Mesoeconomic Modeling of Structural Shifts of the Us Industry: Industry and Spatial Components

The evolution of socio-economic relations, studied in the dynamics of the development of such a phenomenon as structural changes in industry caused by the diffusion of knowledge-intensive technologies of a convergent type, is most consistently revealed within the framework of the mesoeconomic production system of the country level, through appropriate modeling of characteristic objects and processes. The mesoeconomic modeling of the industrial sector of the American economy, which entered a qualitatively new period of reindustrial development a decade ago, seems relevant. The aim of this study is to use elements and modeling systems that meet the requirements of sectoral and regional mesoeconomics to assess the structural shifts that took place in the US industry in the period 2011–2020 under the influence of convergent technologies. To solve this problem, the DEA-method is used, developed and tested by the American scientists and is aimed at calculating the convergent resonance index and the indicator of the comparative efficiency of the objects under study. Based on the results of constructing models of the technological efficiency of the US industry in space-time, oriented to the input and output parameters, an assessment of the structural shifts of the American industry, both sectoral and spatial-regional components of the US mesoeconomic system, is presented. The conclusion is made about the generally successful structural modernization of American industry in the inter-crisis period, characterized as the initial stage of the reindustrial development of the United States on the basis of convergent technologies of the sixth technological order. The problems of the initial stage of American reindustrialization associated with a small increase in industrial production within the framework of the national knowledge economy and the strengthening of structural imbalances in its spatial development are identified. At the same time, a high level of efficiency of modernization of the main industries of the United States in the considered period of time was noted, associated with the active diffusion of convergent technologies.

1. Antamoshkin A. N., Morgunova O. N., Morgunov E. P. (2006). Research methodology for the effectiveness of complex hierarchical systems. Bulletin of the Siberian State Aerospace University, iss. 2 (9). pp. 9–13 (in Russian).

2. Arrigi J. (2006). The long twentieth century: Money, power and the origins of our time. Transl. from English, Moscow, Territory of the Future, 472 p. (in Russian).

3. Varnavskij V. G. (2019). Post-crisis reindustrialization: from concept to implementation. Drucker Bulletin, no. 1, pp. 18–28. DOI: 10.17213 / 2312–6469–2019–1–18–28 (in Russian).

4. Glaz'ev S.Yu. (2016). World economic structures in global economic development. Economics and Mathematical Methods, vol. 52, iss. 2, pp. 3–29 (in Russian).

5. Gudkova T. V., Loginova V. S. (2020). Reshoring of the US industry: digitalization vs globalization. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, no. 50 (7), pp. 42–60 (in Russian). DOI: 10.31857/S268667300010134-7

6. Ivanus A. I. (2021). On modeling the dynamics of innovative development of high-science technologies on the example of the People's Republic of China. Economics of High-Tech Industries, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 9–19 (in Russian). DOI: 10.18334/evp.2.1.111828

7. Kleiner G. B. (2021). Systemic economics: development steps: monograph, Moscow, Scientific Library. 746 p. (in Russian).

8. Kleiner G. B. (2016). Economy. Modeling. Maths. Selected Works, Moscow, Central Economics and Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences. 856 p. (in Russian).

9. Mesoeconomics of development. (2010). Ed. by G. B. Kleiner, Moscow, Nauka, 944 p. (in Russian).

10. Mesoeconomics. (2020). Mesoeconomics: elements of a new paradigm: monograph. Ed. by V. I. Maevskij, S. G. Kirdina-Chendler, Moscow, Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 392 p. (in Russian).

11. Minat V. N. (2020). Innovation activity and spatial structure of the US manufacturing industry. Innovation, no. 10 (264), pp. 82–94 (in Russian). DOI: 10.26310/2071-3010.2020.264.10.010

12. Minat V. N. (2021). Urbo-oriented development of the national innovation system in the space of the US metropolitan areas. Federalism, vol. 26, no. 1 (101), pp. 187–206 (in Russian). DOI: 10.21686/2073-1051-2021-1-187-206

13. The real sector. (2019). The real sector of the economy in the context of the new industrial revolution: monograph. Ed. by M. A. Eskindarov, N. M. Abdikeev, Moscow, Kogito-Center, 428 p. (in Russian).

14. Spicyn V. V., Trifonov A. Yu., Ryzhkova M. V., Spicyna L. Yu. (2018). Profitability of chemical enterprises in a turbulent economy: Modeling in the context of ownership. Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice, vol. 17, iss. 9, pp. 1604–1621 (in Russian).

15. Fedotov Yu.V. (2012). Measuring the effectiveness of the organization: Features of the DEA method (data convolution analysis). Russian Management Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 51–62 (in Russian).

16. Frolov V. G., Trofimov O. V., Klimova E. Z. (2020). Development of a system model of the organizational and economic mechanism for the development of priority high-tech industries in accordance with the concept of Industry 4.0. Issues of Innovative Economics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 71–83 (in Russian). DOI: 10.18334/vinec.10.1.100682

17. Shcherbakov G. A. (2019). Systemic economic crises in the long-term dynamics of world economic development. Ed. by G. B. Kleiner, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nestor-History, 404 p. (in Russian).

18. Bowlin W. F., Charnes A., Cooper W. W., Sherman H. D. (1985). Data envelopment analysis and regression approaches to efficiency estimation and evaluation. Annals of Operations Research, vol. 2, pp. 113–138.

19. Charnes A., Cooper W. W., Lewin A. Y., Seiford L. M. (1994). Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology, and application. Boston. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 513 p.

20. Charnes A., Cooper W. W., Rhodes E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 2, pp. 429–444.

21. Coelli T., Prasada Rao D. S., Battese G. E. (1998). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. Boston. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 275 p.

22. Cooper W. W., Seiford L. M., Tone K. (2000). Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references, and DEA-Solver Software. Boston. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 318 p.

23. Jarallah S., Saleh A. S., Salim R. (2018). Examining pecking order versus trade-off theories of capital structure: New evidence from Japanese firms. International Journal of Finance & Economics, no. 24 (1), pp. 204–211. DOI: 10.1002/ijfe.1657

24. Le T. P.V., Phan T. B.N. (2017). Capital structure and firm performance: Empirical evidence from a small transition country. Research in International Business and Finance, no. 42, pp. 710–726. DOI: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.012

25. Shwab K., Vanham P. (2021). Stakeholder capitalism: A global economy that works for progress, people and planet. N.Y., Wiley, 304 p.

26. Svento R. (2019). High-tech industries as a factor in the reindustrialization of the economy. Papers in Regional Science, vol. 98, iss. 3, pp. 143–162.

27. Varum C. A., Cibrão B., Morgado A., Costa J. (2009). R&D, structural change and productivity: the role of high and medium-high technology industries. Economia Aplicada, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 399–424.

28. Zakaria F. (2020). Ten lessons for a post-pandemic world. N.Y. – ​L, W. W. Norton, 336 p.

29. Zuboff Sh. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. N.Y., Public Affairs, 704 p.