The Center for Financial Innovation and Cashless Economy of the Moscow School of Management Skolkovo presented the full version of the Digital Russia rating for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for the first half of 2018, the Center's press service said on Monday.
The index, according to the authors of the study, reflects the state of digitalization processes in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, namely the level of use in the region of the potential of digital technologies in all aspects of economic activity, business processes, products, services and approaches to decision-making in order to modernize the socio-economic infrastructure of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in terms of official open sources (sites of municipalities, official documents, etc.), as well as the most popular media.
On a 100-point scale, the interval of indicators of the Digital Russia index in the first half of 2018 narrowed and is in the range from 37.2 to 75.14 points (in 2017 this interval was 26.06–70.01). This result indicates a decrease in the gap between the leading and the last constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
The top ten leading regions included Moscow, the Republic of Tatarstan, St. Petersburg, the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra, the Tyumen Region, the YaNAO, the Moscow Region, the Republic of Bashkortostan, the Leningrad Region, and the Chelyabinsk Region.
The rating is closed by Sevastopol, the Pskov region, the Republic of Adygea (Adygea), the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, the Republic of Kalmykia, the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, the Republic of Tyva, the Republic of Ingushetia, the Jewish Autonomous Region.
Top ten. Moscow's leadership, the study says, is based on the continuous improvement of the Information City regional program since 2012. In addition, Moscow is actively working with the federal center, its representatives are included in the expert groups created under the ANO Tsifrovaya ekonomika. A number of technological areas, which are provided for in the federal program "Digital Economy of Russia", are already being tested in practice in Moscow.
The average median value of the index in the first half of 2018 was 56.22 points (in 2017 - 45.57 points).
The authors of the rating highlighted the Republic of Dagestan, the Kostroma Region, the Chechen Republic, the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, the Ryazan, Tver, Bryansk and Oryol Regions. Their growth rates for the first half of 2018 amounted to 61.1%, while the average growth rate for the country is 26.4%.
The Digital Russia Index, according to the authors of the study, reflects the presence and success of initiatives related to digitalization at the regional level. If an initiative has specific actions (for example, to create infrastructure), does not contradict the state strategic vision and has positive socio-economic and business effects, it receives 100 points. The index is based on events that are related to the process of digitalization of regions, reflected in open sources.
The digitalization process is evaluated not only in terms of achieving goals, but also in terms of its publicity. The Digital Russia Index evaluates this process based on public mentions in open sources, taking into account the reliability, citation and tone of events.
Each event is assigned to one of seven key sub-indices:
Sub-indices, in turn, are evaluated through sub-factors, which in this study are events, facts and other information obtained from open sources. An expert assessment for each fact is set based on formalized criteria, which can be aggregated into three key blocks:
Sub-indices for leading regions. Results of other regions with dynamics relative to the second half of 2017:
From 11th to 40th place. 
From 41st to 75th place. 
From 76th to 85th place. The results of the study at the level of federal districts show the same trend as at the level of subjects of the Russian Federation. At the same time, at the level of federal districts, this process is more dynamic, and the gap in the values of the Digital Russia index between leaders and trailers is smaller than in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The decrease in the standard deviation of the index by federal districts was 3.4%, respectively.
Based on the results of the first half of 2018, the Ural Federal District (UFD) became the leader, with a lead of almost 6 points from the second place.
Four of the six constituent entities of the Russian Federation that are part of the Ural Federal District scored more than 70 points and are in the top ten in the overall index, which ensures it the first place (Chelyabinsk (70.75) and Tyumen (74.01) regions, KhMAO - Yugra (74.24) and YNAO (72.43)). The second and third places were taken by the Central and Volga Federal Districts.
Index "Digital Russia" in the context of federal districts for the first half of 2018. 
Table by districts with dynamics. Trends in the information coverage of the digitalization processes of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation
The study made it possible to single out two groups of trends reflecting the development of the digital economy of Russia for the constituent entities of the Russian Federation: at the level of the state and business.
The identified "state" trends, the authors attributed a special interest in the digitalization of public services. The leadership in publications here belongs to the federal portal of public services and regional portals of public services of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
The second important trend was the motivation of private business to develop innovative technologies, the authors of the study believe.
Significantly increased the amount of data on the creation of "Smart Cities" (smart-cities).
The study made it possible to single out a special interest in this topic among the cities: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, Yekaterinburg, Krasnoyarsk, Novosibirsk, Ufa, Sochi, Perm and Rostov-on-Don. The socio-economic effect of the use and development of digital technologies in the creation of the "Smart City" is, according to open sources, mainly in increasing the range of electronic public services and reducing the level of digital inequality. Residents are actively involved in the management of urban development through portals for the interaction of the population with the authorities (for example, Active Citizen, Dobrodel, Deciding Together, etc.).
The introduction of digitalization for Smart Cities is planned to be implemented with the help of large companies from the information and telecommunications sectors of the economy in the regions.
The number of regulatory legal acts on digitalization has significantly increased, which are practical in nature with planned financial and technological results. First of all, we are talking about the creation and operation of specialized centers of competence, advanced development territories (TOSED), technoparks, including children's ones.
In the budgets of all subjects of the Russian Federation, funding for the development of digitalization is planned, and it is increasing annually. For example, in leading subjects these are large-scale programs for informatization and digitalization of cities and regions (“Smart City” in Moscow, “Informatization Program” in the Republic of Tatarstan, etc.), in inferior subjects of the Russian Federation, as a rule, these are regional acts on the creation of working groups for the development of digitalization, decrees of the heads of regions on the creation of technology parks, on reducing gaps in the provision of digital services to the population, including public services in electronic form. In general, in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation that close the rating, a course has been taken to eliminate the digital divide.
Working with information is estimated as one of the main resources for business success, it is stated that in 2017 Russia spent 55 billion rubles on the protection of digital data. The study showed that banking, industrial and government sectors are particularly interested in investing in IT security. For example, in 2017, the Russian banking sector suffered damage in the amount of about 2.5 billion rubles from external attacks. The study revealed that in the direction of "Information Security" in all subjects of the Russian Federation, most attention is paid to the cryptographic protection of information and the use of electronic signatures.
An additional factor in the development of digitalization was the presence and successful operation of TASED, special economic zones (- ed.), industrial parks and technology parks, industrial parks, as well as the activity of Russian development institutions.
Factors affecting the pace of development of digitalization in the subjects of the Russian Federation
According to data from open sources, the main factors affecting the uneven development of digitalization in the regions are:
1. Lack of qualified personnel and the need for adjustments in educational programs.
2. Lack of funding. It is especially difficult to allocate funds for digitalization to those subjects of the Russian Federation that do not have enough funds to solve current economic problems.
3. The existence of a digital divide. Without access to the Internet, it is impossible to use either government services or Smart Cities services. Only a third of cellular base stations support the modern mobile Internet standard - 4G and LTE. The introduction of the 5G standard has been delayed until 2022.
4. Gradual formation of a new regulatory environment that provides a favorable legal regime for the emergence and development of digital technologies. This process has not yet ended in most regions.
bulletin 07.04.2016
Russia is an extremely heterogeneous country: no matter what parameter is used to compare its regions, they will all differ from each other. Territory, natural and climatic conditions, national composition, economic potential and level of social development - these parameters are different everywhere.
However, there is a need to understand how each subject of the federation lives, to determine the size of the investment, demographic and consumer potential, the degree of business representation. For these purposes, the Credinform Information Agency has compiled "Rating of socio-economic development of regions, 2015".
The statistical data we collected differ significantly in each region, which is explained by the heterogeneity of the territories. Bringing them to unified indicators (scores) helps to obtain a generalized result that will give an objective picture of regional development and allow comparison of republics, territories, regions, autonomous districts and cities of federal significance with each other.
The rating is based on 15 indicators that most fully reflect the current socio-economic situation in each of the 85 constituent entities of Russia. This is information on demography, wages, regional budget revenues and the size of GRP (gross regional product) per capita, inflation, investment, retail trade turnover, the number of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs, etc. (see table 1).
Table 1. Indicators used to rank regions; minimum and maximum values.
| № | Indicator | Minimum score (1) | Maximum score (85) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Population as of January 1, 2016 | smallest number | The largest number |
| 2 | Natural increase rate, 2015 | The smallest value of the coefficient | The largest value of the coefficient |
| 3 | Relative increase (decrease) in the population, 2015 | Smallest relative increase/decrease in population | Largest relative population growth |
| 4 | Life expectancy at birth (both sexes, total population), 2014 | Shortest life expectancy | Longest life expectancy |
| 5 | Average annual unemployment rate, 2015 | Lowest unemployment rate | Highest unemployment rate |
| 6 | The volume of gross regional product (GRP) per inhabitant of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, 2014 | The smallest amount of GRP per capita | The largest volume of GRP per capita |
| 7 | Average monthly nominal accrued wages of employees for a full range of organizations, January-December 2015 | lowest wage | highest wage |
| 8 | Fixed capital investment per capita, 2014 | Lowest investment per capita | Highest investment per capita |
| 9 | Retail turnover per capita, 2014 | Lowest retail turnover per capita | Highest retail turnover per capita |
| 10 | Budget revenues of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (excluding gratuitous receipts) per capita of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, 2014 | Lowest per capita budget revenues | The highest per capita budget revenues |
| 11 | Catering turnover per capita, 2014 | The smallest turnover of public catering per capita | The largest turnover of public catering per capita |
| 12 | Core consumer price index in December 2015 vs. December 2014 | The largest price index (inflation rate) | Lowest price index (inflation rate) |
| 13 | Industrial production index, 2015 | The smallest increase in the index of industrial production | The largest increase in the index of industrial production |
| 14 | Number of individual entrepreneurs as of March 1, 2016 | The smallest number of IP | The largest number of IP |
| 15 | Number of legal entities as of March 1, 2016 | The smallest number of legal entities | The largest number of legal entities |
To assign a score to the region for each of the 15 indicators, the data were ranked in ascending/descending order of their numerical values. For example, the inflation rate was ranked from the lowest value to the highest, and the index of industrial production - from the highest to the lowest.
The conclusion of the general index of socio-economic development of the subject of the Russian Federation was made by adding points for all indicators.
In the end, three groups of territories were compiled, which received conditional names: "Regions of the first group"(from 1st to 30th places), "Regions of the second group"(from 31st to 60th places) and "Regions of the third group"(from 61st to 85th places).
V "Regions of the first group" As expected, the territories where the leading sectors of the Russian economy are concentrated are included: the oil and gas industry, mining, agriculture, as well as capital cities (Moscow and St. Petersburg), the level of socio-economic development of which is higher than the national average.
First the place in the national rating is occupied by Moscow (1091 points). With the exception of high inflation and a decline in the index of industrial production, the capital shows great potential both in demography (continuous population growth, high life expectancy) and in the development of the regional economy as a whole. The capital has the largest number of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs, the largest budget revenues per capita, and the lowest unemployment rate in the country.
On the second the Republic of Tatarstan (1046 points) follows with a slight lag, which shows high values for all 15 assessment indicators.
St. Petersburg, located on third place (1027 points), as well as Moscow, lags behind in terms of high inflation and a decrease in the index of industrial production.
Table 2. "Regions of the first group". Top 10 subjects of the Russian Federation that showed the best level of socio-economic development
| Place in the ranking | The subject of the Russian Federation | Total score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Moscow city | 1091 |
| 2 | Republic of Tatarstan | 1046 |
| 3 | St. Petersburg | 1027 |
| 4 | Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Yugra | 993 |
| 5 | Moscow region | 987 |
| 6 | Tyumen region (excluding AO) | 986 |
| 7 | Krasnodar region | 961 |
| 8 | Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug | 932 |
| 9 | The Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) | 929 |
| 10 | Krasnoyarsk region | 910 |
V "Regions of the second group" included subjects that simultaneously demonstrate the best values for some indicators and unsatisfactory for others.
So, for example, in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug (595 points) one of the lowest inflation rates in the country, the highest level of accrued wages, high budget revenues and GRP per capita are observed, with the simultaneous action of "catastrophic" demographic processes: in the Autonomous Okrug some of the worst indicators are recorded in terms of life expectancy, total population and relative population decline. Thus, high incomes today do not make this harsh land attractive for life, as it was in the days of the USSR, the romance of developing the northern territories is gone.
The Republic of Dagestan (697 points), on the contrary, with a relatively low level of economic development, demonstrates good demographic data, including life expectancy, which is typical for the Caucasus as a whole.
V "Regions of the third group" included subjects of Russia with the worst values of the general index of socio-economic development. New regions also got here: the Republic of Crimea (468 points) and the city of Sevastopol (390 points).
Interestingly, last year Sevastopol showed the largest relative population growth among all regions of Russia, but poor economic performance has not yet allowed it to rise above 75th place in the ranking.
The Republic of Crimea shows low values in terms of GRP and budget revenues per capita, in addition, the highest value of core inflation dynamics is noted here, which puts the Republic in 69th place in the national rating.
Kurgan region (298 points) closes the final table with the lowest composite index. The region scored a minimum of points for all key indicators of the assessment.
Table 3. "Regions of the third group". Top 10 subjects of the Russian Federation that showed the worst level of socio-economic development
| Place in the ranking | The subject of the Russian Federation | Total score |
|---|---|---|
| 75 | Sevastopol | 390 |
| 76 | Oryol Region | 379 |
| 77 | 378 | |
| 78 | Kostroma region | 367 |
| 79 | Jewish Autonomous Region | 364 |
| 80 | Ivanovo region | 357 |
| 81 | The Republic of Ingushetia | 343 |
| 82 | Republic of Kalmykia | 339 |
| 83 | Pskov region | 321 |
| 84 | 309 | |
| 85 | Kurgan region | 298 |
The rating presented by us largely explains the budgetary, migration and investment attractiveness of Russian regions, and largely explains the image assigned to them (“bad” - “good”) among the population. Migration and financial flows rush to conditionally “promising” territories to the detriment of the development of other subjects of the Russian Federation.
This situation is connected with the policy pursued by the state to equalize the level of budgetary financing through interbudgetary transfers, subsidies, subsidies. Such actions lead to two paradoxical results: the federation accumulates tax revenues in a single center, and the regions, in turn, are waiting for infusions of budgetary funds, without making efforts for their own socio-economic development. Hence the significant predominance of recipient regions over donor regions. The same applies to local self-government, which on paper is endowed with a wide list of powers, but sometimes does not have the economic resources for their implementation. Excessive centralization leads to obvious distortions in the development of the country as a whole.
Table 4. "Regions - the first group". The first 30 subjects of the Russian Federation in terms of socio-economic development
| № | The subject of the Russian Federation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | Total score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Moscow city | 85 | 65 | 79 | 84 | 85 | 80 | 81 | 73 | 85 | 81 | 81 | 26 | 16 | 85 | 85 | 1091 |
| 2 | Republic of Tatarstan | 78 | 69 | 67 | 72 | 80 | 72 | 56 | 76 | 78 | 66 | 66 | 69 | 39 | 79 | 79 | 1046 |
| 3 | St. Petersburg | 82 | 64 | 73 | 82 | 84 | 75 | 75 | 67 | 77 | 76 | 72 | 24 | 11 | 81 | 84 | 1027 |
| 4 | Khanty-Mansiysk Aut. Okrug-Yugra | 58 | 80 | 77 | 74 | 70 | 83 | 79 | 83 | 81 | 80 | 82 | 8 | 21 | 61 | 56 | 993 |
| 5 | Moscow region | 84 | 45 | 81 | 62 | 83 | 65 | 73 | 59 | 80 | 70 | 71 | 6 | 42 | 83 | 83 | 987 |
| 6 | Tyumen region (excluding AO) | 54 | 74 | 83 | 50 | 38 | 76 | 71 | 78 | 79 | 79 | 79 | 31 | 79 | 53 | 62 | 986 |
| 7 | Krasnodar region | 83 | 50 | 80 | 75 | 44 | 57 | 44 | 75 | 75 | 45 | 74 | 50 | 44 | 84 | 81 | 961 |
| 8 | Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug | 14 | 81 | 4 | 69 | 81 | 84 | 84 | 84 | 83 | 83 | 84 | 80 | 64 | 21 | 16 | 932 |
| 9 | The Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) | 30 | 79 | 66 | 36 | 24 | 79 | 77 | 79 | 63 | 78 | 80 | 82 | 63 | 55 | 38 | 929 |
| 10 | Krasnoyarsk region | 73 | 61 | 65 | 23 | 41 | 74 | 70 | 74 | 62 | 68 | 42 | 83 | 28 | 74 | 72 | 910 |
| 11 | Sverdlovsk region | 81 | 46 | 55 | 34 | 35 | 66 | 63 | 57 | 82 | 59 | 77 | 16 | 19 | 80 | 82 | 852 |
| 12 | Novosibirsk region | 71 | 55 | 70 | 47 | 31 | 56 | 50 | 47 | 59 | 48 | 46 | 67 | 46 | 72 | 80 | 845 |
| 13 | Samara Region | 75 | 34 | 43 | 31 | 82 | 61 | 47 | 66 | 74 | 61 | 62 | 30 | 30 | 71 | 77 | 844 |
| 14 | Sakhalin region | 13 | 47 | 39 | 10 | 36 | 82 | 80 | 82 | 84 | 84 | 73 | 75 | 83 | 23 | 25 | 836 |
| 15 | Republic of Bashkortostan | 79 | 56 | 51 | 35 | 43 | 50 | 41 | 46 | 73 | 38 | 55 | 66 | 47 | 77 | 75 | 832 |
| 16 | Belgorod region | 57 | 28 | 59 | 73 | 78 | 68 | 38 | 51 | 56 | 41 | 14 | 77 | 68 | 59 | 53 | 820 |
| 17 | Perm region | 69 | 49 | 48 | 21 | 37 | 63 | 52 | 52 | 71 | 49 | 68 | 58 | 35 | 73 | 73 | 818 |
| 18 | Nizhny Novgorod Region | 76 | 20 | 32 | 29 | 71 | 51 | 45 | 55 | 72 | 51 | 41 | 62 | 56 | 75 | 76 | 812 |
| 19 | Nenets Autonomous Okrug | 1 | 78 | 78 | 56 | 17 | 85 | 83 | 85 | 67 | 85 | 85 | 4 | 76 | 1 | 1 | 802 |
| 20 | Rostov region | 80 | 31 | 46 | 65 | 42 | 32 | 33 | 32 | 66 | 29 | 56 | 46 | 85 | 82 | 74 | 799 |
| 21 | Khabarovsk region | 50 | 53 | 33 | 11 | 53 | 70 | 72 | 62 | 68 | 69 | 69 | 29 | 38 | 48 | 59 | 784 |
| 22 | Murmansk region | 23 | 48 | 17 | 40 | 19 | 71 | 76 | 71 | 76 | 72 | 75 | 42 | 75 | 22 | 33 | 760 |
| 23 | Chelyabinsk region | 77 | 42 | 57 | 32 | 27 | 42 | 58 | 36 | 47 | 39 | 40 | 81 | 24 | 76 | 78 | 756 |
| 24 | Voronezh region | 64 | 15 | 58 | 61 | 69 | 48 | 36 | 69 | 69 | 33 | 16 | 20 | 60 | 66 | 69 | 753 |
| 25 | Leningrad region | 59 | 8 | 62 | 48 | 57 | 69 | 66 | 63 | 49 | 71 | 44 | 18 | 29 | 57 | 48 | 748 |
| 26 | Irkutsk region | 66 | 63 | 49 | 4 | 15 | 64 | 65 | 58 | 18 | 62 | 22 | 53 | 67 | 70 | 70 | 746 |
| 27 | Tomsk region | 37 | 66 | 63 | 57 | 20 | 67 | 68 | 68 | 14 | 63 | 58 | 47 | 33 | 35 | 50 | 746 |
| 28 | Stavropol region | 72 | 59 | 56 | 77 | 49 | 20 | 27 | 18 | 58 | 16 | 70 | 13 | 71 | 78 | 61 | 745 |
| 29 | Magadan Region | 3 | 43 | 2 | 6 | 72 | 78 | 82 | 81 | 64 | 77 | 78 | 64 | 74 | 5 | 5 | 734 |
| 30 | Omsk region | 62 | 54 | 53 | 45 | 32 | 47 | 49 | 17 | 52 | 43 | 39 | 73 | 41 | 60 | 64 | 731 |
Table 5. "Regions - the second group." Subjects of the Russian Federation from 31st to 60th places in terms of socio-economic development
| № | The subject of the Russian Federation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | Total score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | Komi Republic | 26 | 58 | 6 | 22 | 28 | 77 | 74 | 80 | 70 | 74 | 67 | 32 | 48 | 29 | 31 | 722 |
| 32 | Udmurtia | 56 | 60 | 52 | 42 | 59 | 44 | 37 | 27 | 29 | 44 | 65 | 71 | 22 | 52 | 57 | 717 |
| 33 | Orenburg region | 63 | 44 | 31 | 17 | 61 | 62 | 35 | 50 | 33 | 56 | 60 | 78 | 9 | 58 | 55 | 712 |
| 34 | Yaroslavskaya oblast | 47 | 19 | 54 | 55 | 52 | 49 | 43 | 45 | 42 | 65 | 47 | 14 | 70 | 46 | 60 | 708 |
| 35 | Kaliningrad region | 31 | 41 | 75 | 49 | 47 | 53 | 53 | 39 | 34 | 55 | 52 | 54 | 13 | 41 | 67 | 704 |
| 36 | Primorsky Krai | 61 | 38 | 40 | 18 | 30 | 59 | 67 | 44 | 41 | 57 | 54 | 57 | 2 | 64 | 71 | 703 |
| 37 | Astrakhan region | 34 | 67 | 37 | 59 | 23 | 41 | 40 | 72 | 54 | 35 | 53 | 44 | 72 | 38 | 29 | 698 |
| 38 | The Republic of Dagestan | 74 | 82 | 76 | 83 | 5 | 12 | 1 | 41 | 60 | 4 | 83 | 15 | 52 | 62 | 47 | 697 |
| 39 | Lipetsk region | 42 | 17 | 45 | 53 | 77 | 60 | 32 | 60 | 61 | 52 | 28 | 49 | 43 | 40 | 32 | 691 |
| 40 | Kamchatka Krai | 8 | 62 | 29 | 12 | 68 | 73 | 78 | 53 | 38 | 73 | 76 | 43 | 53 | 9 | 15 | 690 |
| 41 | Kemerovo region | 70 | 30 | 35 | 9 | 21 | 39 | 51 | 56 | 20 | 46 | 36 | 60 | 54 | 63 | 65 | 655 |
| 42 | Saratov region | 67 | 24 | 41 | 63 | 62 | 28 | 22 | 23 | 19 | 23 | 20 | 63 | 58 | 67 | 63 | 643 |
| 43 | Arkhangelsk region (excluding AO) | 41 | 36 | 7 | 46 | 34 | 52 | 69 | 43 | 65 | 67 | 61 | 19 | 12 | 45 | 37 | 634 |
| 44 | Vologodskaya Oblast | 43 | 37 | 34 | 33 | 33 | 55 | 48 | 40 | 23 | 54 | 23 | 52 | 51 | 47 | 58 | 631 |
| 45 | Tula region | 55 | 2 | 22 | 30 | 76 | 38 | 46 | 33 | 44 | 60 | 6 | 34 | 80 | 54 | 51 | 631 |
| 46 | Kaluga region | 33 | 27 | 50 | 39 | 73 | 54 | 57 | 65 | 53 | 58 | 25 | 7 | 4 | 42 | 42 | 629 |
| 47 | Penza region | 51 | 16 | 20 | 68 | 64 | 25 | 26 | 28 | 32 | 21 | 38 | 72 | 73 | 51 | 41 | 626 |
| 48 | Volgograd region | 68 | 29 | 25 | 67 | 26 | 40 | 30 | 48 | 25 | 30 | 11 | 38 | 32 | 69 | 66 | 604 |
| 49 | Kirov region | 48 | 26 | 18 | 52 | 56 | 18 | 17 | 15 | 24 | 24 | 63 | 74 | 62 | 50 | 54 | 601 |
| 50 | Chukotka Autonomous Okrug | 2 | 72 | 9 | 2 | 79 | 81 | 85 | 77 | 10 | 82 | 7 | 84 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 595 |
| 51 | The Republic of Khakassia | 15 | 57 | 61 | 20 | 45 | 46 | 59 | 49 | 21 | 34 | 43 | 85 | 23 | 17 | 14 | 589 |
| 52 | The Republic of Buryatia | 32 | 76 | 68 | 16 | 11 | 16 | 55 | 7 | 37 | 20 | 64 | 70 | 55 | 27 | 30 | 584 |
| 53 | Kursk region | 39 | 12 | 64 | 44 | 75 | 37 | 28 | 38 | 40 | 37 | 17 | 10 | 65 | 37 | 36 | 579 |
| 54 | Novgorod region | 16 | 6 | 21 | 14 | 66 | 58 | 42 | 64 | 48 | 50 | 51 | 40 | 57 | 16 | 19 | 568 |
| 55 | Amur region | 24 | 39 | 19 | 5 | 46 | 43 | 64 | 61 | 55 | 64 | 49 | 22 | 5 | 26 | 24 | 546 |
| 56 | Bryansk region | 44 | 14 | 16 | 27 | 67 | 21 | 10 | 22 | 51 | 13 | 59 | 35 | 82 | 44 | 34 | 539 |
| 57 | Tambov Region | 36 | 4 | 3 | 64 | 65 | 35 | 12 | 70 | 50 | 17 | 13 | 45 | 66 | 31 | 28 | 539 |
| 58 | Chuvash Republic | 45 | 51 | 47 | 54 | 58 | 17 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 18 | 48 | 61 | 17 | 49 | 39 | 536 |
| 59 | Ryazan Oblast | 40 | 10 | 23 | 60 | 63 | 36 | 39 | 21 | 36 | 36 | 26 | 36 | 18 | 36 | 45 | 525 |
| 60 | Vladimir region | 53 | 9 | 15 | 24 | 51 | 29 | 29 | 19 | 28 | 31 | 34 | 41 | 50 | 56 | 46 | 515 |
Table 6. "Regions of the third group". Subjects of the Russian Federation from 61st to 85th places in terms of socio-economic development
| № | The subject of the Russian Federation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | Total score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 61 | Tver region | 49 | 3 | 8 | 15 | 48 | 30 | 34 | 34 | 45 | 47 | 32 | 51 | 14 | 43 | 49 | 502 |
| 62 | Ulyanovsk region | 46 | 22 | 28 | 51 | 60 | 26 | 24 | 30 | 27 | 25 | 15 | 21 | 45 | 39 | 43 | 502 |
| 63 | Chechen Republic | 52 | 85 | 82 | 78 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 11 | 6 | 3 | 57 | 11 | 40 | 28 | 12 | 491 |
| 64 | Smolensk region | 29 | 5 | 14 | 28 | 39 | 33 | 25 | 25 | 43 | 32 | 45 | 65 | 34 | 30 | 40 | 487 |
| 65 | Republic of Karelia | 17 | 21 | 26 | 25 | 12 | 45 | 60 | 20 | 46 | 40 | 33 | 59 | 31 | 13 | 35 | 483 |
| 66 | Altai region | 65 | 32 | 30 | 41 | 16 | 15 | 2 | 9 | 26 | 14 | 8 | 55 | 36 | 65 | 68 | 482 |
| 67 | The Republic of Mordovia | 25 | 13 | 44 | 66 | 74 | 24 | 19 | 26 | 7 | 53 | 9 | 68 | 15 | 19 | 18 | 480 |
| 68 | Mari El Republic | 20 | 52 | 38 | 26 | 54 | 23 | 18 | 42 | 11 | 15 | 35 | 27 | 78 | 11 | 21 | 471 |
| 69 | Republic of Crimea | 60 | 25 | 71 | 58 | 25 | 1 | 21 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 81 | 68 | 44 | 468 |
| 70 | Transbaikal region | 38 | 68 | 27 | 7 | 7 | 22 | 62 | 35 | 22 | 28 | 50 | 12 | 27 | 34 | 20 | 459 |
| 71 | Republic of Adygea | 10 | 40 | 69 | 70 | 13 | 10 | 15 | 8 | 57 | 11 | 19 | 48 | 61 | 14 | 10 | 455 |
| 72 | Tyva Republic | 7 | 83 | 72 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 54 | 24 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 76 | 77 | 7 | 4 | 429 |
| 73 | Kabardino-Balkarian Republic | 28 | 75 | 60 | 81 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 15 | 7 | 12 | 5 | 69 | 33 | 17 | 423 |
| 74 | Altai Republic | 5 | 77 | 74 | 8 | 9 | 13 | 23 | 37 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 39 | 84 | 6 | 8 | 412 |
| 75 | Sevastopol | 9 | 33 | 85 | 76 | 14 | 2 | 31 | 1 | 8 | 75 | 21 | 2 | 7 | 15 | 11 | 390 |
| 76 | Oryol Region | 22 | 7 | 11 | 37 | 40 | 31 | 11 | 31 | 30 | 22 | 27 | 37 | 25 | 25 | 23 | 379 |
| 77 | Republic of North Ossetia-Alania | 21 | 73 | 42 | 79 | 10 | 11 | 6 | 13 | 31 | 6 | 24 | 28 | 3 | 18 | 13 | 378 |
| 78 | Kostroma region | 19 | 18 | 24 | 43 | 55 | 27 | 13 | 10 | 13 | 26 | 31 | 33 | 8 | 20 | 27 | 367 |
| 79 | Jewish Autonomous Region | 4 | 35 | 1 | 3 | 18 | 34 | 61 | 29 | 17 | 42 | 29 | 79 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 364 |
| 80 | Ivanovo region | 35 | 11 | 12 | 38 | 50 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 35 | 12 | 30 | 23 | 10 | 32 | 52 | 357 |
| 81 | The Republic of Ingushetia | 12 | 84 | 84 | 85 | 1 | 4 | 14 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 37 | 4 | 6 | 343 |
| 82 | Republic of Kalmykia | 6 | 71 | 13 | 71 | 6 | 9 | 3 | 54 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 56 | 20 | 8 | 7 | 339 |
| 83 | Pskov region | 18 | 1 | 10 | 13 | 29 | 14 | 9 | 14 | 39 | 27 | 37 | 17 | 59 | 12 | 22 | 321 |
| 84 | Karachay-Cherkess Republic | 11 | 70 | 36 | 80 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 25 | 26 | 10 | 9 | 309 |
| 85 | Kurgan region | 27 | 23 | 5 | 19 | 22 | 19 | 16 | 6 | 16 | 19 | 18 | 9 | 49 | 24 | 26 | 298 |
Moscow, St. Petersburg, Moscow region - these three territories took the first lines of the rating of regions in terms of quality of life-2017, prepared by RIA Rating. To determine where it is best to live, 72 indicators were used, including the level of income, employment, housing conditions, availability of kindergartens.
The rating did not come as a surprise, the capitals are traditional leaders, - Vladimir Klimanov, director of the Institute for Public Finance Reform, commented on the results of the study to RG. - The fourth position of Tatarstan is also quite justified, since the cities and villages of the republic have very high rates both in terms of income of the population and in terms of the quality of infrastructure. Three territories of the Chernozem region (Belgorod, Voronezh and Lipetsk regions) fell into the top of the leading regions at once, where the standard of living of people will always be higher than in Siberia or the Far East.
According to the expert, the Krasnodar Territory has always been a magnet for visitors, therefore, in recent years, it has occupied a leading position among Russian regions in terms of construction volumes.
Closes the top ten leading regions in terms of quality of life Kaliningrad region, which has significantly improved its position. In terms of the share of modern retail space, the region moved from 48th to 12th place. This is largely due to the arrival of a construction retailer in the region. New catering establishments are also opening in the region - according to this indicator, the region jumped from the 17th line of the rating to the 13th.
Many experts have long called the Kaliningrad region a "country of small business." However, in practice, this does not mean that the "kids" in the region live freely. They also face the exceptional problem of the exlav - the need to transport their goods to other Russian regions across several borders.
The sharpest jump at the end of last year was shown by Crimea, which moved from 66th to 55th place. Experts attribute this, among other things, to a decrease in unemployment. Yes, and the salaries of state employees have grown significantly. According to Krymstat, teachers earn an average of 24,153 rubles per month.
Moscow, St. Petersburg and the Moscow region took the first lines of the rating
Natalya Zubarevich, director of the IISP regional program, explains this with solid donations last year. For comparison, Crimea received 80 billion rubles through transfers in 10 months of 2017, and the entire Far East received 176 billion rubles.
The last lines of the rating are occupied by the KChR, Ingushetia and Tyva. “Tuva has always had extremely modest budget spending on social programs,” says Vladimir Klimanov. And he added that the territories of the North Caucasus are highly subsidized, hence such low indicators of the quality of life. Dagestan will also turn out, - the expert believes.
The biggest problem in Ingushetia is the shortage of kindergartens. Most preschoolers are forced to stay at home.
We ask many people to help in the construction of kindergartens and schools, we do not hesitate to contact large structures, - said the head of Ingushetia, Yunus-Bek Yevkurov.
For the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum 2018, which starts in St. Petersburg on May 24, the rating agency RIA Rating of the media group MIA Rossiya Segodnya has prepared the eighth rating of the socio-economic situation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The rating, commissioned by RIA Novosti, is based on the aggregation of key indicators of regional development for 2017. The results of the rating make it possible to judge the positions of a particular region on the economic map of Russia, which, as before, is very heterogeneous, as well as to determine the dynamics of their development.
RIA Rating is a universal rating agency of the media group MIA "Russia Today" specializing in assessing the socio-economic situation of the regions of the Russian Federation, the economic condition of companies, banks, sectors of the economy, countries. The main activities of the agency are: creation of ratings for the regions of the Russian Federation, banks, enterprises, municipalities, insurance companies, securities, and other economic entities; comprehensive economic research in the financial, corporate and public sectors.
MIA "Russia Today" - an international media group whose mission is prompt, balanced and objective coverage of events in the world, informing the audience about different views on key events. RIA Rating as part of the Rossiya Segodnya MIA is included in the line of the agency's information resources, which also include: RIA News , R-Sport , RIA Real Estate , Prime , InoSMI. MIA Rossiya Segodnya is the leader in terms of citation among the Russian media and is increasing the citation of its brands abroad. The agency also occupies a leading position in terms of citation in Russian social networks and the blogosphere.
MIA "Russia Today" acts as an international media partner SPIEF-2018.
