On the Question of Evaluation and Improvement Activities of Foreign Representations of the Russian Federation Subordinate Entities

Radik R. Gimatdinov – PhD in Political Sciences, Aide to the President of the Republic of Tatarstan on international and foreign economic issues. Russia, 420014, Kazan, Kremlin. E-mail: Radik.Gimatdinov@tatar.ru.
 
 
Ildar R. Nasyrov – Doctor of Political Sciences, Head of Division of International Cooperation Department of Foreign Affairs to the President of the Republic of Tatarstan. Russia, 420014, Kazan, Kremlin. E-mail: Ildar.Nasyrov@tatar.ru.
 
Archive: 
Вся статья: 

International and foreign economic relations of the subordinate entities of the Federation are an important factor of the socio-economic development of the regions. While being implemented in the mainstream of a state foreign policy, they contribute to strengthening the relations of friendship and cooperation between Russia and foreign countries.

Foreign representations of regions are widely used to promote international interests of subnational actors. Contribution of foreign representations to the development of external relations is analyzed in numerous articles on paradiplomacy. Among the most studied issues are motivation the opening of foreign missions, political and legal conditions of their activities. However, up to the present there was no analytical models for assessing the effectiveness of foreign missions and improvement their activities.

Two mutually reinforcing approaches to solving the problem of increasing the efficiency of representative offices are suggested. First one is further development of indicative management and the second one is an adapted method of multi-criteria evaluation, which is used in the decision analysis. Both proposed approaches use performance indicators focused on the evaluation the variety of projects implemented by regional representations.

Indicators and other content components of the described methods are specified using the experience of foreign representations of the Republic of Tatarstan. The proposed approach can be easily modified for representations of the other subordinate entities of the Russian Federation, which, despite of the diversity of organizational forms of activities, work in a common political and legal environment and solve problems of similar content.

Stimulating effect is one of the main advantages of using target indicators. They are helpful in orienting missions to priority areas of cooperation. The method based on the multi-criteria rating of the representative offices’ activity focuses on the general assessment of their work. It is easy to use and gives measurable results. The proposed methods are of an applied nature and can be recommended to government bodies coordinating foreign representations of the regions.

Key words: paradiplomacy, foreign representations of regions, management efficiency of public administration, Tatarstan

References
1. Bazhenov Iu.N. Upravlenie vneshneekonomicheskoi deiatel’nost’iu Sankt-Peterburga: programmnyi i institutsional’nyi podkhod [Management of the external economic activity of St. Petersburg: a program and institutional approach]. Ekonomika i Upravlenie, 2015, no. 5 (115), pp. 34 –39. (In Russian)
2. Baranova I.V. Kontseptual’nye modeli otsenki effektivnosti deiatel’nosti organov vlasti [Conceptual models for assessing effectiveness of the government work]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia ekonomika, 2009, no. 10 (327), pp. 129-134. (In Russian)
3. Gimatdinov R.R., Nasyrov I.R Institut zarubezhnykh predstavitel’stv Respubliki Tatarstan [Institute of Foreign Representations of the Republic of Tatarstan]. Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn’, 2015, no. 3. pp. 136-149. (In Russian)
4. Komarova A.V. Ispol’zovanie instrumentov upravleniia proektami v deiatel’nosti torgovykh predstavitel’stv Rossii za rubezhom [Usage of project management tools in the activities of Russia trade missions in foreign countries]. Rossiiskii vneshneekonomicheskii vestnik, 2017, no. 2, pp. 111-118. (In Russian)
5. Bulankina E.V., Gafurov I.R., Gibadullin M.Z. and others. Mezhdunarodnye i vneshneekonomicheskie sviazi regionov Rossii: opyt Respubliki Tatarstan [International and Foreign Economic Relations of Russian Regions: Experience of the Republic of Tatarstan]. Ed. by Gafurov I.R., Gimatdinov R.R., Nasyrov I.R. and others. Kazan, Kazan State Univ. Publ., 2017. 472 p. (In Russian)
6. Nasyrov I.R. Gosudarstvo i regiony v sisteme sovremennykh mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [State and Regions in the Modern System of International Relations]. Kazan, Univ. of management TISBI, 2011. 400 p. (In Russian)
7. Plotnikova O.V. Mezhdunarodnoe sotrudnichestvo regionov: kontseptual’nye podkhody [International cooperation of regions: conceptual approaches]. Novosibirsk, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2005. 356 p. (In Russian)
8. Saati T. Priniatie reshenii. Metod analiza ierarkhii [Decision Making. Method of Hierarchy Analysis]. Transl. from English. Moscow, Radio i sviaz’, 1993. 278 p. (In Russian)
9. Saks Dzh.D., Larren F.B. Makroekonomika. Global’nyi podkhod [Macroeconomics in the Global Economy]. Transl. from English. Moscow, Delo Publ., 1996. 848 p. (In Russian)
10. Shuvaev A.V Model’ upravleniia regional’noi ekonomikoi v global’nom prostranstve [The model of regional economy management in the global space]. Gosudarstvennoe i munitsipal’noe upravlenie v XXI veke: teoriia, metodologiia, praktika, 2012, no. 4, pp. 84-88. (In Russian)
11. Iurchenko N.N. Teoretikometodologicheskie aspekty politologicheskogo issledovaniia administrativnoi reformy v sovremennoi Rossii [Theoretical and methodological aspects of the political study of administrative reform in modern Russia]. Izvestiia Saratovskogo universiteta, 2009, vol. 9, Ser. Sotsiologiia. Politologiia, Issue 2, pp. 117-120. (In Russian)
12. Aitken O. Developing the global agenda. Global places and local forces. London: SOLACE Foundation Imprint, January 2008. Pp. 6–7.
13. Blatter J., Kreutzer M., Rentl M., Thiele J. Preconditions for Foreign Activities of European Regions: Tracing Causal Configurations of Economic, Cultural and Political Strategies. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 2009, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 171–199.
14. Bazhenov Yu., Podshuveit О. St Petersburg business information centers and their role in increasing the efficiency of international business activities. Baltic Region, 2014, no. 3 (21), pp. 45-57.
15. Duchacek I.D. The international dimension of subnational self-government. Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 1984, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 5–31.
16. Duchacek I.D. Perforated Sovereignties: Towards a Typology of New Actors in International Relations. Federalism and International Relations : The Role of Subnational Units. Ed. by Michelmann H.J., Soldatos P. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990. Pp. 1-33.
17. Joenniemi P., Sergunin A. Paradiplomacy as a Capacity-Building Strategy. The Case of Russia’s Northwestern Subnational Actors. Problems of Post-Communism. 2014, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 18–33.
18. Kuznetsov A.S. Theory and practice of paradiplomacy : Subnational governments in international affairs. London and New York, Routledge, 2015. 174 p.
19. Lecours A. Paradiplomacy: reflections on the Foreign Policy and International Relations of Regions. International Negotiation. 2002, vol. 7, no 1, pp. 91-114.
20. Requejo F. Foreign policy of constituents units in a globalised world. Foreign policy of constituents units at the beginning of 21st century. Ed. by Requejo F. Barcelona, 2010, pp. 11-13.
21. Tatham M., Thau M. The more the merrier: Accounting for regional paradiplomats in Brussels. European Union Politics. 2014, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 255-276.
22. Yang J.B., Xu D.L. Knowledge Based Executive Car Evaluation Using the Evidential Reasoning Approach. Advances in Manufacturing Technology XII. Ed. by Baines, Taleb-Bendiab and Zhao. London, Professional Engineering Publishing, 1998, pp. 741-749.