Книги по разным темам
Pages: | 1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 23 | Mono voting
21/19
Republic of North Osetia - Alania,Republic of Adygea, Oryol oblast, Tambov oblast, Penza oblast, ChuvashRepublic, Stavropol krai, Republic of Altai, Belgorod oblast, Volgograd oblast,Voronezh oblast, Lipetsk oblast, Republic of Mordovia, Republic of Mariy El,Orenburg oblast, Ryazan oblast, Saratov oblast, Smolensk oblast, Ulianovskoblast, Bryansk oblast, Ingush Republic.
Sverdlovsk oblast, Moscow city,Khanty - Mansi AO, Saint-Petersburg city, Yamal - Nenetsian AO, Perm oblast,Taymyr (Dolgano- Nenetsian) AO, Koryakian AO, Chukotka AO, Vologda oblast,Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Republic of Tyva, Republic of Karelia, Arkhangelskoblast, Republic of Komi, Evenk AO, Nenetsian AO, Kamchatka oblast, Murmanskoblast.
Two humpvoting
12/14
Kursk oblast,Karach-Cherkesian Republic, Republic of Dagestan, Kurgan oblast, Republic ofKhakasia, Republic of Buryatia, Kaluga oblast, Yevreyskaya AO, Tver oblast,Republic of Bashkortostan, Omsk oblast, Ust’ - Orda Buryat AO.
Komi - Permyak AO,Republic of Kalmykia, Moscow oblast, Irkutsk oblast, Krasnoyarsk krai, Vladimiroblast, Yaroslavl oblast, Udmurt Republic, Kirov oblast, Nizhny Novgorodoblast, Republic of Kabardino - Balkaria, Aguinsky Buryat AO, Samara oblast,Republic of Tatarstan.
Alternativevoting
10/11
Kemerovo oblast, Krasnodar krai,Pskov oblast, Chita oblast, Amur oblast, Novosibirsk oblast, Rostov oblast,Kostroma oblast, Tula oblast, Astrakhan oblast.
Tomsk oblast, Leningrad oblast,Chelyabinsk oblast, Novgorod oblast, Kaliningrad oblast, Khabarovsk krai,Magadan oblast, Primorsky krai, Tyumen oblast, Sakhalin oblast, Ivanovooblast.
RUSSIA
Ratio ofregions: 44 loyal to 43 opposition on the elections give 35% for Yeltsynand 32% for Zyuganov
Analysis of regional >
The authors additionally analyze theresults of the second round of 1996 presidential elections. In the second roundYeltsyn has one with a bigger majority compared to the first round. Analysis ofregional ranking from an alternative voting on 1995 parliamentary elections toa mixed voting on the first round of presidential elections demonstrateregional dynamics in political and ideological preferences of thepopulation (from the opposed ones through centrists to loyalists, andvisa versa). The second round of presidential elections demonstrated, first ofall, political preferences of regional elites. On the whole, one can suppose,that an obtained division into 48 loyal regions to 39 opposed regions gave anadvantage to the acting president in the second round in the amount of 13percent which was by 10 percent more than received on the first round of 1996presidential elections. (44 loyal to 43 opposed regions).
23. >
Research analysis of the politicalsituation became an important aspect in regional>
23 a >
24. >
24
Approaches to the choice and>
- methodology of selecting a region must be clear andobjective;
- applied indices should be objective, essential and received fromreliable statistical sources;
- policy should be carried out towards corresponding integratedunits.
Identification of problem regions becomes acentral task in the development of regional policy. These regions shouldreceive support and means from political programs.
In relation to criteria used for the choiceof regions, one can say the following:
- Indicators used in EC counties can be divided into six bigcategories: unemployment level, per capita GDP, industrial structure, prospectsfor economic development, demographic indices and location;
- In such countries as Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,Netherlands and the United Kingdom considerable attention is traditionally paidto the unemployment factor in choosing regions;
- In less developed EC countries a big stress in put on the percapita GDP (partially due to the fact that unemployment statistical data inthese countries can turn out to be unreliable because of underemployment andhigh level of migration);
- Remaining criteria pay a lesser role in defining regions, althoughsuch aspects as remoteness from markets, situation on labor market and climaticconditions are rather important for Scandinavian countries;
- In the majority of cases countries unwillingly explain theirmethodology which they use for defining regions. The United Kingdom, Denmark,Portugal and partially Germany are an exception. They is a pressure in thesecountries to make more transparent the solution of these problems at thefederal level in order to obtain general support.
At present, primary attention is paid tothose regions, which fulfil requirements for receiving support in the frameworkof regional policy. At the same time, in each country the regions are dividedinto types on the basis of used criteria. These types are enumerated in theTable. EC countries can be divided into four big groups according to populationcoverage:
- Greece, Ireland, and Portugal where the whole country can count onsome sort of support;
- Spain and Italy where the population of problematic regions comebetween 48% and 61% of the overall number of population;
- Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Luxembourg, and the UnitedKingdom where between 35% and 43% of the overall population are covered;
- Denmark, Netherlands, and Sweden where between 13% and 20% of thepopulation reside in the problematic regions.
Types of regions covered by regional policyaccording to the priority level
Country | Types of regions for theregional policy | Cover of population(%) |
GREECE | Region D | 14.0 |
Region C | 30 | |
Region B | 14 | |
Region A | 42 | |
All regions receivingassistance | 100 | |
IRELAND | Selected regions | 28 |
Unselected regions | 72 | |
All regions receivingassistance | 100 | |
PORTUGAL | Regions SIR | 47 |
All regions receivingassistance | 100 | |
SPAIN | All regions receivingassistance | 60,7 |
GERMANY | Depressed zone А (new lands- lessdeveloped regions) | 13 |
Depressed zone B (new lands– more developedregions) | 8,7 | |
Depressed zone C (westernlands) | 16,2 | |
All regions receivingassistance | 38 | |
ITALY | Mezzogiorno: зоны A/B | 34,2 |
Molise | 0,4 | |
Abruzzi | 2 | |
Central and northern regions(Targets 2/5b) | 12,3 | |
All regions receivingassistance | 48,9 | |
АВСТРИЯ | Burgenland: 40% nge | 1,8 |
Burgenland: 30% nge | 1,7 | |
E.Obersteiermark: 25%nge | 2,3 | |
Прочие районы: 20% nge | 26,4 | |
15% nge | 3 | |
Все районы, получающиепомощь | 35,2 | |
BELGIUM | Target 1 (Hainaut) | 12,6 |
Zone 1 | 9,7 | |
Zone 2 | 12,6 | |
All regions receivingassistance | 35 | |
DENMARK | Regions with prioritydevelopment | 4,9 |
Regions envisaged fordevelopment | 15,3 | |
All regions receivingassistance | 20,2 | |
FRANCE | Longwy, Corsica | 0,4 |
Target 1 (NorthPale-Kale) | 1,5 | |
Zone of maximumassistance | 12,1 | |
Zone of normalassistance | 26,9 | |
All regions receivingassistance | 40,9 |
Country | Types of regions for theregional policy | Cover of population(%) |
LUXEMBURG | Ceiling 25% | 34,6 |
Ceiling 17,5% | 7,9 | |
All regions receivingassistance | 42,5 | |
NETHERLANDS | IPR – Northern developmentzone | 9 |
Transition: S. Limburg | 2,8 | |
Twente | 3,8 | |
All regions receivingassistance | 15,6 | |
GREATBRITAIN | Northern Ireland | 2,9 |
Development zone | 15,5 | |
Transition zone | 17,5 | |
All regions receiving assistance | 35,9 | |
FINLAND | Development zone 1 | 12,7 |
Development zone 2 | 12,9 | |
Development zone 3 | 5,4 | |
Zone of structuralregulation | 10,6 | |
All regions receivingassistance | 41,6 | |
SWEDEN | Zone receiving assistance1 | 2,3 |
Zone receiving assistance2 | 5 | |
Provisional zones | 6,2 | |
All regions receivingassistance | 13,5 Pages: | 1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 23 | Книги по разным темам
|