Taking into account the importance of trade in general, determined by its functions, and the important role of trade in the Russian economy, the urgent task is to ensure the sustainable development of trade in Russia, given the peculiarities and needs of each region. As such, the study is devoted to the analysis of regional differences in the condition and development of trade in Russia. The goal of the study is to group Russian regions based on the results of estimating the condition and development of trade, and to identify the regions that need state support for trade most, as well as those that can serve as examples of the best practices in the trade industry development. The method of the study is based on a combination of indicators of condition and changes in trade, which are found taking into account nine statistical indicators that comprehensively describe different aspects of the trade industry. The outcomes confirm the existence of regional differences in the Russia trade and indicate that most of the Russian regions are described by a low level of trade development against its growth, while only a few regions demonstrate intensive development of trade, which continues to grow. State support for trade is fundamental for the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the Republic of Dagestan, the Chukotka Autonomous Region, the Jewish Autonomous Region, and the Republic of Ingushetia. The highest level of trade development and growth is characteristic of Moscow, the Moscow region, and the Novosibirsk region. The latter is recognized as the region with the best practices of trade development, which other regions can adopt. The results can be used by the statistics bodies and state authorities to monitor the condition and development of trade in Russian regions and will contribute to better accuracy and feasibility of managerial decisions in trade.
Mayorova, A. N., Panasenko, S. V., Nikishin, A. F., Ivanov, G. G., & Mayorova, E. A. (2018). Analyzing regional differences in the condition and development of trade in Russia. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(2), 927–938. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.6.2(30)