pp. 3114-3126 | Article Number: iejme.2016.254
Published Online: September 07, 2016
Article Views: 284 | Article Download: 401
The urgency of the analyzed problem is due to the fact that regionalization and globalization have a dual nature and depend on the institutional system, which, in turn, affects the establishment of new rules in the economic space in which interact businesses. The purpose of the article is to justify the fact that the institutional aspect of globalization and regionalization is, above all, in the establishment of new rules and norms of the economy that affect all businesses, and one of the key roles is performed by innovation and investment institutions. The main methods in the study of this problem is the dialectical method, which allows identifying trends in the development institutions at the regional level. Results: the article proves that the development of modern market institutions is associated with the stimulation of innovation activity in the regions and the creation of innovation systems in them, the effectiveness of which depends on the degree of interconnectedness and interdependence of the national innovation system, which corresponds to the globalization processes. The data of the article may be useful in determining institutions of the Samara region that promote economic development and competitiveness of the region, as well as practical development of managerial decisions related to improving the efficiency of the use of economic and administrative resources.
Keywords: Globalization; institutional environment; innovative development institutes; regionalization; social and economic development centers
Azriliyan, A. (1999) Big economic dictionary. New economy institute, Moscow. 827p.
Baburina, O. (2008) Economic globalization. Modern economy issues, 3(27), 1-11.
Fujita, M., Krugman, P. & Venables, A.J. (1999) The Spatial Economy. Cities, Regions, and the International Trade, The MIT Press:Cambridge. 367p.
Glazyev, S., Naumov, E. & Ponukalin, A. (2011) Regional innovative policy. Concept 2020. Direct access:http://innclub.info/wp-content/uploads/2011
Shishkov, Y. (2001) About globalization heterogeneity, its development stages. World economy and international relations, 2, 57-64.
Khasaev, G., Matveev, Y. & Matveev, K. (2014) Institutional forms of organization and management innovative development of Russian economy. Vestnik of Samara State University of Economics, 1 (111), 20-22.
Kosolapov, N. (2001) Globalization: intrinsic and international-political aspects. World economy and international relations, 3, 71-72.
Krugman, P. (1995) Development, Geography and Economic Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press. 127p.
Lunin, I., Trubetskaya, О. & Trubetskaya, Y.(2014) Institutional structures of the Samara region: development features. Vestnik Samara State University of Economics, 12(122), 25-31.
Marginean, S. (2015) Economic Globalization: From Microeconomic Foundation to National Determinants. Procedia Economics and Finance , 27, 731-735.
Mohaghegh, A.(2016) Move Toward Economic Globalization with a Scientist. Procedia Economics and Finance, 36, 467-479.
Osadchaya, I. (2002) Globalization and state: new in developed countries economy regulation. World economy and international relations, 11, 31-44.
Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton & Co. 248p.
Tatarkin, A. (2012). Regional institutes of spatial development modernization in the Russian Federation. Modern productive forces, 1, 102-112.
Vasquez, I. (2002) Globalization and the poor. The Independent Review, 7(1), 197–206.
World economy and international relations. (2005) 4, 3. Now the most powerful three regional associations are EU, NAPHTHA and APEC. 79% of world GDP (respectively 24%, 26% and 29%); 75% of world export (43%, 17% and 25%); 74% of investments (19%, 19% and 36%) and 46% of the population fall on their share.
Zagladin, N.V.(2002)Economic globalization.World economy and international relations, 9, 3-6.