified a ‘preferred model’ of resource development in which Indigenous peoples have greater control over planning decisions and project implementation, and consequently a more meaningful share of the benefits of resource development. This paper explores the requirements of international standards and guidance alongside different models of benefit sharing in practice by extractive industries in Arctic and sub-Arctic contexts. It is based primarily on desk-based analysis of international hard and soft law and industry standards, while also drawing on ethnographic field research in Russia and Norway. It highlights good practice within mainstream development scenarios and identifies models of benefit sharing that represent a greater degree of Indigenous participation and control. It concludes that there is a need to consider benefit sharing within an overall paradigm that allows greater space for Indigenous voices in decision making, including at the strategic planning stage.

show abstract