Published at : 27 Dec 2022
Volume : IJtech
Vol 13, No 7 (2022)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v13i7.6191
Inna Shevchenko | Southern Federal University, 105/42 Bolshaya Sadovaya Str.Rostov,-on-Don, 344006, Russia |
Yuliya Razvadovskaya | Southern Federal University, 105/42 Bolshaya Sadovaya Str.Rostov,-on-Don, 344006, Russia |
Industrial
economic changes in the economy are a complex and multi-level dynamic process
characterized in different periods by a certain balance between modernization
and innovative development. This involves the redistribution of key industrial
resources in various industries and sectors of the economy in certain
proportions. This study attempts to assess industrial changes in the Russian
economy from the standpoint of structural and evolutionary approaches using
empirical data from 1889 to 2018. These data characterize not only the
quantitative parameters of the structural dynamics but also the qualitative,
evolutionary characteristics of the economic system. Unlike previous studies,
this article focuses on the following features. Firstly, a scientific
justification is made for integrating of structural and evolutionary
approaches, which together make it possible to assess the causal relationships of
processes leading to economic transformations, including industrial changes.
Secondly, within the framework of the study, the authors formulate a hypothesis
about the relative invariance of structural changes. The empirical analysis of
data on the distribution of resources of the Russian industry in the
ultra-long-term period, the results of modeling structural changes at the macro
level, based on the integration of structural and evolutionary approaches, as
well as the application of the provisions of the resource concept, allow the
authors to formulate several statements. Contrary to the estimated judgments
that structural shift is irreversible, this article confirms that in certain
time periods, individual elements of the system to the parameters of the system
characteristic of the period before the start of structural changes. The
authors conclude that one of the key factors of the inertia of structural
changes is the evolutionary parameters of the system.
Evolutionary changes; Industrial changes; Relative invariance; Shift; Structural dynamics
The industrial landscape is being defined by the fourth wave of progress, the basic concept of which is based on the growing convergence of various new technological areas - digital manufacturing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and the development of new materials - and their complementarity in production (UNIDO, 2019). In this case, we are talking about advanced production, which refers to "smart" factories and, in general, "smart" industry. The new industry format involves the use of the industrial Internet of Things, technologies for analyzing large amounts of data, advanced robotics, the artificial intelligence of cloud computing, and additive production. At the same time, new technologies arise based on traditional industrial production, which is the basis for the modernization and technological development of the economy. On the one hand, the success of new technologies depends on the current economic conditions, the level of technological development, and the institutional characteristics of the industry. On the other hand, the implemented industrial policy is one of the most important conditions for the transformation of industry and the transition to a new type of technological development of the economy. In modern studies, two fundamental approaches to analyzing economic transformation processes and industrial changes can be distinguished, the difference of which lies in the assessing economic systems and factors that determine the quantitative and qualitative changes in its elements over time. Structural and evolutionary approaches to assessing the dynamics of economic processes arose almost simultaneously in the early 1980s in the studies of L. Pasinetti and R. Nelson (Garbellini & Wirkierman, 2010; Nelson & Winter, 2002) in connection with the need for scientific justification of the uneven and disproportionate dynamics of economic changes. Common within the framework of these approaches is going beyond the issues of the equilibrium state of the economic system. However, these approaches are distinguished by the view of the economic system as an "adaptive, developing system, with continuously emerging new elements (Scazzieri, 2018)" in the framework of the evolutionary approach and "a structurally invariant system, the elements of which arise as a result of structural changes that determine evolutionary dynamics (Scazzieri, 2018)" from the point of view of the structural approach. Under the evolutionary approach, newly emerging structures are seen as continuously evolving, and their complementarity arises from historical or evolutionary linkages. From this point of view, the economy is characterized by a high degree of interdependence of its elements, with developed mechanisms of positive feedback (Tatiana & Mikhail, 2020). The key thesis of the evolutionary approach is the assumption that the previous development of the system determines economic dynamics, and the historical conditions for the development of any economic system affect the promising type of evolutionary dynamics. Within the framework of the structural approach, the key point is that the emergence of new elements of the economic system is due to the asymmetry between the existing elements of the system, as well as the direction of structural transformation, within which certain macroeconomic and sectoral proportions should be formed. Despite the obvious differences between the presented approaches, as well as the available assessments regarding the alternativeness of their application for the study of economic dynamics, this article attempts to assess the industrial transformation of the Russian economy by integrating the provisions of the evolutionary and structural approaches and substantiating their complementary nature.
The purpose of this article is to assess the structural dynamics of
industrial changes in the Russian economy in the long term, including through
the integration of structural and evolutionary approaches. A comparison of
structural and evolutionary approaches is presented in Table 1.
The
structural approach involves stages of transformation of the economic system or
directions of evolutionary change, which depend on parameters such as
technological progress or the level of capital accumulation. The rules of
transformation of the industrial system are determined not only by sectoral,
structural proportions but also by such characteristics as the level of
technology and innovation, the maximum possible level of capital accumulation,
its concentration, proportions in the distribution of resources such as labor
and capital. Nevertheless, within the framework of the structural approach, the
process of structural transformation is decisive, which depends to a certain
extent on the evolutionary characteristics of the economy, in contrast to the
evolutionary approach, which assumes that the process of development is
predetermined by the historical characteristics of the economic system, which
contribute to the structural transformation or make it impossible. Despite these
differences in evolutionary and structural approaches, the application of the
historical context of the development of the economic system, which is used in
various aspects, is common to them. In this regard, this study attempts to
assess industrial changes in the Russian economy from the standpoint of
structural and evolutionary approaches using an array of data for the period
from 1889 to 2018, characterizing not only the quantitative parameters of
structural dynamics but also the qualitative, evolutionary characteristics of
the economic system. At the same time, the integration of the approaches used
is ensured, among other things, by applying a structural approach to the
analysis of evolutionary parameters of economic dynamics in the ultra-long-term
period. Unlike previous studies, this article focuses on the following
features. First, there is a scientific justification for integrating structural
and evolutionary approaches, which together allow for the
causal relationships of processes leading to economic changes. Secondly, within
the framework of the approaches used, a justification is made for the limited
invariance of structural changes.
Table 1 Typology of structural and
evolutionary approaches
Parameters |
Structural approach |
evolutionary approach |
The
economic system is considered as |
structurally
invariant system, the elements of which arise as a result of structural
changes that determine evolutionary dynamics |
adaptive,
evolving system, with continuously emerging new elements |
The
role of technological progress and innovation in the process of structural
change |
determining |
is secondary to the
evolutionary parameters of the system |
Dynamics
Modeling Methods |
production
function, model of structural shifts, balance methods |
evolutionary
models, including the Lotka-Volterra model |
Economic
dynamics depends on |
parameters of asymmetry
between elements of the current system |
prior development |
The
main task within the framework of the approach |
substantiation
of the disproportionate dynamics of economic changes |
|
The
degree of interconnection between the elements of the system |
Average |
High |
Structural
invariance |
Unlimited |
limited
by prior development (relative) |
2.1. Research method
and data
To model the dynamics of
structural changes in the Russian economy, which determine the trends of
industrial transformations, calculations will be made in the article. The
calculations will make it possible to obtain absolute and relative indicators
of structural dynamics in the extractive and manufacturing sectors of the
Russian industry. For this purpose, it is expedient to calculate the mass of
the structural shift, the index of the structural shift, and the rate of the
structural shift. The mass of a structural shift is defined as the difference
between the shares of a structural indicator in the current and base periods.
The main difference between this indicator and simple statistical indicators is
that “the content of the concept of the mass of a structural shift is a certain
set of economic entities with given economic interests and needs, the form is a
change in quantitative indicators in physical and value terms over a certain
period of time» (Krasil’nikov, 2000).
The calculation of the structural shift mass index is carried out according
to the formula:
? – the mass of structural shift in the
industry,
? – the value of the indicator in the current
period,
?_0 – the value of the indicator in the base
period.
The calculation of this indicator
provides an assessment of the absolute indicators of structural changes in the
sectors of the industrial sector of the economy. The assessment of the relative
indicators of structural changes is provided by the calculation of the index of
structural shifts, which is the ratio of the mass of the structural shift to
the base value of the indicator for a certain period of time.
I – structural shift index expressed in relative
terms,
The structural shift index
provides comparability of structural changes in the industry and provides
identification of those periods in which shifts were more intense, determines
time lags, identify the correlation between different indicators. Also, with
the help of indices, it is possible to compare various indicators, in our case,
indicators that characterize capital and labor resources in structural changes.
To assess the intensity of
structural changes, the rate indicator is used, which reflects the change in
the structural indicator per unit of time. The structural shift index is
calculated as the ratio of the mass or structural shift index to a certain
period. Using this indicator, it is possible to determine the asynchrony of
shifts, compare various structural shifts, including between industries, and
identiy structural shifts’ inertia. The calculation is made according to the
formula:
V – speed of structural shift,
? – structural shift time.
Within this study’s framework, the structural
shift rate is determined by the ratio of the structural shift index to the
shift period, which in most cases is five years.
It is assumed that at different
stages of the technological development of the economy, the intensity and speed
of structural changes will be uneven both within a particular industry and in
an intersectoral aspect. Since the evolutionary parameters of the economy
influence these indicators. At the same time, the unevenness of structural
changes both in time and intersectoral aspects will be determined by the
limited invariance of structural changes. It is also necessary to separately
highlight such a parameter as inertia, the strength of which can vary
significantly both in different economies and in industries, even though, in
general, inertia is an ntrinsic property of socio-economic systems of any
level. In this regard, the study of the evolutionary dynamics of industrial
changes through the assessment of indicators of structural changes will make it
possible to identify the parameters of the inertia of the economic system, as
well as to identify the factors that determine the trends of inertia.
2.2. Theoretical fundamentals
The
Oxford Structural Transformation Guide treats such categories as
"structural transformation" and "structural change" as
synonyms. Structural transformation, or structural change, involves the
movement of productive resources (natural resources, land, capital, labor
resources, inventions) from low-productivity to high-productivity economic
activities (Monga & Lin, 2019). Note that structural
transformation, or structural changes, is the process by which you change the
shape or type of the structure. Under this approach, a steady process of
structural change can provide permanent static and dynamic effects to the
economy.
We consider it appropriate to
consider the structural shift as a reversible phenomenon. Historical analysis
of trends in industrial change suggests that such processes and anti-shift are
possible that lead the system to its original state, which in parameters
corresponds to the state characteristic before structural changes occur. So,
for example, deindustrialization caused by a series of negative industrial
shifts in fact, leads the system to its original state, including in terms of
industrial output, employment in certain industries, and many others (Varlamova & Larionova, 2020).
On the one hand, industrial shifts in the export-import structure are determined by the internal characteristics of the distribution of resources, the model of industrial changes, and on the other, are influenced by structural shifts occurring in the world economy. Industrial changes in the technological structure are also determined by the internal potential of the technological development of industries, the technological structure of production, and the dynamics of scientific and technological progress at the global level (Surjandari et al., 2022). Studying such shifts becomes an even more urgent task in the context of industrial changes provided by protectionist measures to support domestic industry (Ha-Joon, 2012; Shafaeddin & Pizarro, 2007; Williamson, 2004).
Based on the assumption that the structural shift is aimed at changing the proportions in a certain structure, the emerging contradiction within the industrial shift is represented by two processes: the process of expansion from the point of view of the shift and the process of contraction from the point of view of the anti-shift. As part of the industrial transformation of the economy, the shift will be represented, for example, by an increase in the share of enterprises and types of economic activity in high-tech production, an increase in the share of the active part of the capital, and the share of highly skilled labor. The anti-shift is determined by the reduction in the share of low-tech industries, the share of the passive part of fixed capital, and, accordingly, the share of low-tech labor.
Thus, analysis of structural change phenomena such as structural shift, anti-shift, structural crisis allows us to conclude that structural shift is a reversible phenomenon. That is, it is possible to change the proportions of the structure to the state of the previous structural shift. Such a phenomenon as anti-shift involves the movement of elements of the structure or the entire structure in the direction opposite to a given vector of structural changes. An important conclusion is the invariance of structural changes, including the presence of a certain set of options for structural changes in specific historical conditions. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in a particular historical period, the set of options for structural changes is limited, allowing us to assume the limited invariance of structural changes.
3.1. Results
The data show that there are divergent trends as well as individual periods with the highest structural shifts. It should be noted that for all the indicators under consideration, there is a significant structural shift between 1990 and 1997, which is associated with the transformational processes of the domestic economy, a deep decline in industrial production, and inflationary processes. The latter determines the high values of mass, index, and rate of structural shift over a given period. Therefore, it is considered inappropriate to use them to analyze structural changes in the system of industrial development of the economy (Table 2).
Table 2 Mass, index and rate of structural shift by
indicators of turnover, fixed capital and profit of industrial enterprises of
Russia for the period from 1885 to 2018 (million rubles)
Period |
Mass of
structural shift |
Structural Shift Index |
Speed
of structural shift |
||||||
T |
FC |
P |
T |
FC |
P |
T |
FC |
P |
|
1889-1885 |
478 |
216 |
45 |
0.35 |
0.36 |
0.38 |
0.07 |
0.07 |
0.08 |
1894-1890 |
480 |
244 |
63 |
0.26 |
0.29 |
0.37 |
0.05 |
0.06 |
0.07 |
1899-1895 |
1 392 |
803 |
102 |
0.54 |
0.67 |
0.39 |
0.11 |
0.13 |
0.08 |
1904-1900 |
404 |
321 |
-18 |
0.09 |
0.15 |
-0.05 |
0.02 |
0.03 |
-0.01 |
1909-1905 |
780 |
471 |
69 |
0.17 |
0.19 |
0.20 |
0.03 |
0.04 |
0.04 |
1928-1910 |
12 488 |
7 060 |
202 |
2.27 |
2.40 |
0.45 |
0.13 |
0.13 |
0.11 |
1934-1929 |
19 636 |
17 530 |
- |
0.70 |
1.54 |
- |
0.14 |
0.31 |
- |
1985-1960 |
300 000 |
388 000 |
29 200 |
1.50 |
4.85 |
0.82 |
0.10 |
0.19 |
0.05 |
1997-1990 |
1625400000 |
2957555 |
90174700 |
2709 |
4.90 |
1137.13 |
387.00 |
0.70 |
162.45 |
2002-1998 |
5161000 |
1894252 |
452514 |
3.02 |
0.48 |
-51.59 |
0.60 |
0.10 |
-10.32 |
2007-2003 |
12114360 |
7605083 |
2304037 |
1.43 |
1.16 |
3.75 |
0.29 |
0.23 |
0.75 |
2012-2008 |
13512488 |
14573657 |
1635095 |
0.55 |
0.84 |
0.69 |
0.11 |
0.17 |
0.14 |
2018-2013 |
27299980 |
28670306 |
5768797 |
0.67 |
0.79 |
1.85 |
0.13 |
0.16 |
0.37 |
T – turnover of
industrial enterprises, FC – fixed capital of industrial enterprises, P- profit
of industrial enterprises.
The dynamics of the
structural shift mass show positive trends in the analyzed parameters for the
entire period, with the highest growth rate from 1960 to 2018 (Figure 1). The
highest rates of structural changes in the value of fixed capital are typical for
the period from 1998 to 2018. It should be noted that if the mass of structural
shift indicator shows multiple indicators increases, then the structural shift
index indicates the presence of multidirectional trends in the analyzed
indicators. Maximum values of the structural shift index in terms of turnover
of industrial enterprises are observed in 1928-1910, 2002-1998, 2007-2003.
To
assess the strength of structural changes, and the presence of inertia
tendencies in the dynamics of structural shifts, the rate of structural shift
is estimated, which is presented by calculations in Table 3. On the one hand,
the inertia of a structural shift is rather difficult to assess since. for a
qualitative assessment, the calculations must be supplemented by analysis and
comparison with the institutional characteristics of the economy taken by
political decisions. On the other hand, assessing the relative rate of
structural shift allows for determining the intensity of structural changes,
which is relatively low in terms of such indicators as the cost of fixed
capital and the turnover of industrial enterprises. The analysis of the rate of
a structural shift, firstly, allows us to conclude that the dynamics of
structural changes are characterized by inertia in all the analyzed indicators.
Secondly, the speed of structural change confirms the existence of a structural
crisis in the transformational period of the economy.
Modeling
of structural shifts in terms of mass, index, and speed in terms of the
distribution of the value of fixed capital between the active and passive parts
of fixed capital is carried out for the period from 2003 to 2018, which is
associated with limited statistical data. There are significant changes in the
distribution of active and passive parts of fixed capital. If for the period
from 2003 to 2007 the cost of groups is almost equivalent, then in the period
from 2008 to 2018 there is a significant (almost 2 times) excess of the cost of
machines and equipment over the cost of buildings and structures. In relative
indicators, namely, the structural shift index, the difference is not so
significant, while the most intense changes in the passive part of the capital
are characteristic of the period from 2003 to 2007, for the active part of the
capital - from 2013 to 2018. Similar dynamics are observed to the rate of
structural shift. At the same time, it should be noted that the rate of
structural shift according to the indicator in question is high. In general,
this can be seen as a positive trend since the growth of labor investment,
which is characterized, among other things, by an increase in the cost of
machinery and equipment, is decisive within the framework of the trends of new
industrialization.
The
changes in mass, index, and rate of structural shifts in the years of the first
three five-year plans from 1928 to 1938, as well as in the period from 2003 to
2018, show slight changes in investment in industry and investment in fixed
assets. The rate of a structural shift in the second period decreases relative
to the period from 1928 to 1933. Nevertheless, the structural shift index for
the period from 1928 to 1938 is higher than in the period from 2008 to 2018.
Similar
dynamics can be traced to the rate of structural shift. If in the first period,
according to the indicator of investment in industry, the rate of structural
shift is 0.27 and 0.21, then in the period from 2008 to 2018, 0.08. The
exceptions are the index, and the rate of structural shift between 2003 and
2007, and are 1.77 and 0.35, respectively
The
distribution of the structural shift in terms of the employed in industry by
manufacturing and mining industries indicates that both in terms of the mass of
the structural shift, and in terms of the index and rate of the structural
shift, the highest values are observed in the manufacturing industry. The
structural shift index for the period from 1900 to 1908 for the manufacturing
industry was 0.26 in relation to 0.17 for the mining industry, and 0.28 to 0.09
for the period from 1908 to 1913. At the same time, the difference in the rate
of structural shift between the manufacturing and mining industries is smaller:
0.03 and 0.02 for the period from 1900 to 1908, 0.06 and 0.02 for the period
from 1908 to 1913.
The
structural shift in the number of employees in the industry from 1992 to 2018
is negative. The maximum value of the structural shift index is observed from
1999 to 2014 and is -85.61; for comparison, this indicator in 2013-2018
amounted to -0.07. The rate of the structural shift in this period, except
1999-2004, is not high, and is in the range of values from -0.01 to -0.07.
However, it should be noted that over the entire period, the rate of structural
shift has a negative orientation.
The
index and the speed of structural shift in the average monthly accrued wages
are characterized by a positive direction and have higher values. But the
indicator of the number of people employed in the industrial sector of the
economy is not. From 2003 to 2007, the structural shift index is 1.10, which is
significantly higher than the negative indices in terms of the number of
employees. It is necessary to take into account the fact that this indicator is
calculated without taking into account the rate of inflation, so the data
obtained can be overestimated.
The analysis of data on structural shifts in the use of key resources in the industrial sector of the economy provides several conclusions. Firstly, at the present stage of economic development, the most significant structural changes of a positive orientation are observed from 2003 to 2007 in almost all analyzed indicators characterizing the use of resources in the industrial sector of the economy. Secondly, the highest positive values of structural changes are characteristic of such an indicator as wages, against the background of high negative shifts in the indicator employed in the industrial sector of the economy.
Figure 1 Structural shift index for the period from 1885 to
2018 (labore force - 1913-1900 and 1913-1908, 1995-1992, 1999-1995, 2004-1999,
investment in fixed assets - 1933-1937 / 1932-1928)
As a positive trend, we can consider the growth of
the structural shift index in terms of the active part of capital against the
background of the decline in the index in the passive part of capital. The
downward trend is the decline in the fixed capital value index (Figure 2). It
can be assumed that a significant structural shift in this indicator from 1905
to 2002 can compensate for the decline in the structural shift index in the
subsequent period. However, data on the level of depreciation of fixed assets
indicate the need for an increase in fixed investment and, accordingly, a
positive increase in the index and the rate of structural shift.
The highest rate of structural change is observed
for the period 1985-2002 in terms of the value of fixed capital, as well as for
investments in fixed capital in 2003-2007. The analyzed data indicate a
decrease in the rate of a structural shift in the analyzed indicators from 2003
to 2018, which can generally indicate slowing dynamics of structural changes in
sectors of the industrial sector of the economy. According to figure 2, the
index of structural shift in terms of fixed capital value repeats the dynamics
of the curve describing the stages of industrial development: the phase of
primary industrialization, the phase of industrialization and
deindustrialization of the Russian economy and structural changes aimed at
increasing the industrial potential of industrial sectors.
3.2. Discussion
The main conclusion that
made it possible to obtain the approach used in this article is that in the
Russian economy, one of the key characteristics of industrial changes is
inertia, which manifests itself in a low rate of structural changes according
to the main criteria of the industry. At the same time, one of the main reasons
for such dynamics is the evolutionary component of the development of the
domestic economy. Although the rate of structural changes increases, such
dynamics is more likely to be associated with the influence of general
macroeconomic trends, as well as restrictions in the process of changing the
qualitative characteristics of resources in the short term. The data obtained
also confirm the formulated hypothesis that the structural shift is a reversible
phenomenon. Modeling structural changes over a long time in terms of indicators
characterizing both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the
resources of the Russian industry indicates that in certain periods there is a
return of individual elements of the system to the system parameters
characteristic of the period before the start of structural changes. The use of
indicators that characterize the qualitative characteristics of the resources
of Russian industry, such as the structure of fixed capital, and wages, makes
it possible to more comprehensively assess the dynamics of structural changes,
as well as to substantiate the relativity of the invariance of structural
changes. The integration of structural and evolutionary approaches in the
framework of studies of structural changes in the Russian economy has made it
possible to obtain results that differ from previous studies. Unlike previous
studies, including Hyytinen and Maliranta, Mondelaers, in this article, results
are obtained that describe qualitative changes in the economy, including
changes in the technological and resource components.
This study substantiates that the integration
of structural and evolutionary approaches to assessing industrial changes makes
it possible to determine both the range of changes and the options for changes.
The structural approach makes it possible to determine the range of structural
changes depending on the policy in specific historical conditions. The
evolutionary approach, in turn, provides an understanding of the set of options
for changes depending on the structural characteristics of the system, as well
as the parameters of the institutional environment. The article obtained
significant theoretical results, confirmed by empirical analysis. But
additional studies of the features of structural dynamics are needed. One of
the main areas of further research may be the assessment of structural changes
at the level of individual industries, as well as enterprises of the industrial
sector of the economy, according to indicators characterizing the change in
economic and technological parameters of production under the influence of
macro shifts. At the same time, an important component of such a study, in our
opinion, is taking into account the institution of ownership in the
distribution of resources of Russian industry, as well as an empirical
assessment of the evolutionary conditions for the functioning of domestic
companies.
Garbellini, N., Wirkierman, A.L., 2010. Pasinetti’s Structural Change and Economic Growth: a conceptual excursus. Munich Personal RePEc Archive
Ha-Joon, C., 2012. Kicking Away the Ladder: Neoliberalism and the ‘Real’ History of Capitalism. In: Developmental Politics in Transition: The Neoliberal Era and Beyond, Kyung-Sup, C., Fine, B., Weiss, L., (ed.). Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, United Kingdom, pp. 43–50
Krasil’nikov, O.J., 2000. Structural Shifts in the Economy of Modern Russia. Saratov: Publishing House Scientific Book
Monga, C., Lin, J.Y., 2019. The Oxford Handbook of Structural Transformation. UK: Oxford University Press
Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 2002. Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 16, pp. 23-46.
Scazzieri, R. 2018. Structural dynamics and evolutionary change. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Volume 46, pp. 52-58.
Shafaeddin, M., Pizarro, J., 2007. From Export Promotion to Import Substitution; Comparative Experience of China and Mexico. Munich Personal Repec Archives. Paper 6650. Germany: University Library of Munich.
Surjandari, I., Zagloel, T.Y.M., Harwahyu, R., Asvial, M., Suryanegara, M., Kusrini, E., Kartohardjono, S., Sahlan, M., Putra, N., Budiyanto, M.A., 2022. Accelerating Innovation in The Industrial Revolution 4.0 Era for a Sustainable Future. International Journal of Technology, Volume 13(5), pp. 944–948
Tatiana, B., Mikhail, K., 2020. Problems of Competitive Strategy Choice According to Industry and Regional Factors. International Journal of Technology, Volume 11(8), pp. 1478–1488
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), 2019. Industrial Development Report 2020. Industrialization in the Digital Age. Overview. Vein.
Varlamova, J., Larionova, N. 2020. Labor Productivity in the Digital Era: A Spatial-Temporal Analysis. International Journal of Technology, Volume 11(6), pp. 1191-1200
Williamson, J., 2004. A Short History of the Washington Consensus. In: Fundación CIDOB for a Conference from the Washington Consensus Towards a New Global Governance, Barcelona, (September 2004)