Keywords

Introduction

The digitalization of economic sectors is becoming an inevitable fact. There is an intensive introduction of digital resources in various sectors of the economy—industry, finance, healthcare, etc. The study of the problems of digitalization in Russia has become extremely relevant in recent years. It should be noted that the development of digitalization processes is one of the little-studied problems due to the short period of existence of this phenomenon. The term digital economy was first substantiated in the scientific works of Tapscott (1997) and Negroponte (1995). In the works of these scientists, the fundamental nature of information technologies was substantiated and the prospects for their influence on economic processes were considered.

Determining the role of various factors in changing the dynamics of economic development is given a significant place in scientific research. The scientific works of many foreign scientists indicate the conditionality of the development of the economy and institutions. These include the works of such scientists as De Soto (1989), Besley (1995), Jones and Romer (2010), Nonneman and Vanhoudt (1996) and others.

Scientists of all directions take an active part in the discussion of the problems of the influence of various factors on economic growth, among them: Lucas (1988), Rodrik (2008), Kaldor and Robinson (1965) and others. In the studies of representatives of Russian science such as Glazyev (2009) and others also reflect the relationship between economic growth and various socio-economic factors.

There are gaps in the scientific literature that our study aims to fill in relation to the analysis of the relationship between digitalization and economic growth at the regional level. In addition, there is a predominance of qualitative studies of digitalization in the modern scientific literature which partly reduces the level of reliability in the analysis of the causal effects of digitalization from the standpoint of GRP growth. Despite the established connection between digital infrastructure and GRP growth in several foreign studies (Baquero Forero, 2013; Castellacci, 2011; Carbonara 2005; Evangelista et al. 2014).

The intensive spread of digital technologies has exacerbated the threat of territorial differentiation of regions in Russia. This problem exists to a greater or lesser extent in all countries of the world, however, in Russia, the indicators of territorial differentiation are extremely high (Bezdenezhnykh & Makenov, 2019; Nikolaev & Tochilkina, 2011). These processes have actualized the need to study the impact of digitalization on economic growth.

Despite investment efforts, Russia has not been able to achieve the expected economic prosperity associated with digitalization due to the persistent digital divide, including the lack of digital skills, the lack of ICT infrastructure in certain underdeveloped economic regions (Morozkina, 2020). Consequently, Russia must bring its economic potential, including its labor force, in line with the requirements of the new digital landscape.

The purpose of the study is to identify the key conditions for the digitalization of the economy and assess their impact on the volume and dynamics of GRP in the constituent entities of Russia.

The rapid penetration of digitalization processes into the Russian economy has determined the increase in the volume of scientific literature, which, using econometric modeling technologies, examines various aspects of the impact of digital resources on the economic development of the country and its individual regions and offers ambiguous results in explaining this relationship. Much of the writing suggests that the use of digital technologies stimulates the economy by facilitating communication, empowering individuals, creating jobs and spurring innovation.

An analysis of the intensity of the impact of digitalization on changes in the volume of GRP per capita has also become widespread in scientific research. Most of the work is based on the seemingly plausible assumption that the higher the level of digitalization, the higher the level of economic development of the region. Conversely, highly developed countries can afford the use of high-quality digital resources. Thus, the study “Digitalization as a global trend and growth factor of modern economy” (2019) shows that states with a high level of economic development have better access to the Internet, wide opportunities for obtaining information, and, accordingly, a higher level of digitalization. Digitalization acts as an essential factor in the growth of the modern economy.

The most common opinion is that the digitalization of the economy has a positive impact on productivity and economic growth. Let’s take a look at these jobs. For example, studies (Czernich et al., 2011; Qiang & Rossotto, 2009) show that the use and expansion of broadband drives productivity and economic growth. Studies have shown that labor productivity increases with investment in computerization of business processes and the development of the Internet. The study (Katz et al. 2014; Katz & Koutrompis, 2013) shows that the prosperity of countries grows along with the digitalization index. The work graphically illustrates the dependence of the digitalization index on GDP per capita and vice versa. Research by Niebel (2014), Romer (1990) also showed a positive relationship between ICT and economic growth.

In the work of Cardona et al. (2013), based on an in-depth analysis of the empirical literature, the relationship is substantiated and the nature of the interaction between information and communication technologies and labor productivity is established (2013).

The seminal work of Evangelista et al. (2014) also found that the use of ICTs in business improves productivity.

Bezdenezhnykh (2019) conducted a detailed analysis of the current state of digital resources and identified the elements of digitalization that affect GDP. The study identified key variables that affect the dynamics of the Russian economy. The author made the following conclusion: there is a large correlation between all variables. The results of the study show that digitalization has a great impact on GDP.

The work of Khalin and Chernova (2018) defines the relationship between digitalization and the digital economy and identifies both possible positive consequences and risks and threats of digitalization for Russia. In their article, they conclude that digitalization leads to an increase in the efficiency of the economy.

The impact of digital technologies on economic growth in economically different countries is not the same. This problem is aggravated by the insufficient level of development of digital infrastructure in regions remote from the center, especially in rural areas. Some researchers found that there is a bipolarization in GDP growth rates between “ICT emerging economies” and digitally advanced countries. They found that the development of ICT had a positive impact on innovation and economic modernization, primarily in ICT-based emerging economies.

Let us also pay attention to very important aspects of research, the results of which can be applied to manage the formation of digital resources in Russian regions with an insufficient level of economic development. Niebel et al. (2014) prove that ICTs have a beneficial impact on the socio-economic development of developing countries—with insufficient digital infrastructure. This study shows that, for this type of country, ICT reduces the cost of doing business by facilitating access to both information and consumers via the Internet. Digital communications enable firms to maintain long-term relationships with customers. In addition, ICT empowers citizens by providing access to free online educational materials and news, enabling the growth of digital literacy.

There is a growing body of literature on the relationship between social media use and economic growth. In developing countries, social media has become an indirect driver of growth as new businesses are created through social media platforms. The researchers examined the impact of online and offline social media on branding and innovation as facilitators for the operation of firms in the hospitality sector using structural equation modeling. They found that the relationship between social media use and firm performance was very significant.

In the work of Kramin and Klimanova (2019) emphasizes the great role and proves the importance of digital infrastructure for the growth of the economy of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The authors put forward a hypothesis, which was further confirmed with the help of specific calculations, about the presence of elasticity of GRP and GRP per capita indicators for the defining indicators of digital infrastructure.

Research by Kadochnikova (2020) also shows a positive relationship for GRP per capita and digital inclusion. The positive impact of the increase in the number of subscribers of mobile broadband access to the Internet per 100 people on the increase in the growth rate of GRP was clearly manifested.

According to the research of Sukharev (2021) the interaction of digital and traditional (classical) economies takes place differently in regions with different functional orientations and different population densities. The author found that residents of some remote regions with relatively low-income levels (Jewish Autonomous Region, Altai, Chukotka Autonomous Region, etc.) nevertheless actively use digital resources (satellite access, etc.)

In the works of Russian authors, an assessment was made of the economic differentiation of regions, taking into account new factors of influence, and the spatial relationships of digitalization and industrial development were identified (Grigoriev et al. 2015; Naumov et al., 2020). In the work of Abroskin and Abroskina (2020) address specific topical issues about measuring GDP dynamics in the context of digitalization of the economy.

The scientific literature also reveals the critical role of the state in providing an enabling environment for access to and use of technology. It is especially valuable to get acquainted with the best practices of foreign experience in assessing the impact of the spread of digital resources on the development of the economy (Kazakova, 2013). The state is responsible for creating conditions for the acquisition or production of advanced technologies, as well as for creating and maintaining a legal framework that facilitates the use of ICTs.

Specific forms of digital technologies are considered and their role in global production networks is determined (Foster & Graham, 2016). The directions of penetration of broadband communications were determined and an assessment of its impact on the development of the economy was carried out (Ghosh, 2017). The issues of the relationship between the activities of e-government and the development of digital resources are not ignored (Twizeyimana and Andersson 2019; Zhao et al., 2015).

Researchers raise questions about the conceptualization and measurement of the digital economy (Bukht & Hicks, 2017). In an attempt to move away from the narrow concept of ICT from the infrastructure side, Evangelista et al. (2014) empirically examined the economic impact of digitalization on a group of 27 countries in the European Union from 2004 to 2008 using Arellano-Bond’s GMM estimates. They concluded that of the three dimensions of the digitalization process, the use of ICTs and digital empowerment, rather than access to ICTs, are important for productivity and employment growth.

However, some researchers have noted that investment in ICT has a negative impact on labor productivity in SMEs, primarily due to the lagging effect between ICT use and productivity gains (cited by Evangelista et al., 2014). Another explanation for this negative relationship was that the use requires a skilled workforce and a learning curve to integrate the new technology, resulting in a potential technology and skills mismatch.

Other studies (Ishida (2015) draw attention to the reassessment of the relationship between ICT and economic growth. The author emphasizes that ICT in many cases did not have a significant impact on changes in real GDP in both the short and long term.

Thus, we can say that due to the ambiguity of the assessments of the results of the correlation between GRP and indicators characterizing the development of digital resources of the economy, our study is relevant. In this article, we test the hypotheses noted above on a much broader empirical basis.

Materials and Methods

The work was carried out on the basis of a critical understanding of the theoretical provisions, the collection, processing and interpretation of statistical data, as well as their graphical visualization, allowing to formulate conclusions about the subject of the study. To test the hypothesis that digital technologies are statistically significant growth factors of GRP (within a certain interval), we choose GRP per capita for the period from 2015 to 2019 as our independent variable and the digital technology scorecard from the database as our dependent variables. Digital technologies are understood as technologies for collecting, storing, processing, searching, transmitting, and presenting data in electronic form. Statistical information on the scale of distribution and directions of use of digital technologies by organizations is given for legal entities (excluding small businesses). Source of information—Statistical compendium “Regions of Russia”—Section - 18.

The level of use of digital resources in organizations located on the territory of a subject of Russia was assessed according to the following parameters (as a percentage of the total number of surveyed organizations): use of personal computers in organizations; use of “cloud” services in organizations; use of broadband access to the Internet; use of servers in organizations; use of local area networks in organizations.

In our article, we will consider in detail the data describing the dynamics of GRP. Indicators for the gross regional product are presented in section 9 of the statistical collection “Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators. 2021”. The electronic version of this collection is posted on the official website of Rosstat in the heading “Publications”. The section contains information on GRP and actual consumption of households in the territory of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The data in the tables containing indicators by sectors of the economy are for 2017–2019. in accordance with the All-Russian classifier of types of economic activity.

More detailed information about GRP is available in the statistical collections and publications of Rosstat: “Russian Statistical Yearbook”, “Russian National Accounts in 2013–2020” (https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/210).

To ensure comparability and stability of the data, calculations were made for the period starting from 2015 (after the formation of the subjects of the Russian Federation—the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol) and up to 2019 (to exclude the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic).

Analysis of studies to identify correlations between GDP and digital technologies was carried out using a graphical method. The coefficient of variation was used as an indicator indicating the differentiation of the subjects of the Russian Federation. In evaluating the impact in this study, linear correlation coefficients were used to determine the relationship.

Results

As a result of the study, it was determined that the majority of Russian organizations use Internet resources in their work (89.6% of organizations in the business sector). However, in different regions, the use of the Internet by the population is different. In 2020, more than 95% of the population used the Internet in Moscow and the Moscow Region, the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra, and the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, and 93.5% in Chechnya. While in the Oryol region this figure was 77.3%, in Tver region—77.9%, in Novgorod region—75.4%, in the Republic of Mordovia—76.2%.

The number of active subscribers of broadband access to the Internet (per 100 people) varies significantly by region—varies from 39.2 in the Novosibirsk region, 36.8 people in Moscow to 1.9 people in Ingushetia and 4.2 people in Dagestan.

If in Russia as a whole the indicator of the use of electronic document management in organizations (as a percentage of the number of surveyed organizations) was 70% in 2020, then in Chechnya it was only 37.8%, the Republic of Dagestan—41.7%, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug—62%.

Please note that local networks and own servers are not yet used in all organizations. “Cloud” services are used only in 25.7% of organizations. At the same time, in the Republic of Dagestan, this figure was only 11.1% in 2020, in the Chukotka Autonomous Region 14.4%, and in the Jewish Autonomous Region—15.3%.

The assessment of the impact of the introduction of digital technologies is carried out in our study in terms of correlation with the results of GRP growth. The criterion for the effectiveness of the digitalization process in our case is the acceleration of GRP growth in the regions and the country as a whole.

Before conducting a statistical analysis of the impact of digitalization on the differentiation of the gross regional product and its growth rates, two hypotheses were put forward.

Research hypothesis 1: digitalization of the economy and management, contributing to the socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, reduces the differentiation of regions in terms of growth rates of GRP per capita (dependent variable y1) and its level (dependent variable y2).

Competing hypothesis 2: the digitalization of the economy and management does not have a noticeable effect on reducing the differentiation of regions in terms of GRP growth rates and its level.

The results of the calculations presented in Fig. 1 indicate the heterogeneity of the sample in terms of the GRP per capita growth rate, which, in order to correctly assess the degree of dispersion in the numerical sequence, requires the elimination of minimum and maximum values.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Variation of the indicators “GRP per capita” and “Use of broadband Internet access” by constituent entities of the Russian Federation for 2015–2019

Full size image

However, in this study, only the trend is assessed, so sampling was not adjusted. Figure 1 does not demonstrate the coincidence of the dynamics of indicators between the two analyzed indicators. The correlation coefficient between them characterizes a weak relationship (r = 0.06).

For a more detailed analysis, we studied the relationship between GRP per capita of a subject of the Russian Federation and the prevalence of various digital technologies used in organizations located on the territory of this subject. The correlation matrix is presented in Table 1

Table 1 Correlation matrix of indicators of the use of digital technologies in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the growth rate of GRP per capita
Full size table

As follows from the data in Table 1, there are no noticeable correlations between the growth rate of GRP per capita and the prevalence of the use of digital technologies in organizations. A similar result is obtained by checking the correlations between indicators of the use of digital technologies and the level of GRP per capita (Table 2).

Table 2 Correlation matrix of indicators of the use of digital technologies in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the volume of GRP per capita
Full size table

The conducted study allows us to reject hypothesis 1 and support hypothesis 2, concluding that the spread of digital technologies in organizations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in modern conditions (2017–2019) does not have a significant impact on the growth rate of GRP per capita, as well as on differentiation subjects of the Russian Federation by the volume of this indicator.

Discussion

The results obtained are not entirely consistent with the prevailing opinion about the positive impact of digital technologies on economic growth. However, considering the fact that statistical data were used for a very short period of time (5 years), it is reasonable to speak of the absence of such an influence with the following reservations:

  • We are talking about the absence of statistically significant dependencies only in a short-term retrospective.

  • Four characteristics observed by the state system of statistics and assessing the presence (but not the use and, moreover, the intensity of use) of digital technologies were used as explanatory variables.

It should be emphasized that the authors of some of the published works a priori assert the direct and positive impact of digitalization on economic growth (including the economy of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation), based on the provisions and theses of strategic documents in the field of digitalization and strategic planning. But you don’t have to take wishful thinking. Regulatory documents set the vector of development, and the task of researchers is to identify, evaluate and interpret facts that indicate progress in a given direction. Given the limited availability of reliable data on the use of ICT, given the limited time for their intensive introduction into management practice, it is hardly possible to speak with confidence about the unconditional, direct and positive impact of digital technologies on the economic growth of the subjects of the Russian Federation and the reduction of their differentiation in terms of socio-economic development. The discussion of the results obtained by the authors made it possible to determine the direction of further statistical analysis, which hypothetically can reveal indicators of the effectiveness of economic development, the dynamics of which is explained by the spread of digital technologies: labor productivity, as well as characteristics of the innovative development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Conclusion

It should also be noted that the study did not take into account the sectoral affiliation of enterprises and organizations that used digital technologies in the analyzed period, as well as the sectoral structure of the region’s economies, which, as can be assumed with a high degree of probability, affect both the volume and growth rate of GRP. per capita. Continued research in these areas will make it possible to refine and expand the results obtained.