Trends of the development of municipal regions in the national economic space

A trend of growing imbalances in the regions’ economic space is evident at the present stage of the Russian economy development, which is associated with the concentration of population and economic activities in large metropolitan areas and limited development of municipalities, located outside them, i.e. municipal districts. The perspective development of municipal districts is largely associated with poorly urbanized areas, as rural settlements, formed on the basis of villages, dominate in their composition (92%1). The economic development of such areas is characterized by a number of problems including low level of incomes and living environment, poorly developed labor market, a lack of investment in engineering and social infrastructure. The observed outflow of the population and business aggravate them even more. In general, it could be noted that the outflow of population from sparsely populated rural municipalities is a global trend [1–6].

Spatial conditionality of difficulties of local self-government implementation on the territories of municipal districts is not discussed: settlements’ dispersion and their poor transport accessibility make it difficult to provide the population with municipal services and the access to infrastructure, education.

In addition, the transformation of normative conditions of spatial development in the country necessitates the adaptation of municipalities to the emerging system of strategic planning. The adoption of a significant document in the field of national spatial development at the beginning of this year, the Strategy of Spatial Development of the Russian Federation until 2025, aggravates the number of issues associated with scientific and methodological support of the strategy implementation, including the development of strategic and tactical tools for regions and municipalities. First, regions’ executive authorities and local governments are directly recommended to follow the provisions of the Strategy when developing and implementing the sectoral strategic planning documents, government programs, and other programmatic and planning documents, while making decisions aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the settlement system, and in order to remove infrastructural constraints in the territories’ socio-economic development which will require skilled analysis and adaptation of the Strategy’s provisions to specific economic and spatial conditions in the future. Second, the problems, identified in the Strategy as starting points, are directly related to the municipal district as a municipal formation localized in the economic space of the region (including the growing demographic burden on the working population, significant intraregional differences in terms of socio-economic development, low level of entrepreneurial activity outside major urban agglomerations). Third, the problem of evaluation (qualitative, quantitative) of economic and spatial development on national, regional and municipal levels is not fully resolved.

It should be noted that most researchers turn to the study of socio-economic development of municipal areas outside the spatial context. In our opinion, the development of municipal districts as specific areas of the local government in conjunction with the processes of the transformation of the region’s economic space is not sufficiently studied. Accordingly, the purpose of this research is to examine the economic-spatial development of municipal districts as a specific object in the economic space of the region.

Research methodology

Let us briefly introduce the main provisions of the applied methodology (detailed methodology of the research is described in the paper [7]). Generalization of theoretical researches on the nature of economic space (A.G. Granberg2, P.A. Minakir [8, p. 43–45; 9, c. 124; 10, p. 18], T.G. Nefedova [11], A.I. Treivish [12] and other researchers) leads to the conclusion that the transformation of the economic space (ES) could be characterized through the change of three parameters: ES saturation with economic agents’ activities, development of ES physical basis and ES coherence. With the aim to characterize these parameters, we analyzed the array of available official statistics generated by the Russian Federal State Statistics Service and selected the indicators (Tab. 1) that meet several criteria:

– reflecting the development of municipal districts as a specific object in the region’s economic space;

– reflecting the development of the municipal district as a space of the municipal economy functioning and areas of rural settlements concentration;

– allowing drawing conclusions about the trends contributing to the development of the region’s ES (structural trends) and the trends leading to its destruction (destructive trends).

Regarding the last criterion, the following statement should be explained. Sharing the opinion of the Russian researcher V.N. Lazhen-tsev that spatial development is “concerted progressive changes in the development and reproduction of natural resources, location and internal content of production forces, the resettlement of the population and improvement of living environment” [13, p. 97], we may conclude that the development of the economic space goes through: appearance of new settlements; growth of economic activity; growth of economically significant result (product/income); infrastructure development.

The reverse process, the destruction of economic space, is characterized by disappearance of settlements, decline of economic activity, decline of economically significant result, infrastructure degradation.

Table 1. Composition of methodology indicators groups

О § о. о “ CD "с	Indicators of saturation of the municipal district’s economic space with economic agents’ activities	Indicators of spatial frame (physical basis) of economic space	Indicators of economic space coherence
CD	– agricultural production as a measure of production and production activity results; – investments in fixed capital (carried out by organizations located on the territory of the municipal district (without small business entities) as an indicator of distribution (cash in fixed capital formation); – retail trade turnover as an indicator of consumption.	–    the number of settlements and municipalities (municipal districts, rural and urban settlements); –    population density; –    sown area of agricultural crops in farms of all categories; –    area of perennial plantations; –    area of land plots provided for housing construction, individual housing construction and integrated development for housing per 10 thousand population.	– the proportion of the population living in settlements not having regular bus service and (or) railway communication with the administrative center of the municipal district in the total population of the municipal district; –    the share of the length of public roads of local importance not meeting regulatory requirements, in total length of public roads of local importance; –    the number of villages served by the post connection; –    the number rural settlements equipped with a telephone line.
"го > "го <	reflect the reproduction process in the territory	characterize the changes in the development of ES within the municipal district (the ability to draw conclusions about the physical compression or expansion of ES)	characterize the intensity of economic linkages within the municipal district determined by the development of transport, roads and communication lines supporting the interaction of economic agents, as well as its integration in the region’s ES

Figure 1. The algorithm of methodical approach to the identification of trends (constructive and destructive) of economic development of municipal districts in the region’s economic space

1st stage of identification: assessment of the scale of the MD’s presence in the region’s economic space

Presence indices for the group of indicators of the MD’s economic space saturation by the activity of economic agents

2nd stage of identification: assessment of the MD's own economic dynamics

Dynamics of indicators of saturation of the MD’s economic space with the activity of economic agents

Dynamics of economic agents’ density

Dynamics of municipal-territorial organization

Dynamics of specialized and general land use

Dynamics of indicators of economic space coherence

4th stage of identification: identificatio n of constructive and destructive trends in the MD’s economic development

The method of scoring

3rd stage of identification: aggregate estimation of saturation, physical basis, and coherence

The algorithm of methodical approach to the identification of trends of the economic development of municipal districts (MD) in the region’s economic space are shown in Figure 1 .

Municipal districts are a part of the region’s ES, a type of spatial economic entities at the regional level, therefore, the methodology includes evaluating of the municipal districts’ autonomous economic development, on the one hand, and the scale of the municipal districts’ influence on the region’s ES through the calculation of indices of presence, on the other hand.

To test the methodology, municipal districts (MD) of the Chelyabinsk Oblast were selected. The choice was caused by several factors.

The earlier research concerned MD of the Sverdlovsk Oblast. The Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk oblasts are characterized by the similar structure of the economy, as they are the regions of traditionally-industrial classical type [14, p. 19] and are recognized as the leading industrial regions of the country [15]. The regions are characterized by almost the same level of state of the environment (according to the Russian public organization “Zeleniy patrul”)3 that significantly affects the municipal districts’ development. However, in regard to the regions’ municipal organization, the ratio of municipal and urban districts, they are significantly different, and it is interesting, because it allows comparing the magnitude of the municipal districts’ presence in region’s ES in terms of advantage in numbers of different types of municipalities. In the Sverdlovsk Oblast, there are 5 municipal districts and 68 urban districts, and, in the Chelyabinsk Oblast, there are 27 municipal districts and 16 urban districts4.

The analysis of statistical indicators and indices of presence, based on them, is limited to the period of 2011–2017. The selection of the period is caused by the fact that 2011 is the first year of implementation of the Conception of Sustainable Development of Rural Territories for the period up to 20205, namely, rural territories dominate in the municipal districts’ ES.

Results of the research

1st stage. Evaluation of the municipal districts’ presence in the region’s economic space . The indices of presence, as the ratio between the municipal district’s share in the region according to the analyzed indicator and its share in the total population of the region, are calculated according to indicators of the group of ES saturation with economic agents’ activities⁶. The basis of the index of presence is the indicator of population. Dynamics of the share of population in the MD of the Chelyabinsk Oblast is presented in Table 2 .

The presence of municipal districts in terms of the population size in the economic space of the Chelyabinsk Oblast is more than 11.5 times greater than the presence of municipal districts of the Sverdlovsk Oblast, but they also continue to decrease: in the 2011–2017 period, the share

Table 2. The share of the municipal districts’ population in the total population of the Chelyabinsk Oblast at year-end, %

Municipal district 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Agapovskiy MD 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Argayashskiy MD 1.18 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.17 1.18 0.17 Ashinskiy MD 1.84 1.81 1.77 1.75 1.73 1.71 0.69 Bredinskiy MD 0.80 0.78 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 Varnenskiy MD 0.77 0.76 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.72 Verkhneuralskiy MD 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.98 Yemanzhelinskiy MD 1.53 1.52 1.50 1.49 1.46 1.44 1.42 Etkul’skiy MD 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 Kartalinskiy MD 1.40 1.39 1.38 1.36 1.35 1.34 1.33 Kaslinskiy MD 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.91 Katav-Ivanovskiy MD 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.89 0.88 0.86 0.85 Kizil’skiy MD 0.73 0.72 0.70 0.68 0.67 0.65 0.64 Korkinskiy MD 1.83 1.82 1.78 1.74 1.73 1.71 1.71 Krasnoarmeyskiy MD 1.22 1.24 1.23 1.20 1.21 1.21 1.20 Kunashakskiy MD 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.83 Kusinskiy MD 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.77 Nagaybakskiy MD 0.59 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 Nyazepetrovskiy MD 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.47 Octyabr’skiy MD 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56 Plastovskiy MD 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.73 Satkinskiy MD 2.45 2.42 2.39 2.36 2.33 2.31 2.29 Sosnovskiy MD 1.79 1.82 1.84 1.88 1.93 2.00 2.05 Troitskiy MD 0.80 0.79 0.77 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 Uvel’skiy MD 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.91 Uyskiy MD 0.74 0.72 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.66 Chebarkul’skiy MD 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Chesmenskiy MD 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 Total 28.38 28.13 27.82 27.52 27.37 27.25 27.09 Calculated according to: the Database of municipalities. Federal State Statistics Service. Available at: munst65/ ; Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators. Federal State Statistics Service. Available at: wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ ru/statistics/publications/catalog/doc_1138623506156. of municipal districts in the total population of the region fell down from 28.38 to 27.09%. The decrease of negative values of the growth rate is the same as in the Sverdlovsk Oblast: at the beginning of the period, it ranged from 0.8 to 1.1%, by the end of the period, the rate of decline of the share of municipal districts in the total population of the region was 0.6%.

In the Chelyabinsk Oblast, as well as in the Sverdlovsk Oblast, the scale of presence by the population and the population were growing throughout the period under review only in one municipal district – the Sosnovsky. Two more districts managed to maintain the share of the region’s population: in the Uvelskiy municipal district, population increased by the end of the period, and, in the Chebarkul’skiy municipal district, it remained almost the same as in 2011.

The calculated indices of the presence of municipal districts in terms of “agricultural products (farms of all categories)” for the Chelyabinsk region are presented in Table 3 .

Although the population of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast is 9.5 times, and the share of the municipal districts’

Table 3. Indices of presence of the municipal districts in the economic space of the Chelyabinsk Oblast in terms of agricultural products

Municipal district 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Agapovskiy MD 7.61 7.45 6.51 6.83 6.91 6.74 6.50 Argayashskiy MD 5.62 6.02 6.17 6.25 5.33 5.12 5.20 Ashinskiy MD 0.46 0.42 0.49 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.31 Bredinskiy MD 5.42 4.70 4.54 4.32 5.09 4.97 5.31 Varnenskiy MD 4.67 4.26 3.66 3.90 4.02 3.90 4.19 Verkhneuralskiy MD 4.50 3.73 3.74 3.19 3.24 3.04 2.92 Yemanzhelinskiy MD 2.67 4.56 4.75 5.02 4.37 3.99 2.74 Etkul’skiy MD 2.81 2.72 2.93 2.64 2.63 2.39 2.23 Kartalinskiy MD 1.77 1.67 1.50 1.45 1.70 1.70 1.77 Kaslinskiy MD 1.88 1.50 1.49 1.30 1.06 1.05 1.11 Katav-Ivanovskiy MD 0.80 0.72 0.82 0.69 0.65 0.59 0.53 Kizil’skiy MD 5.83 5.57 4.91 4.39 5.04 5.20 5.21 Korkinskiy MD 0.27 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.20 Krasnoarmeyskiy MD 4.02 4.51 4.47 5.02 4.23 4.33 4.38 Kunashakskiy MD 2.68 2.39 2.74 4.36 5.16 5.16 5.27 Kusinskiy MD 1.09 1.02 1.18 0.95 0.86 0.79 0.69 Nagaybakskiy MD 5.12 7.03 9.32 10.46 10.06 10.82 10.99 Nyazepetrovskiy MD 1.53 1.42 1.51 1.28 1.21 1.11 1.05 Octyabr’skiy MD 5.64 4.31 5.11 4.62 4.79 5.36 5.18 Plastovskiy MD 2.15 1.83 1.82 1.58 1.58 1.54 1.42 Satkinskiy MD 0.41 0.38 0.37 0.35 0.31 0.30 0.26 Sosnovskiy MD 4.49 4.90 4.56 4.53 4.41 4.40 4.13 Troitskiy MD 5.05 4.37 4.73 4.24 4.46 4.90 5.35 Uvel’skiy MD 2.96 2.56 2.87 4.11 6.81 8.41 9.50 Uyskiy MD 3.21 3.29 3.08 3.01 2.99 2.97 3.39 Chebarkul’skiy MD 6.96 7.87 7.40 7.96 7.19 6.92 7.11 Chesmenskiy MD 6.18 5.06 4.85 4.38 4.33 4.11 4.49 Total index 3.12 3.15 3.16 3.23 3.25 3.28 3.27 Calculated according to: the Database of municipalities. Federal State Statistics Service. Available at: munst65/ ; Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators. Federal State Statistics Service. Available at: wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ ru/statistics/publications/catalog/doc_1138623506156. population in the regional population is 11.5 times greater than in the Sverdlovsk Oblast, the index of the presence of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast is lower than in the Sverdlovsk one (3.27 vs 4.72), and, in the studied period, it increased by only 5%. Thus, the regional agricultural production and the municipal districts’ share in it were growing more rapidly in the Sverdlovsk Oblast than in the Chelyabinsk Oblast.

Individual indices of presence in terms of agricultural production of most districts are higher than unit for the whole period. Only four districts have an index less than one – Ashinskiy,

Katav-Ivanovskiy, Korkinskiy, Kusinskiy (by the end of the period), Satkinskiy; their share of regional agricultural production is lower than the share in the region’s population.

Impressive dynamics of the Nagaybakskiy municipal district’s index draws attention. The presence of this district increased more than twice – from 5.12 to 10.99, the dynamics were very positive and reinforced by the growth of agricultural production. These dynamics is associated with the appearance of a poultry complex in the district. Active construction of main production facilities of the Nagaybakskiy poultry complex started in early summer of

Table 4. Indices of presence of municipal districts in the economic space of the Chelyabinsk Oblast in terms of investment in fixed capital

Municipal district 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Agapovskiy 0.07 0.38 0.20 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.12 Argayashskiy 0.44 0.55 0.36 0.09 0.05 0.12 0.07 Ashinskiy 0.31 0.68 1.23 0.69 0.21 0.25 0.34 Bredinskiy 0.15 0.25 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.23 0.26 Varnenskiy 0.06 5.43 8.14 2.94 0.81 0.45 0.55 Verkhneuralskiy 0.71 0.70 0.55 0.23 0.25 0.49 0.53 Yemanzhelinskiy 0.15 0.49 1.27 1.44 0.74 0.49 0.08 Etkul’skiy 0.26 0.17 0.29 0.18 0.15 0.16 0.27 Kartalinskiy 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.09 Kaslinskiy 0.14 0.25 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.16 0.15 Katav-Ivanovskiy 0.17 0.09 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.10 0.08 Kizil’skiy 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 Korkinskiy 0.15 0.07 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.08 Krasnoarmeyskiy 0.67 0.47 0.21 0.10 0.17 0.35 0.27 Kunashakskiy 0.07 0.02 1.45 0.21 0.04 0.05 0.04 Kusinskiy 0.11 0.16 0.10 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.05 Nagaybakskiy 0.51 0.36 1.11 1.29 0.51 0.13 0.12 Nyazepetrovskiy 0.13 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.05 Octyabr’skiy 0.44 0.26 0.25 0.17 0.15 0.31 0.23 Plastovskiy 1.11 0.43 1.19 0.77 0.89 1.37 1.63 Satkinskiy 0.34 0.46 0.39 0.23 0.16 0.26 0.34 Sosnovskiy 0.34 0.72 0.75 0.48 0.62 0.39 0.63 Troitskiy 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.38 0.24 0.10 0.14 Uvel’skiy 0.27 0.27 6.83 7.11 2.41 0.57 0.37 Uyskiy 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 Chebarkul’skiy 0.70 0.31 0.28 0.33 0.43 0.33 0.44 Chesmenskiy 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.07 Total index 0.28 0.47 0.87 0.60 0.32 0.26 0.28 Calculated according to: the Database of municipalities. Federal State Statistics Service. Available at: munst65/ ; Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators. Federal State Statistics Service. Available at: wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ ru/statistics/publications/catalog/doc_1138623506156.

2011. The complex capacity is 50 thousand tons of poultry meat a year. The project of the Nagaybakskiy poultry complex consists of eight production sites, each of which is located on the territory of a separate rural settlement7.

Another district that demonstrated a sharp increase from 2.96 to 9.50 is the Uvel’skiy municipal district, although, in 2012–2013, it somewhat reduced the extent of presence in terms of agricultural production. The achievements of the district are directly associated with the “Uvelka” company based in the Uvel’skiy settlement engaged in the processing of cereals and legumes and actively investing in the economy of the district. The positive dynamics of the results at the end of the period were also shown by the Yemanzhelinskiy (from 2.67 to 2.74), Krasnoarmeyskiy (from 4.02 to 4.38), Kunashakskiy (from 2.67 to 5.27), Troitskiy (from 5.05 to 5.35), Uyskiy (from 3.21 to 3.39) municipal districts.

Indices of the municipal districts’ presence in terms of “investment in fixed capital” for the Chelyabinsk Oblast are presented in table 4 .

The spatial and temporal irregularity of presence in terms of investment is natural for municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast. The presence of municipal districts has not changed by the end of the period, and it does not exceed one (0.28), as in the Sverdlovsk Oblast.

In contrast to the Sverdlovsk Oblast, a significant number of the Chelyabinsk municipalities have the index of presence in terms of investments in fixed capital higher than one. These districts include Ashinskiy, Varnenskiy, Yemanzhelinskiy, Kunashakskiy, Nagaybakskiy, Plastovskiy, Uvel’skiy; the excess of the index accounted mainly for 2013–2014. The average index of presence in terms of investment is higher than in municipal districts of the Sverdlovsk Oblast, indicating a little more security with investments of the economy of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast.

The second difference of the Chelyabinsk Oblast, according the dynamics of this indicator, is the presence of a substantial number of municipal districts demonstrating growth according to the results of the period – these are 11 out of 27 districts (Agapovskiy, Ashinskiy, Bredinskiy, Varnenskiy, Etkul’skiy, Kartlinskiy, Kaslinskiy, Plastovskiy, Sosnovskiy, Uvel’skiy, Uyskiy).

The municipal districts’ indices of presence in terms of “retail trade turnover” for the Chelyabinsk Oblast are presented in table 5 .

The total index of presence in terms of consumption in municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast has doubled and almost reached the level of the Sverdlovsk Oblast by 2017. However, the overall volumes of the municipal districts’ consumption remain low in the region in comparison with urban districts. The relative leaders in terms of consumption are Ashinskiy, Yemanzhelinskiy, Etkul’skiy, Kaslinskiy, Katav-Ivanovskiy, Korkinskiy,

Krasnoarmeyskiy, Kusinskiy, Plastovskiy, Satkinskiy, Sosnovskiy municipal districts. The index of presence in terms of retail trade turnover was generally higher in these districts than the final index for all the municipalities, and demonstrated a positive trend.

As a positive fact, it should be noted that the vast majority of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast have increased their presence in terms of the regional index of retail trade turnover by the end of the period, with the exception of the Uvel’skiy and Chebarkul’skiy municipal districts.

Thus, the presence of municipal districts in the economic space of the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions decreased in terms of population and investment, indicating the movement of labor and capital to the urban districts, taking into account the dynamics of the regional values for these indicators. However, it should be noted that the average index of presence in terms of distribution in municipal districts of the Sverdlovsk Oblast was lower than in the Chelyabinsk Oblast, pointing at their somewhat greater saturation with capital.

As for two remaining indices, despite their major similarities (in both regions, the index of presence in terms of agricultural products is above one, and the index of presence in terms of retail trade turnover is less than one), there are some differences.

In the Chelyabinsk Oblast the increase of the municipal districts’ presence in terms of agricultural production was much less significant (63% vs 5%) than in the Sverdlovsk Oblast, and the dynamics of individual indices were negative in most districts. Consequently, the presence of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast in the regional agricultural production is uneven. However, the value of the index of presence in terms of production agriculture higher than one (regional indicator

Table 5. Indices of presence of municipal districts in the economic space of the Chelyabinsk Oblast in terms of retail trade turnover

Municipal district 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Agapovskiy MD 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.12 Argayashskiy MD 0.10 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.16 Ashinskiy MD 0.04 0.11 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.31 Bredinskiy MD 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.13 Varnenskiy MD 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.13 Verkhneuralskiy MD 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.16 0.19 Yemanzhelinskiy MD 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.23 0.22 0.24 Etkul’skiy MD 0.12 0.18 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.21 Kartalinskiy MD 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.18 Kaslinskiy MD 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.37 0.36 0.38 Katav-Ivanovskiy MD 0.11 0.17 0.31 0.31 0.36 0.37 0.46 Kizil’skiy MD 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 Korkinskiy MD 0.14 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.31 Krasnoarmeyskiy MD 0.17 0.23 0.36 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.26 Kunashakskiy MD 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.10 Kusinskiy MD 0.07 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.21 Nagaybakskiy MD 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 Nyazepetrovskiy MD 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.14 Octyabr’skiy MD 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.11 Plastovskiy MD 0.17 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.30 Satkinskiy MD 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.26 0.25 0.31 Sosnovskiy MD 0.25 0.41 0.33 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.31 Troitskiy MD 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 Uvel’skiy MD 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 Uyskiy MD 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Chebarkul’skiy MD 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.14 0.05 Chesmenskiy MD 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.15 Total index 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.21 Calculated by the Database of municipalities. Federal State Statistics Service. Available at: ; Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators / Federal State Statistics Service. Available at: connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ ru/statistics/publications/catalog/doc_1138623506156. is mostly formed by means of municipal districts) suggests that the development of characteristic economic activities on the territory of municipal districts balances and diversifies regional ES of a traditionally industrial region, providing the ability to maintain relatively stable presence in the region in terms of consumption, which did not change significantly during the analyzed period. In addition, we suppose that the achieved value may be a certain limit of consumption for the investigated area type, regardless of income level, because, in the countryside, some commodities can be bought only in large urban settlements as a substantial amount of them is produced by people.

2nd stage. Assessment of the municipal districts’ economic dynamics . The next stage of the methodological approach to identify the trends of the municipalities’ economic development in the region’s economic space is the assessment of their own economic dynamics in three groups of indicators: saturation of economic space with economic agents’ activities, the development of the spatial framework, and coherence of economic space.

The analysis of the saturation of the municipal districts’ economic space by economic agents’ activities is presented from the point of view of the reproductive process in municipal districts through the characteristics of the index of production (agricultural production), distribution (investment in fixed capital), and consumption (retail trade turnover).

The analysis of dynamics of municipal districts’ agricultural production index in the Chelyabinsk Oblast showed that most regions are characterized by alternating dynamics of the indicator with the growth of the results during the analyzed period. The regions that reduced the volume of agricultural production include the Ashinskiy, Verkhneural’skiy, Kaslinskiy, Katav-Ivanovskiy, Kusinskiy, Nyazepetrovskiy, Plastovskiy, Satkinskiy municipal districts. The Chesmensky municipal district barely changed the original production volume (change, more or less, is within 1%). Significant growth of agricultural production was observed in the Uvel’skiy municipal district – 4.8 times, the Nagaybakskiy – 2.9 times, the Kunashakskiy – 2.8 times at the end of the period.

On average, agricultural production in municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast increased from 75.592 rub. per capita of the district’s population in 2011 to 118.299 rub. in 2017. Municipal districts produce 88.6% (2017) of agricultural products in the region. The growth of agricultural production in municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast was smaller than in the Sverdlovsk Oblast, and made up 49.9%, while agricultural production in the region grew by 49.6%.

Regarding the index of investment in fixed capital of the Chelyabinsk Oblast’s municipal districts, we can say that they make up, averagely, about 13% of investments in the region in the period. Investment process in municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast is more active than in the Sverdlovsk Oblast: the share of municipalities, which increased the volume of investments in fixed capital at the end of the period, is higher than in the Sverdlovsk Oblast (12 out of 27 vs 1 out of 5).

The visible increase of the volume of investments, according to the results at the period’s end, was achieved by the Varnenskiy (almost 9 times) and the Sosnovskiy (2.3 times) municipal districts. In general, the dynamics of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast in terms of investments in fixed capital repeats the regional one, although the decline of investment starts earlier in municipal districts than in the region: if the regional volume of investments began to decline in 2014, the total investments in municipal districts had decreased the year earlier.

The positive dynamics of consumption ( retail trade turnover ) at the end of the period was observed in all municipalities except in the Uvel’skiy and Chebarkul’skiy districts, where the turnover of retail trade declined in the same way as the corresponding index.

The consumption of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast, by 2017, increased 2.4 times and was 5.8% of the regional rate of consumption. The growth rates were above the regional ones, and the decline of the regional rate, which began in 2015, had been repeated by municipalities a year later. While the regional consumption figure continued to fall in 2017, municipal districts, by contrast, increased consumption.

In the Chelyabinsk Oblast, agricultural growth was even less than in the Sverdlovsk Oblast, although it was observed in most municipal districts (with the exception of eight). In contrast to the Sverdlovsk Oblast, investments in fixed capital were made more actively, and consumption grew more rapidly on the territory of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast.

The analysis of indicators characterizing the spatial frame (the physical basis) of the economic space including the dynamics of the economic agents’ density, municipal-territorial organization, specialized (crops, perennial plantations) and general (housing building) land uses.

The density of economic agents characterizing the distribution of economic agents in space will be considered the first indicator. The population density of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast presents a mixed picture: there are 13 municipal districts in the region the population density of which does not exceed 10 people per 1 km2, 12 municipal districts with density above 10 people per 1 km2, but less than the regional average of 39.5 people per 1 km2, and two municipal districts with population density many times higher than the regional population, the districts of Yemanzhelinskiy and Korkinskiy. The high population density of two last districts (437.6 and 580.1 people per 1 km2, respectively) is due to the proximity to the city of Chelyabinsk, as the administrative center of these municipal districts is located within 50 km from the center of the region. However, even in these municipalities, the density of economic agents had been decreasing for the whole period.

The population density decreases in most municipal districts. The only exceptions were the Sosnovskiy and Uvel’skiy municipal districts, where the density and the number of population increased by the end of the period. In the Chebarkul’skiy municipal district, population was unchanged. However, it should be noted that the Sosnovskiy municipal district is the only one where the increase of population density amounted to 15% and lasted throughout the studied period largely due to its proximity to Chelyabinsk. The identified trend is confirmed by previously conducted study of A.V. Schmidt, V.S. Antonyuk, A. Franchini on the impact of the Chelyabinsk agglomeration including migration growth (decline) of urban districts and municipal districts. The authors write that “the characteristic shows that, for 2006–2014, population growth increased only in municipalities nearby Chelyabinsk (Kopeysk – by 102.41% and Sosnovskiy district – 121.83%). In Chelyabinsk, the growth rate of the population amounted to 122.35%. In all other urban and municipal districts, migration loss of the population occurred” [16, p. 783]. We should emphasize that agglomeration generally increases the uneven, unbalanced development of economic space due to the high concentration of population and economic activities in them [17, p. 28], and they are an important factor in territorial planning [18].

The reduction of the economic agents’ density on studied territories is an extremely negative trend, as the agents create and develop economic space, as bearers of economic activities. Economic agents also form the territory’s labor potential, which is the main driving force of the social and economic development of territories [19, p. 244, 20, p. 97]. The reduction of the economic agents’ density is all more critical, because the employment potential could be reduced more rapidly than the total population (and, therefore, the density), as it happens, for example, in municipal and urban districts of the Vologda Oblast [21, p. 176].

The next step in the analysis of the development of the spatial framework is the assessment of changes in the regions’ municipal-territorial structure . As noted above, the development of economic space is reflected in the emergence of new settlements, and their disappearance is a sign of its destruction. The concept of settlement will be considered both in a geographical sense (a locality), and from the point of view of the municipal structure (a municipality).

Table 6. The number of municipal districts (MD), rural and urban settlements (RS, US) in the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk oblasts in 2011 and 2017

Region 2011 2017 MD RS US MD RS US Sverdlovsk Oblast 5 16 5 5 16 5 Chelyabinsk Oblast 27 246 27 27 242 27 Source: Formirovanie mestnogo samoupravleniya v Rossiiskoi Federatsii na 1 yanvarya 2012: byulleten’. Federal State Statistics Service. Available at: doc_1244553308453.

The dynamics of the municipal structure in the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk oblasts are presented in table 6 .

In the Chelyabinsk Oblast, the number of rural settlements reduced from 246 to 242 due to consolidation at a constant number of municipal districts, while the municipal structure of the Sverdlovsk Oblast has not changed.

From the point of view of the number of localities, the number of the Chelyabinsk Oblast’s municipal districts remained unchanged, with the exception of the Sosnovskiy municipal district: in 2014, it has added 1 locality, the village of Terema8. The Sosnovskiy municipal district is located in close proximity to the city district with intracity division Chelyabinsk, previously, it was part of it territorially. In this regard, the territory of the municipal district is actively used for the construction of country villages and summer cottages. A newly formed locality has emerged as one of such settlements. The appearance of the settlement can be seen as a positive sign of a long-term expansion of the habitable space and the development of physical basis of economic space.

The analysis of general land use is based on the indicator of the land plots area provided for housing construction, individual housing construction and integrated development for housing construction, per 10 thousand persons of the population. Data available for the Chelyabinsk Oblast provides little material for analysis; however, it is evident that land for housing construction is allocated there. Positive dynamics of provision of land plots for housing construction, per 10 thousand persons of population is observed in the Ashinskiy, Emanzhelinskiy, Kartalinskiy, Kaslinskiy and Uyskiy municipalities. However, we may assume that the allocation of land in the Sverdlovsk Oblast is carried out in larger scale and more systematically.

The analysis of specialized land use is based on the figures of the cultivated land of all crops in all categories of farms and areas of perennial plantations of fruit-berry crops. These indicators provide an opportunity to assess the degree of physical basis development in accordance with the characteristics of municipal districts as areas of rural settlements concentration. 99.6% of cultivated land of all agricultural crops in all categories of farms in the Chelyabinsk Oblast consist of municipal districts’ cultivated land, therefore, the 7.2 % reduction of cultivated area in the region in the whole period means a reduction of municipal districts’ areas by the same amount, although it should be noted that, in the last two years, the increase of cultivated lands resumed. Most municipal districts

• ( 20) showed a negative result at the end of the period, indicating the compression of the ecumene. We should emphasize that, in this case, municipalities have a decisive influence on the development of physical basis of economic space.

The area of perennial plantations of fruitberry crops in municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast generally does not show positive dynamics (the change from 2011 to 2017 amounted to -5%). By 2017, the area of fruit-berry crops increased only in the Nagaybakskiy MD by 3 ha (11%) and the Kaslinskiy MD by 7 ha (4%); it remained unchanged in the Varnenskiy MD. In other municipal districts, the area of fruit-berry crops decreased by about 7% by the end of the period, with the exception of the Agapovskiy municipal district, where the decrease of the perennial area of fruit-berry plantations was 47%. In municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast, the volume of plantings of fruit and berry crops in absolute values has not sharply changed, but there is a gradual decline throughout the period.

In relation to the development of physical basis of economic space, we can draw the following conclusions. Specialized land use in most districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast decreases, which may partly be caused by the changes on food markets (due to the high degree of the region’s self-sufficiency9 a part of agricultural output is exported to other regions), positive trend in total land use is also non-obvious. However, one settlement appeared in the Chelyabinsk Oblast, unlike the Sverdlovsk one. The positive dynamics of the population density is observed in both municipal districts, but one of them is in the vicinity of the Chelyabinsk agglomeration, and it experiences its impact.

The analysis of indicators characterizing the coherence of economic space . At this stage of the analysis of the municipal districts’ own economic dynamics, the four indicators reflecting the development of roads and railways network, postal and telephone communications are reviewed¹⁰.

In the Chelyabinsk Oblast, the situation with the quality of automotive coating in municipal districts is relatively good (compared to the Sverdlovsk Oblast, where, averagely, 54% of local roads do not meet regulatory requirements). However, regular bus and railway connection to the center of the municipal district is not serviced for more than 0.8% of the population, or 30.631 people (which is almost equal to the population of the Etkul’skiy municipal district). In conditions of rural settlements’ high dispersion, it is a negative indicator of the level of economic space coherence. Provision of postal and telephone communications is extremely uneven among municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast, which has additional adverse effects on the coherence of economic space in the region, and internal and external integration of municipal districts into it.

On the 3rd and 4th stages of the methodology, we perform a generalization of the estimates of saturation of economic space of municipal districts, the development of their spatial framework and coherence of economic space that allows identifying the type of economic trends and making final conclusions about the municipal districts’ impact on the economic space of the region.

Table 7. Scoring of economic development of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast in 2017

Municipal district	MD’s presence in the region				Saturation of MD’s territory with economic agents’ activity			MD’s physical basis development					MD’s economic space coherence
	СУ ОО		Е			Е	S	е S	2				D 3 5 5	Е 5
Agapovskiy MD	0	1	3	3	3	3	3	0	2	2	3	0	0	2	4	0	29
Argayashskiy MD	1	1	1	3	3	1	3	1	2	0	0	1	1	4	4	4	30
Ashinskiy MD	0	1	3	3	1	3	3	0	2	3	1	1	1	2	0	2	26
Bredinskiy MD	0	1	3	3	3	3	3	0	2	2	3	1	1	2	2	1	30
Varnenskiy MD	0	1	3	3	3	3	3	0	2	2	1	2	0	1	4	4	32
Verkhneuralskiy MD	0	1	1	4	1	1	3	0	2	2	1	1	3	4	0	0	24
Yemanzhelinskiy MD	0	3	1	3	3	1	3	0	2	3	1	1	2	2	2	2	29
Etkul’skiy MD	0	1	3	3	3	3	3	0	2	4	1	1	2	4	4	4	38
Kartalinskiy MD	0	2	3	3	3	3	3	0	2	4	1	0	4	1	4	4	37
Kaslinskiy MD	0	1	3	3	1	3	3	0	2	3	1	3	3	3	1	3	33
Katav-Ivanovskiy MD	0	1	1	4	1	1	3	0	2	1	0	1	1	2	2	4	24
Kizil’skiy MD	0	1	1	3	3	1	3	0	2	0	1	1	4	4	4	4	32
Korkinskiy MD	0	1	1	3	3	1	3	0	2	1	1	1	2	3	2	4	28
Krasnoarmeyskiy MD	1	3	1	3	3	1	3	1	2	2	1	1	1	2	0	4	29
Kunashakskiy MD	0	3	1	3	3	1	3	1	2	2	1	1	3	2	0	0	26
Kusinskiy MD	0	1	1	4	1	1	4	0	2	2	1	1	3	2	0	4	27
Nagaybakskiy MD	0	3	1	4	4	1	4	0	2	1	1	3	1	2	4	4	35
Nyazepetrovskiy MD	0	1	1	4	1	1	3	0	2	1	1	1	3	2	2	0	23
Octyabr’skiy MD	0	1	1	3	3	1	3	0	2	0	1	1	1	2	4	4	27
Plastovskiy MD	1	0	3	3	1	3	3	1	2	4	3	0	2	1	1	0	28
Satkinskiy MD	0	0	2	3	1	3	3	0	2	1	1	1	4	1	4	0	26
Sosnovskiy MD	4	1	3	3	3	3	3	4	4	1	1	1	1	4	4	0	40
Troitskiy MD	0	3	1	3	3	1	3	0	2	0	2	1	4	2	4	4	33
Uvel’skiy MD	2	3	3	1	3	3	1	3	2	3	2	0	2	2	4	4	38
Uyskiy MD	0	3	4	4	3	3	4	0	2	3	3	0	3	0	0	4	36
Chebarkul’skiy MD	2	1	1	1	3	1	1	2	2	0	3	1	3	2	3	4	30
Chesmenskiy MD	0	3	1	4	3	1	3	0	2	0	1	0	1	2	2	2	25

For aggregate estimates a scoring method is used, and the points are assigned to the municipal districts’ dynamics according to the following criteria:

• –    4 points – growth of the index for the entirety period;

• –    3 points – unstable dynamics, growth by the results at the end of the period;

• –    2 points – unstable dynamics, the index has not changed or the index was not changing during the period by the results at the end of the period;

• –    1 point – unstable dynamics, the index dropped by the results at the end of the period;

• –    0 points – negative dynamics for the entire period.

These criteria are applied to all indices, except two, which have a negative meaning (for them, the criteria are applied in reverse order):

• –    the share of the population, living in settlements without regular bus service and (or) railway communication with the administrative center of the municipal district, in the total population of the municipal district;

• –    the share of the length of public roads of local importance that do not meet regulatory requirements, in the total length of public roads of local importance.

In addition, regarding the indices of provision with telephone and post communication, in case, if the index retains the maximum value during the whole analyzed period, the dynamics is estimated at 4 points.

The maximum number of points is 64; then is possible to consider the trends of the municipal districts’ economic development as constructive, if they received from 33 to 64 points, destructive – from 0 to 32 points. If the data is absent, the dynamics is estimated at 2 points (stable). The total estimate of economic development of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast is presented in table 7 .

According to the calculations, the development trends are constructive in the following municipal districts: the Chelyabinsk Oblast, the Etkul’skiy, Kartalinskiy, Kaslinskiy, Nagay-bakskiy, Sosnovskiy, Troitskiy, Uvel’skiy, Uysky. The remaining 19 municipal districts have destructive trends of economic development, i.e. they have a devastating impact on the economic space of the region.

Conclusions

A brief summary of some of indices ( Tab. 8 ) allows drawing a conclusion about a higher overall productivity and effectiveness of economic activities in municipal districts of the Sverdlovsk Oblast in comparison with the Chelyabinsk Oblast.

Despite similar problems with the number of economic agents, municipal districts of the Sverdlovsk Oblast have more unified and high scores of production activities (agricultural products), the development of the spatial framework, in terms of general and specialized land use, and the coherence of economic space

Table 8. The share of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk and Sverdlovsk oblasts by some regional indicators

Regional indicator	MD of the Sverdlovsk Oblast		MD of the Chelyabinsk Oblast
	2011	2017	2011	2017
Population	2.4	2.3	28.4	27.08
Agricultural products	7.1	10.9	88.5	88.6
Investments in fixed capital	1.1	0.4	8.2	7.5
Retail trade turnover	0.5	0.5	2.8	5.8
Area of MD’s lands	11.0	11.5	88.7	88.7
Cultivated land	10.1	13.9	98.95	99.6

by the indicators of bus and railway connection, and availability of postal and telephone services than municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast.

In the Chelyabinsk Oblast, municipal districts occupy 88.7% of the territory of the region, that is why their even development is less expected. However, agricultural production is an important component of the economic base in municipal districts of the region, and its results have a significant impact on the regional economic space. The reproductive process in the economic space of municipal districts of the Chelyabinsk Oblast, in terms of consumption and distribution, is more dynamic than in the Sverdlovsk Oblast: there is rather more active investment in comparison with the Sverdlovsk Oblast, and the consumption grows rapidly. The development of the spatial framework of the economic space has rather negative dynamics, despite the emergence of a new settlement and the growth of population density in two municipalities. The most critical is the situation with the coherence of economic space and municipal districts’ integration in regions’ economic space and in the regions – it is very uneven, which is a sign of devastating effects on the region’s economic space.

In accordance with the conducted analysis, the economic and spatial development of municipal districts could be aimed at:

• 1)    the growth of economic activity and economically significant results, given the centrifugal nature of industrial relations on the territory;

• 2)    the preservation and improvement of qualitative characteristics of physical basis and the extent of its development;

• 3)    the growth of municipal districts’ integration into the economic space of a region and the coherence of economic space within a municipal district;

• 4)    balanced development of rural-urban relations (urban and rural settlements within a municipal district; municipal and urban districts within a region).

These areas, along with the obtained results of testing the methodological approach to the identification of trends (constructive and destructive) of the development of municipal districts in the region’s economic space and the results of comparative analysis of municipal districts of two traditional industrial regions in terms of numerical superiority of different types of municipal formations (municipal and urban districts), constitute the scientific novelty of the paper. The analysis of the objects’ economic and spatial development in the regional economic space contributes to the development of the methodology of spatial economics aimed at studying the spatial behavior of economic agents.

We should also note that proposed directions could be formalized in the form of software tools of territorial control (municipal and regional programs), as well as projects, i.e., they may serve as the basis of tactical tools of regional and municipal management. In addition, proposed directions could be used in the preparation of strategic planning documents on regional and municipal levels: in particular, the strategies of socio-economic development.