Sustainability of the regional financial system: a case study of the Northwestern Federal District

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin; Alexey Aleksandrovich Mikheev; Elena Grigorievna Kiseleva; Yuriy Evgenievich Putikhin; Elena De La Poza Plaza; Natalia Sergeevna Alekseeva

doi:10.12688/f1000research.123197.2

Home Browse Sustainability of the regional financial system: a case study of the...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Sustainability of the regional financial system: a case study of the Northwestern Federal District

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin ¹, Alexey Aleksandrovich Mikheev², Elena Grigorievna Kiseleva³, Yuriy Evgenievich Putikhin⁴, Elena De La Poza Plaza⁵, Natalia Sergeevna Alekseeva³

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin ¹, Alexey Aleksandrovich Mikheev², [...] Elena Grigorievna Kiseleva³, Yuriy Evgenievich Putikhin⁴, Elena De La Poza Plaza⁵, Natalia Sergeevna Alekseeva³

PUBLISHED 04 Oct 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Graduate School of Service and Trade, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
² Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russian Federation
³ Graduate School of Industrial Management, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
⁴ Department of Management, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russian Federation
⁵ Center for Economic Engineering (INECO), Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology

Alexey Aleksandrovich Mikheev
Roles: Validation

Elena Grigorievna Kiseleva
Roles: Conceptualization, Software

Yuriy Evgenievich Putikhin
Roles: Formal Analysis

Elena De La Poza Plaza
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing

Natalia Sergeevna Alekseeva
Roles: Investigation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: This article provides an assessment of the sustainability of Russian regions’ financial systems. The study is based on the methods of generalization and synthesis, correlation-regression analysis, and multivariate classification. Since the structure of the regional financial system is complex, several works are devoted to studying its sustainability issues. The relevance of the study topic is confirmed by the lack of a systematic approach to assessing the integral index of sustainability and the possibility of using various tools in determining the complex indicator.
Methods: This methodology with application of mathematical statistics methods makes it possible to assess the financial system sustainability in four sectors, to include the leading indicators in the assessment, and to identify regions with extreme values of debt burden indicators. The method was tested for the regions of the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) for the period 2010 - 2019 to classify the regions according to three levels of debt sustainability. Data collection from the 1^st January to 30^th April 2022 included statistical data from government open internet sources, sectors studied relate to government, and municipal budgets in the NWFD. Authors analyzed regional debt sustainability indicators and identified themes in the field of sustainability studies for the NWFD.
Results: An increased level of financial system sustainability was observed among the NWFD regions in the corporative and personal finance sectors, indicating a significant contribution of businesses and households to maintaining the balance and sustainability of the financial system in Russia as a whole. The results of the study also identified that the NWFD regions belong to three clusters: cluster 1 - high debt sustainability; cluster 2 - medium debt sustainability; and cluster 3 - low debt sustainability.
Conclusions: The study results allowed the identification of regions with a constantly high level of debt, financial, and corporative sustainability.

Keywords

Financial Stability; Integral Index; Regional Financial System; Regions of Russia; Indicators; The Northwestern Federal District

Corresponding author: Sergey Evgenievich Barykin

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The research of E.G.K., S.E.B, and N.S.A. is partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation under the strategic academic leadership program 'Priority 2030' (Agreement 075-15-2021-1333, dated 30.09.2021).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2022 Evgenievich Barykin S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Evgenievich Barykin S, Aleksandrovich Mikheev A, Grigorievna Kiseleva E et al. Sustainability of the regional financial system: a case study of the Northwestern Federal District [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11:908 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123197.2) First published: 08 Aug 2022, 11:908 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123197.1) Latest published: 04 Oct 2022, 11:908 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123197.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Indeed, there was a typo in section 2.3, only 45 absolute variables of financial sustainability were selected for research at the initial stage. The authors explain that they describe the most typical variables of the socio-economic development of Russian regions, collected annually by the Federal Statistics Service. Absolute variables and relative indicators are interrelated, since relative indicators were calculated on the basis of absolute variables. For example, when calculating the ratio of the government debt to gross regional product, two absolute variables are used: GRP and public debt. We could not find data on the selected 45 absolute variables in the public domain due to the fact that the set of macroeconomic indicators collected by the Federal State Statistics Service in the Russian Federation changes from time to time, as well as the fact that only in the last decade this information has been presented openly on special resources. We were able to collect the full number of indicators only for the period from 2010 to 2019. Indeed, the same indicators for four blocks were calculated for the period from 2010 to 2015, but due to the large volume of data, it is not possible to compactly fit the indicators from 2010 to 2019 in one table. Therefore, the results of the study are partially presented. The main issue in assessing the sustainability of the financial system is the debt sustainability block. And one of the directions of this topic is the assessment of the acceptable level of public debt. In this paper, we really did not present target values for indicators of the debt level regional budgets, focusing on the methodology for assessing the sustainability of the country's financial system and describing the results obtained, and discussing them.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Muhammad Ibrar
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Alexey Petrovich Zhabko

Introduction

Financial stability is one of the critical tasks in the functioning of the financial system of a country. National financial systems have significant differences in their development, structure, and approaches to regulation. The issues of assessing sustainability and stability of financial systems are relevant for different countries (Mazanec and Bartosova, 2021; Străchinaru and Dumitrescu, 2019; Jiang et al., 2019; Santos, Lisboa, and Eugénio, 2021; Chupina et al., 2021). The use of financial resources in various sectors of the economy, on the one hand, contributes to an increase in investment activity and an increase in the stability of the financial system, but, on the other hand, it may lead to its destabilization in case of low and untimely financing of its various sectors. In this regard, the issues of assessing the sustainability of regional financial systems are the subject of debate (Schinasi, 2004) and are actively discussed by the world scientific community (Schellhorn, 2020; Checherita-Westphal, Hughes Hallett, and Rother, 2014; Baharumshah, Soon, and Lau, 2017; Ghosh and Sahu, 2021).

During the study, the authors concluded that changes in financial stability could not be summarized in one quantitative indicator. Unlike, for example, price stability, there is still no unambiguous unit for measuring financial stability. This reflects the multifaceted nature of the financial system, related to financial institutions' resilience and sustainability and the smooth functioning of financial markets and settlement systems. Therefore, the authors divided financial system stability into four sectors: the public finance sector, which characterizes the development of the budget system and its debt sustainability; the financial sector, which represents the state and sustainability of the banking sector, the insurance sector, the non-state pension funds, microfinancing entities, and cooperatives; the corporative sector, which takes into account the stability of cash flows of small businesses and the scale of large regional enterprises; and the personal finance sector, which takes into account the contribution of the households to the stable functioning of the financial system.

We would like to note that changes in financial stability are inherently difficult to predict. The state of financial system sustainability should assess violations as they occur and indicate the risks and vulnerabilities that may lead to such violations in the future. Therefore, an integrated approach is necessary to determine the growth of risks and imbalances and consider the time lag when using the integral financial system sustainability index to develop the public financial policy.

Besides the time delays, the policy instruments of financial stability are often indirect. In some cases, disagreements may occur on the original purpose of the device and the implications of its application for the stability of the regional financial system. At the same time, policies aimed at financial stability often involve a trade-off between sustainability and efficiency. Measures to improve financial stability include, on the one hand, striving for efficient allocation of financial resources, and on the other hand, are designed to reduce the risks or vulnerabilities of the financial system. So, for example, foreign exchange restrictions can reduce or eliminate certain risks associated with international capital flows while reducing the efficiency of the domestic financial market (He, Korhonen, and Qian, 2021; Gurrea-Martínez, 2021; Rendon, 2019).

Literature review

The issues of assessing financial stability and vulnerability of financial systems are widely discussed in the scientific literature. For example, in Khalatur et al.’s study (2021), the method of deriving regression equations in multivariate regression analysis is used to test the model for assessing the financial system's sustainability. Based on the data from several Eastern European countries from 2010 to 2019, a model of the modern business space ‘Volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity’ (VUCA) was developed on the example of the banking sector. The driving forces, consequences, requirements, and macroeconomic indicators of countries’ activities under the conditions of ‘VUCA-world’ were determined. The analysis showed that with an increase in GDP growth factors, growth in gross national income per capita, research and development costs, foreign direct investment, and net capital inflows by 1%, the effective ratio of the bank capital to the assets also increases by 1%.

The scientific works also note that there are no uniform worldwide standards, methods, or indicators for assessing financial sustainability (Babar et al., 2019; Nasreen and Anwar, 2019; Jadoon et al., 2021; Shkolnyk et al., 2021). A broad scope is employed in order to evaluate and test system sustainability based on different indicators and standards. The results obtained in the scientific works are diverse and interesting in terms of data coverage and other assessment methods. So, for example, in the study by Ukrainian scientists (Shkolnyk et al., 2021) on big data related to the structure of the financial system of Ukraine, a matrix of the financial system sustainability characteristics was developed, according to the 4x2 principle proposed by experts of the International Monetary Fund (Schinasi, 2004). The list of indicators for calculating the integral indicator characterizing the stability of the financial system of Ukraine covers the period from 2007 to 2019. It includes 29 indicators that consider the peculiarities of its formation and development. Harrington’s desirability function is used to determine an integral indicator that characterizes the state of financial stability. As a result, intermediate calculations obtained by modeling groups of indicators showed that the level of access to the financial system and its depth were balanced during the study period. The financial system’s efficiency is low and characterized by high volatility (the range of variations is 0.51).

An important aspect is a statement made by the scientists that it is essential to study the stability of the financial system from the point of view of resistance to a crisis (Gustiana and Nasrudin, 2021; Albulescu, 2010). The paper substantiates the thesis that instability faced by the countries is a consequence of the vulnerability of the financial system. As a method for assessing the sustainability of the financial system, the aggregate financial index (AFSI) is used, which takes into account the influence of other countries on the stability of the Indonesian banking system, and the Indonesian financial system stability index (ISSK), which takes into account the internal stability of the banking system of this country. Using the principal component analysis (PCA) method, one of the multivariate statistical analysis methods, the authors established specific weights for each index, which allowed to refine the index values for the period from 2000 to 2019. As a result, the paper concludes that each period of a crisis is always accompanied by pressure from the global economic environment, which significantly affects the sustainability of the regional financial system in Indonesia. The index developed by the scientists will serve as the basis for changing the regional policy of the Indonesian authorities.

Also, the study separately raises questions on the quality of the banks’ accounting, which plays a decisive role in assessing the financial sustainability of the banking system (Acharya and Ryan, 2016; Arzamasov and Penikas, 2014). The world scientific community is coming to understand the high role of transparency and openness of accounting information as a guarantee of objectivity in assessing the financial system sustainability. The scientists actively discuss how banking accounting and information disclosure can affect the assessment of the financial system's sustainability. The articles pay particular attention to recommendations for developers of accounting standards and policymakers of the financial system (Badertscher, Burks, and Easton, 2012; Grassa, Moumen, and Hussainey, 2021; Acharya and Ryan, 2016).

Methods

Methodology for assessing the debt sustainability of the regional budget system

The assessment of the sustainability of the financial system of the regions of the Russian Federation is carried out using the author’s methodology, which is a set of stages and assessment methods and a specific algorithm for their application. The developed method assumes: a) justification of choice and systematization of indicators of the debt sustainability, financial sustainability, corporative sustainability, and personal sustainability; b) standardization of the indicator values based on the method of Euclidean distances; c) calculation of the integral indicator in each sustainability sector, its ranking using the multivariate mean formula; d) division of regions into three sustainability groups: low, medium and high; and e) determination of the limit values (threshold values, limits) for the debt sustainability group using the hierarchical cluster analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Methodology for assessing the sustainability of the financial system.

At the first stage of the study, using open data from the Federal State Statistics Service, a database of the Russian economy's statistical financial and economic indicators was formed. Next, a calculation of about 45 variables of the financial system sustainability in four sectors was carried out. Then, at the second stage of the study, using the correlation analysis method, six indicators of debt sustainability, nine financial sustainability indicators, seven corporative sustainability indicators, and four personal sustainability indicators were selected. All indicators were highly correlated with the integral sustainability index for each financial system sector, respectively.

At the third stage of the study, all indicator values were standardized. To consider the degree of differences of each indicator across the federal districts, the method of Euclidean distances was applied. At the fourth stage of the study, the standardized values of six indicators were averaged over a dynamic series using the multivariate mean formula. A composite index (an integral indicator) across four sectors was calculated for each region of the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD). At the fifth stage of the study, a hierarchical cluster analysis was carried out, and the limit boundaries were obtained for the six indicators for the debt sustainability sector. Control of budget constraints within the boundaries found by us will increase the debt sustainability of the budget system of the Russian regions. We also used a distance matrix of indicators over the regions of the NWFD for each analyzed period and divided the data set into three clusters according to the type of debt, financial, corporative, and personal sustainability: low, medium, and high.

Study design

The study is based on the open data from the Federal State Statistics Service and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation: 45 absolute variables (the most typical indicators for the mentioned regions) of the socio-economic development of Russian regions were selected for the period from 2010 to 2019 (in 11 regions of the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) which includes: Republic of Karelia, Republic of Komi, Arkhangelsk region, Vologda region, Kaliningrad region, Leningrad region, Murmansk region, Novgorod region, Pskov region, Saint Petersburg, Nenets Autonomous region), such as the local government debt, the volume of exports and imports, the gross domestic product, the population, the income of people per capita, the expenses for repayment and servicing of the local government debt, the amount of insurance premiums and payments, the level of the overdue debt on loans, the amount of deposits, the amount of loans granted to individuals and legal entities, the actual average wages, the consumer price index, the amount of payable and receivable accounts of enterprises, the profit of enterprises, etc. On the basis of the absolute variables, 26 relative indicators of sustainability were calculated (for the calculations please see Barykin et al., 2022) across four sectors (the public finance sector, the financial sector, the corporative sector, and the personal finance sector) for 11 regions of the NWFD. Authors calculated indices for the debt, financial, corporative, and personal sustainability. The study uses the methods of comparison and grouping, correlation analysis, Euclidean distances, calculation of the multivariate mean, and hierarchical cluster analysis. Selection of the sustainability indicators was carried out using the correlation analysis, which has proven itself as a method for studying the relationship between the debt sustainability of the budget system and the risk of the government debt (Eberhardt and Presbitero, 2015; Égert, 2015; Li et al., 2021). Data on the selected indicators were collected from 1^st January 2022 to 30^th April 2022. The open service of the Federal State Statistics Service contains both separate information on statistical indicators and statistical reports for different time periods. Statistical reports used for this study were ‘Russia in numbers’ (https://fedstats.ru/, accessed 30^th March 2022) and’Regions of Russia’ (Federal State Statistics Services, n.d.-b) to collect financial data while socio-economic indicators were collected from the’Russian Statistical Yearbook’ (Federal State Statistics Services, n.d.-c). Translation of all reports from Russian to English were undertaken by the authors in this study. In order to get data from 2010 to 2019, these reports were collected for various years. In the process of collecting information, some variables were excluded because they were partially presented, since it was not possible to find data for each year from the study period (the data from the period from the year of 2010 till the end of the year of 2015 has been excluded for the purpose of making conclusions regarding regional comparisons). Figure 1 shows the stages methodology for assessing the sustainability of the financial system.

Data analysis

The calculation of the integral sustainability indicator was carried out using the multivariate mean formula, which has proven itself for ranking indicators of digital potential (Kiseleva, 2020). To determine the budget constraints for the debt sustainability sector for each region of the NWFD, the hierarchical cluster analysis was applied since it is one of the methods of multivariate classification that allows to select areas of congestion of objects from the aggregate data and to combine them into groups (segments) with homogeneous characteristics (Kurushin and Vasilyeva, 2017). The authors used the method of Euclidean distances and cluster analysis to standardize the obtained values. Both methods are widely used in natural and social sciences to standardize and classify panel data (Barykin et al., 2021b; Bagirova and Shubat, 2021; Zolkover et al., 2020). In studying debt sustainability, using a distance matrix of indicators over the regions of the NWFD for each analyzed period, we divided the data set into three clusters: cluster 1 - high debt sustainability; cluster 2 - medium debt sustainability; and cluster 3 - low debt sustainability. Then the authors identified the cluster centroids for each indicator. Cluster centroids were determined based on the values of cluster centroids of indicators for each year of the study period, taking into account their average number, as well as the dynamics of change over the last four periods (the year of 2016, the year of 2017, the year of 2018, and the year of 2019). This allowed confirming the results obtained at the previous stage of the study and solve the problem of targeted statistical justification of the norms of budget restrictions on the debt burden. On the one hand, the values of cluster centroids were compared with the actual values of debt sustainability indicators, which allowed us to confirm the results obtained earlier. On the other hand, using clustering, the criteria values of debt sustainability indicators were justified. As a method of clustering, we used the method of intergroup communication, and as a measure of the similarity between objects, we used the Euclidean distance. The application of the author’s methodology using the standardization of indicator values and the multivariate mean formula allowed the authors of the study to rank the regions according to the level of the debt, financial, corporative, and personal sustainability, and the use of the hierarchical cluster analysis allowed to group the regions by three types of the debt sustainability and to determine the acceptable boundaries of the debt sustainability indicators for each cluster. All calculations in our study were performed using MS Excel 2016 for calculations.

Results

Evidence of Russian regions

The debt sustainability indicators included were: the ratio of the government debt to gross regional product (GRP); the amount of the local government debt on per capita; the share of the government debt in regional export; the ratio of the government debt to total budget revenues; the percentage of expenditures on servicing of the government and municipal debt in regional budget expenditures; the balance of annual payments for servicing and repayment of the government debt to total budget revenues. The last three indicators refer to the regulated indicators of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation (Federal State Statistics Services, n.d.-a).

The nine financial sustainability indicators included were: the ratio of deposits of legal entities to the number of registered enterprises and organizations; the deposits of individuals per capita; the ratio of loans granted to legal entities to the number of registered enterprises and organizations; the loans given to individuals per capita; the amount of debt on loans of legal entities and individuals to the loans granted; the volume of overdue debt on loans of legal entities to the number of registered enterprises and organizations; insurance premiums; and insurance payments.

The sector of corporative finance (business statistics) is represented by seven indicators: profitability of enterprises; unprofitability of enterprises; accounts receivable turnover; accounts payable turnover; the ratio of overdue accounts payable to revenue; the ratio of overdue receivables to revenue; and the share of unprofitable organizations in the total number of organizations.

The sector of personal finance (population statistics) includes four indicators: average per capita money income; average monthly wages; the average amount of assigned pensions; average per capita consumer expenditures of the population; and overdue wage arrearages.

Thus, the values of the indicators were calculated for the regions of the NWFD for the period from 2010 to 2019 (Barykin et al., 2022). A fragment of the obtained results for 2016-2019, containing sample data by years for the debt sustainability sector, is provided in Table 1. Full results are available in the underlying data in the index ids tab (Barykin et al., 2022). Similar tables were calculated for the other sectors but are not provided here because of the limited scope of the work (Barykin et al., 2022). According to Table 1, we can see that two regions stand out from the others by the low values of the indicators, allowing us to preliminarily classify them as regions with a high level of debt sustainability: Saint Petersburg and the Leningrad Region (LR). High values of the indicators for the analyzed period are most often observed in the Republic of Karelia (RKA), the Republic of Komi (RKO), the Vologda (VR), Arkhangelsk (AR), and Pskov regions (PR), therefore, most likely, these regions of the Russian Federation will be classified as regions with a low level of debt sustainability.

Table 1. Partial results of the study: debt sustainability indicators of Northwestern Federal District’s (NWFD) financial system (by the authors’ calculations).

Period	NWFD* regions
Period	NWFD*	RKA*	RKO*	AR*	VR*	KR*	LR*	MR*	NR*	PR*	SPb*	NAR*
Indicator 1: ratio of government debt to GRP⁺, %
2016	3.08	10.04	6.39	9.36	7.17	5.82	1.12	5.15	6.6	9.84	0.44	0.44
2017	3.01	9.92	6.7	8.76	4.68	5.41	0.41	4.29	6.24	10.81	0.91	1.28
2018	2.25	6.15	4.3	5.71	3.89	3.5	0.33	3.86	5.98	9.48	0.79	0.66
2019	2.1	5.82	3.53	6.08	2.49	4.19	0.23	2.28	5.68	8.64	0.59	0.48
Indicator 2: amount of government debt on per capita, rub/person
2016	16.7	36.1	49.2	36.6	26.2	21.8	34.6	27.1	24.9	22.9	2.63	81.8
2017	17.50	39.99	45.58	36.65	20.19	22.80	2.17	25.12	25.85	25.61	6.55	75.63
2018	14.5	27.8	34.2	26.5	19.3	16.2	1.9	24.8	26	24.6	6.2	45.54
2019	14.1	30.7	30.9	31	13.5	21.6	1.5	18.9	25.9	27.1	5.6	36.4
Indicator 3: share of government debt in regional export, %
2016	12.03	51.9	87.97	30.44	18.58	27	2.02	12.68	27.43	409.12	1.48	0
2017	11.35	41.74	79	30.59	14.74	32.26	1.28	9.61	28.01	491.86	3.13	0
2018	9.01	160.13	241.63	218.23	64.85	3.21	1.46	90.59	61.74	94.46	2.43	0
2019	6.81	31.08	46.3	22.15	6.76	26.08	0.71	5.41	16.7	277.42	1.93	4.01
Indicator 4: ratio of government debt to total budget revenues excluding UCR, %
2016	23.92	79.35	63.14	67.4	54.44	50.91	4.83	31.2	55.34	74.91	2.98	27.53
2017	23.55	90.41	50.44	61.88	37.94	50.98	3.11	28.89	59.12	78.3	6.95	17.98
2018	14.72	37.32	37.35	35.99	171.68	13.98	2.27	25.58	66.04	131.87	5.63	8.6
2019	15.21	53.91	28.17	41.65	18.67	39.02	1.71	15.88	51.01	71.58	4.85	7.63
Indicator 5: share of expenditures on servicing of government and municipal debt in regional budget expenditures, %
2016	1	2.9	2.6	1.37	1.63	0.38	1.42	1.34	3.3	3.02	0.1	1.8
2017	1.06	2.52	6.1	1.89	1.06	0.29	1.52	0.8	1.57	2.8	0.04	1.55
2018	1.22	1.77	3.75	1.41	0.61	0.23	3.51	0.77	1.08	2.23	0.4	2.83
2019	1.37	1	4.61	0.67	0.16	0.21	5.5	0.9	0.97	2.22	0.35	2.57
Indicator 6: ratio of annual payments for servicing and repayment of government debt to total budget revenues excluding UCR, %
2016	14.6	25.6	55.47	51.8	21.03	28.57	1.53	26.09	22.3	59.25	0.32	28.16
2017	17.66	50.54	55.87	69.01	17.36	23.49	2.72	34.91	20.57	69.88	1.85	20.16
2018	20.35	47.46	44.87	102.51	134.46	22.98	3.52	65.38	42.88	162.67	1.2	26.84
2019	19.36	64.77	14.71	108.78	15.79	24.19	6.02	68.93	16.69	80.67	0.37	7.12

* Abbreviations: NWFD - Northwestern Federal District, RKA - Republic of Karelia, RKO - Republic of Komi, AR - Arkhangelsk region, VR - Vologda region, KR - Kaliningrad region, LR - Leningrad region, MR - Murmansk region, NR - Novgorod region, PR - Pskov region, SPb - Saint Petersburg, NAR - Nenets Autonomous region, UCR - uncompensated receipts.

+ GRP - gross regional product.

** The maximum and minimum values of the indicators are highlighted in bold.

Standardization of the indicator values using the method of Euclidean distances and further ranking of the resulting base of standardized estimates using the multivariate mean formula made it possible to obtain the debt, financial, corporative, and personal sustainability indices for each region of the NWFD (Tables 2–5). The use of the multivariate mean formula in our study correlates the value of a standardized indicator with the average value for the regions in the assessed year and allows us to identify the regions where the level of sustainability is significantly higher than the average value, close to the average value and significantly lower than the average value.

Table 2. Results of the debt sustainability study for the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) (by the authors’ calculations).

NWFD regions	Standardized indicator values												Debt sustainability index, I_DS
	2019						2018						Debt sustainability index, I_DS
	I1	I2	I3	I4	I5	I6	I1	I2	I3	I4	I5	I6	2019	2018	2017	2016
Republic of Karelia	0.04	0.05	0.02	0.06	0.16	0.01	0.05	0.07	0.01	0.06	0.13	0.03	0.24	0.27	0.22	0.19
Republic of Komi	0.07	0.24	0.02	0.04	0.03	0.03	0.08	0.06	0.01	0.06	0.06	0.03	0.32	0.23	0.19	0.18
Arkhangelsk region	0.04	0.12	0.03	0.09	0.24	0.01	0.06	0.07	0.01	0.06	0.16	0.01	0.36	0.28	0.26	0.25
Vologda region	0.09	0.09	0.11	0.04	1	0.02	0.08	0.10	0.02	0.01	0.38	0.01	0.88	0.42	0.45	0.32
Kaliningrad region	0.05	0.12	0.03	1	0.76	0.02	0.09	0.12	0.45	0.16	1.00	0.05	1.55	1.36	1.32	0.53
Leningrad region	1	0.44	1	0.11	0.03	0.06	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.07	0.34	2.20	3.78	3.45	2.53
Murmansk region	0.1	0.16	0.13	0.03	0.18	0.01	0.09	0.08	0.02	0.09	0.30	0.02	0.44	0.42	0.45	0.41
Novgorod region	0.04	0.13	0.04	0.02	0.16	0.02	0.06	0.08	0.02	0.03	0.21	0.03	0.29	0.32	0.32	0.27
Pskov region	0.03	0.69	0.01	0.35	0.07	0.005	0.03	0.08	0.02	0.02	0.10	0.01	0.82	0.20	0.55	0.19
Saint Petersburg	0.39	1	0.37	0.22	0.46	1	0.42	0.32	0.60	0.40	0.58	1.00	3.22	2.97	3.41	5.70
Nenets AR	0.48	0.04	0.18	0.01	0.06	0.05	0.50	0.04	0.00	0.26	0.08	0.04	0.68	0.74	0.37	0.41
Mean value	0.21	0.28	0.18	0.18	0.29	0.11	0.22	0.19	0.2	0.2	0.28	0.14	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00

- Three maximum values of indicators are highlighted.

- Three minimum values of indicators are highlighted.

Abbreviation: NWFD - Northwestern Federal District.

Table 3. Results of the financial sustainability study for the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) (by the authors’ calculations).

NWFD regions	Standardized indicator values									Financial sustainability index, I_FS
	2019									Financial sustainability index, I_FS
	I1	I2	I3	I4	I5	I6	I7	I8	I9	2019	2018	2017	2016
Republic of Karelia	0.012	0.219	0.351	0.68	0.905	0.84	0.295	0.465	0.445	0.81	0.86	0.78	0.65
Republic of Komi	0.008	0.391	0.7	0.632	1	0.921	0.268	0.569	0.518	0.99	0.96	1.09	1.19
Arkhangelsk region	0.015	0.383	0.302	0.759	0.502	0.934	1	1*	0.885	1.23	1.19	1.04	0.99
Vologda region	0.895	0.341	0.223	0.577	0.713	0.941	0.249	0.974	0.999	1.46	1.84	1.61	1.4
Kaliningrad region	0.021	0.475	0.35	0.671	0.407	1	0.146	0.901	1	0.93	0.85	0.88	0.98
Leningrad region	0.019	0.216	0.524	0.746	0.509	0.763	0.059	0.929	0.815	0.84	0.86	0.93	0.93
Murmansk region	0.086	0.545	0.402	0.871	0.363	0.901	0.158	0.655	0.847	0.95	0.86	0.88	0.83
Novgorod region	0.008	0.27	0.4	0.534	0.66	0.925	0.113	0.406	0.372	0.69	0.57	0.6	0.69
Pskov region	0.012	0.251	0.178	0.041	0.448	0.97	0.433	0.241	0.224	0.58	0.51	0.5	0.49
Saint Petersburg	1	1	1	1	0.64	1.007	0.11	1	1	1.92	1.58	1.8	2.06
Nenets AR	0	0.485	0.122	0.772	0.423	0.772	0.368	0.012	0.018	0.61	0.92	0.89	0.79
Mean value	0.19	0.42	0.41	0.66	0.6	0.91	0.29	0.65	0.65	1	1	1	1

- Three maximum values of indicators are highlighted.

- The minimum values of indicators are highlighted.

* Since when calculating the indicators I8, I9 a high differentiation of the NWFD regions is observed in relation to the city of Saint Petersburg, the latter was forcedly assigned a high sustainability level (1), and further ranking was carried out without taking Saint Petersburg into account.

Abbreviation: NWFD - Northwestern Federal District.

Table 4. Results of the corporative sustainability study for the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) (by the authors’ calculations).

NWFD regions	Standardized indicator values							Corporative sustainability index, I_СS
	2019							Corporative sustainability index, I_СS
	I1	I2	I3	I4	I5	I6	I7	2019	2018	2017	2016
Republic of Karelia	0.597	0.090	0.759	0.367	0.332	0.023	0.140	0.84	0.7	0.8	0.7
Republic of Komi	0.192	1.000	0.536	0.994	0.365	0.220	0.156	1.13	1.0	1.0	1.0
Arkhangelsk region	0.233	0.331	0.171	0.068	0.046	0.128	0.168	0.43	0.4	0.5	0.5
Vologda region	0.284	2.616	1.000	1.000	0.433	0.408	0.201	1.85	2.0	1.5	1.6
Kaliningrad region	0.107	0.479	0.590	0.515	0.999	1.000	1.000	1.99	1.9	2.0	1.6
Leningrad region	1.000	0.023	0.098	0.104	0.163	0.293	0.196	0.84	0.9	0.9	0.9
Murmansk region	0.376	0.088	0.378	0.288	0.154	0.049	0.160	0.56	0.8	0.8	0.9
Novgorod region	0.202	0.498	0.654	0.880	0.286	0.390	0.138	1.04	1.1	0.9	1.0
Pskov region	0.116	0.673	0.694	0.620	0.448	0.302	0.172	1.03	1.0	1.0	1.1
Saint Petersburg	0.122	0.366	0.366	0.378	0.275	0.316	0.275	0.79	0.8	0.8	0.9
Nenets AR	0.246	0.086	0.688	0.237	0.000	0.100	0.120	0.50	0.4	0.8	0.8
Mean value	0.32	0.57	0.54	0.50	0.32	0.29	0.25	1.00	1.00	1.00	1

- Three maximum values of indicators are highlighted.

- The minimum values of indicators are highlighted.

Abbreviation: NWFD - Northwestern Federal District.

Table 5. Results of the personal (household statistics) sustainability study for the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) (by the authors’ calculations).

NWFD regions	Standardized indicator values								Personal sustainability index, I_РS
	2019				2018				Personal sustainability index, I_РS
	I1	I2	I3	I4	I1	I2	I3	I4	2019	2018	2017	2016
Republic of Karelia	0.386	0.494	0.810	0.662	0.362	0.465	0.777	0.643	0.932	0.914	0.900	0.906
Republic of Komi	0.441	0.613	0.887	0.632	0.419	0.590	0.886	0.624	1.030	1.034	1.052	1.060
Arkhangelsk region	0.421	0.566	0.815	0.744	0.400	0.538	0.790	0.750	1.015	1.012	1.012	1.007
Vologda region	0.354	0.450	0.681	0.540	0.337	0.420	0.655	0.542	0.809	0.801	0.794	0.800
Kaliningrad region	0.361	0.410	0.626	0.610	0.340	0.392	0.598	0.616	0.802	0.797	0.802	0.815
Leningrad region	0.403	0.371	0.676	0.664	0.391	0.371	0.652	0.660	0.843	0.849	0.854	0.848
Murmansk region	0.549	0.728	0.884	0.830	0.516	0.684	0.858	0.831	1.210	1.198	1.191	1.186
Novgorod region	0.326	0.371	0.651	0.598	0.312	0.369	0.618	0.593	0.770	0.769	0.808	0.813
Pskov region	0.320	0.340	0.628	0.563	0.295	0.315	0.595	0.540	0.733	0.707	0.717	0.706
Saint Petersburg	0.588	0.756	0.729	1.000	0.561	0.715	0.710	1.000	1.254	1.248	1.229	1.214
Nenets AR	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.807	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.847	1.603	1.670	1.640	1.646
Mean value	0.47	0.55	0.76	0.70	0.45	0.53	0.74	0.69	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00

- Three maximum values of indicators are highlighted.

- The minimum values of indicators are highlighted.

Abbreviation: NWFD - Northwestern Federal District.

The public finance sector

The standardized values of the indicators reflect the high level of sustainability of the Saint Petersburg, Leningrad, and Kaliningrad regions, which naturally affects the value of the integral sustainability rating of these regions. The regions with a low level of debt sustainability include the Republic of Karelia, the Republic of Komi, and the Pskov region. The rest of the NWFD regions at this stage of the study can be considered as the regions with medium debt sustainability. Due to the developed gradation scale, all regions are well classified into three groups: with high, medium, and low debt sustainability (Table 6). The integral values of the debt sustainability index for the NWFD regions allow determining the regions with the level of sustainability higher than medium. Over the period of four years, such regions have consistently included Saint Petersburg, the Leningrad, and the Kaliningrad regions.

Table 6. The scale of values of the regional debt sustainability index (I_DS) (the authors’ calculations).

Value range by year				Type of sustainability
2016	2017	2018	2019	Type of sustainability
≥1	≥1	≥1	≥1	High
<1; ≥0.32	<1; ≥0.32	<1; ≥0.42	<1; ≥0.44	Medium
< 0.32	< 0.32	< 0.42	< 0.44	Low

The financial sector

The preliminary calculated standardized indicator values reflect the high level of sustainability of Saint Petersburg, the Murmansk and Kaliningrad regions, and the Nenets Autonomous Region, which will subsequently affect the calculation of the integral sustainability index for the financial sector. For this type of analysis, the regions with a low level of debt sustainability include the Republic of Karelia, the Pskov, Leningrad, and Novgorod regions. The rest of the NWFD regions at this stage of the study can be considered as the regions with medium debt sustainability.

The integral index of financial sustainability shows that the regions with the level of sustainability higher than medium have consistently included Saint Petersburg, the Arkhangelsk, and the Vologda regions for the period of four years. In order to carry out a gradation of the studied regions according to three types of debt sustainability, it is necessary to set up the intervals for such assessment: the regions with the debt sustainability index equal to or greater than one were assigned to the group with high debt sustainability; the subsequent gradation was carried out taking into account the differentiation of annual values within two groups. So, for example, in 2019, the maximum value of the indicator for Saint Petersburg was 1.92, and the minimum value for the Pskov region was 0.58. The average value between 1 and 0.58 is 0.22, therefore, the border of the group with a medium level of the financial sector sustainability is determined from 1 to 0.78, and for groups with low sustainability, the values of the integral indicator will range from 0.78 to 0.

The regions with high financial sustainability include Saint Petersburg, the Arkhangelsk, and Vologda regions. The regions with medium financial sustainability include the Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Murmansk, and Novgorod regions, the Republic of Karelia and the Republic of Komi, and the Nenets Autonomous Region. The only region with low financial sustainability is the Pskov region. Here, it is important to note that the sustainability of the financial sector as a whole is higher than the debt sustainability.

The sector of corporative and personal finance

The standardized values of indicators for the corporate finance sector reflect the high level of sales profitability of enterprises in the Leningrad and Murmansk regions, and the Republic of Karelia, which will subsequently affect the calculation of the integral index of sustainability of the regional financial system for this sector. The regions with low levels of sales profitability include the Pskov and Kaliningrad regions. The rest of the NWFD regions can be considered as regions with medium sustainability. As for the first indicator of the personal-finance sector, a higher level of per capita money income is accounted for by the Nenets Autonomous Region, the city of Saint Petersburg, the Murmansk, Arkhangelsk regions, and the Republic of Komi. Lower values of the indicator are typical for the Pskov and Novgorod regions. Later on, such differentiation for each standardized indicator will affect the calculation of the integral rating of sector sustainability for the region.

The regions with high sustainability according to the integral index for the corporative finance sector include the Republic of Komi, and the Vologda, Kaliningrad, Novgorod, and Pskov regions. The corporative finance sector of the Nenets Autonomous Region has low sustainability. The corporative finance sectors for the rest of the regions have medium sustainability. In general, the results for the corporative finance sector differ from the financial sector and the sector of debt sustainability, other regions play a leading role in this sector.

It is important to note here that the sustainability of the personal-finance sector is higher than all the sectors of sustainability identified in the study, namely, higher than the sectors of debt, financial, and corporative sustainability. In addition to this, in the personal finance sector, there are no regions with a low level of sustainability, which indicates a high contribution of households to the stable functioning of the region’s financial system. According to the results obtained, the regions with high sustainability include the Republic of Komi, the Arkhangelsk and Murmansk regions, the city of Saint Petersburg, and the Nenets Autonomous Region. The rest of the regions belong to the group of regions with medium sustainability.

At the final stage of assessment, the criteria values of the debt sustainability indicators were determined based on the values of the cluster centroids (Table 7).

Table 7. Results of the study of clusters by regions of the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) and volume of budget constraints (by the authors’ calculations).

Debt sustainability indicators	Budget constraints (debt limits) for regions with low debt sustainability
Debt sustainability indicators	2018	2019
R1: debt-to-GDP ratio, %	5.04	5.01
R2: debt-to-per capita ratio, rubles per person	45544	30337
R3: debt-to-regional exports ratio, %	104.87	66.28
R4: debt-to-revenue ratio, %	59.39	42.33
R5: debt cost-to-budget expenditures ratio, %	2.83	2.92
R6: debt cost-to-revenue ratio, %	51.5	48.79

The results of the study also identified that the NWFD regions belong to three clusters: cluster 1 - high debt sustainability: Saint Petersburg, the Leningrad region, and the Nenets Autonomous region; cluster 2 - medium debt sustainability: Saint Petersburg, the Vologda, Murmansk, and Kaliningrad regions; and cluster 3 - low debt sustainability: the Republic of Komi, the Republic of Karelia, the Arkhangelsk, Novgorod, and Pskov regions.

Discussion

The issues of sustainability within the financial system of the Russian Federation are of decisive importance for maintaining the country’s debt security and investment-driven development. The authors suppose that the term ‘stability’ means the invariability of parameters, while the term ‘sustainability’ is used in a broader and more complex sense (Barykin et al., 2021b). In this article, authors proposed a reliable and understandable methodological apparatus for assessing the sustainability of the financial system of the Russian regions and tested it on data from 11 regions of the NWFD. At the same time, our results need to be validated on a wider data set, for which we can recommend other researchers use our methodology. The chiefs of municipal entities can use the data on the debt sustainability standards to objectively assess the acceptable level of the debt burden and manage the size of the government debt in the event of a decrease in the debt sustainability of budgets. To develop a financial policy aimed at sustainable and stable functioning of the financial system, heads of municipalities can focus on the value of integral indices across the four sectors of sustainability. It is necessary to point out the limitations of the study. The developed methodology has been tested in 11 regions of the NWFD. For a more reliable evidence base, the number of regions should be expanded. The need to increase the sample of Russian regions to confirm the methodology presented in the article is related to the directions of further research. The directions of further research within the framework of the given topic are determined by the need for an annual statistical justification of the differentiated values of the upper limits of the local government debt, taking into account the macroeconomic situation in Russia and the regional priorities of socio-economic development.

The calculations showed the paramount importance of assessing the debt sustainability of the regional financial system since it is debt stability that is the key to stability and sustainability of the entire financial system. According to the results of the study, the debt sustainability of five regions of the NWFD (the Republic of Karelia, the Republic of Komi, and the Vologda, Pskov, and Arkhangelsk regions) is at a low level, as a result of which the authorities need to pursue a balanced debt policy aimed at increasing the sustainability and solvency of the region, reducing the credit risks, focusing on standards of the debt burden obtained during the study of each cluster, as well as the standards established by Art. 107.1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation (Official internet portal of legal information (n.d.).

Conclusions

In general, summing up the results of the assessment of the sustainability of the regional financial system across the four selected sectors, we can note the following:

• When testing the methodology obtained, the authors faced the need for more thorough empirical indicators based on annual statistics, since not all indicators have passed empirical tests for adequacy of the values presented in the collections of values.
• Across the different sectors of sustainability, there is a difference between the regions belonging to one group or another according to the type of sustainability. So, for example, the sustainable regions in the public finance sector (debt sustainability) include the Kaliningrad and Leningrad regions, and the city of Saint Petersburg; in the financial sector, the sustainable regions include the Arkhangelsk and Vologda regions, and the city of Saint Petersburg; in the corporative sector - the Republic of Komi, the Vologda, Kaliningrad, Novgorod, and Pskov regions; in the personal finance sector - the Republic of Komi, the Arkhangelsk, Murmansk regions, the city of Saint Petersburg and the Nenets Autonomous Region. Saint Petersburg is the only region that belongs to the high sustainability group according to each integral index. The personal finance sector is represented by five sustainable regions for the period from 2016 to 2019, which is higher than the number of regions with high sustainability in other sectors and reflects the high contribution of households of the NWFD regions to the sustainability of the financial system.
• In general, the values of the integral indices of financial, corporative, and personal sustainability exceed the value of the integral index of debt sustainability, which indicates higher sustainability of the three sectors in comparison with the public finance sector. Such a conclusion can be made based on the values of integral indicators for different sectors: for example, the tables show that the minimum value of the personal-finance index for the period from 2016 to 2019 for the NWFD regions is not less than 0.5, while the minimum value of the debt sustainability index for the same period is 0.19. It can also be seen that the number of high values of the financial, corporative, and personal integral indices by years for 11 NWFD regions is generally greater than the number of high values of the debt sustainability integral index.
• In the course of the study, the authors also realized the impossibility of calculating a general (aggregate, unified) sustainability index for the four sectors of the financial system, since each sector has its own type of sustainability in terms of homogeneous indicators included in it, which is confirmed by the results of the study. Also, the authors believe that the resulting summary estimate would be difficult to interpret logically. High scores in one of the sectors may overlap with low scores in another sector, as the result of which the region will be assessed as a region with a medium level of sustainability, and such an overall estimate will in no way reflect the detrimental processes of decreasing financial stability in one of the sectors. In our study, this thesis is fully actualized in the assessment of debt sustainability. Therefore, the calculation of the integral index for each sector of sustainability is an advantage of the developed methodology.

Data availability

Figshare: Sustainability of the regional financial system ENG(1).xlsx. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20278098.v1 (Barykin et al., 2022).

This project contains the following underlying data:

• Sustainability of the regional financial system ENG (1).xlsx (Data for the calculation of indicators with tabs for ‘Debt of the NWFD regions’, ‘indicators’, ‘index lds’, ‘index lfs’, ‘table’, ‘index lcs’, and ‘index lps’)

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation for the financial support of this project.

References

Acharya VV, Ryan SG: Banks’ Financial Reporting and Financial System Stability. J. Account. Res. 2016; 54(2): 277–340. Publisher Full Text
Albulescu CT: Forecasting the Romanian Financial System Stability Using a Stochastic Simulation Model. Rom. J. Econ. Forecast. 2010; 13(1).
Arzamasov V, Penikas H: A Financial Stability Index for Israel. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2014; 31: 985–994. Publisher Full Text
Babar S, Latief R, Ashraf S, et al.: Financial Stability Index for the Financial Sector of Pakistan. Economies. 2019; 7(3): 81. Publisher Full Text
Badertscher BA, Burks JJ, Easton PD: A Convenient Scapegoat: Fair Value Accounting by Commercial Banks during the Financial Crisis. Account. Rev. 2012; 87(1): 59–90. Publisher Full Text
Bagirova AP, Shubat OM: Models of Grandparents’ Labour in the Socio-Economic Space of Russia. Econ. Reg. 2021; 17(1): 197–208. Publisher Full Text
Baharumshah AZ, Soon S-V, Lau E: Fiscal Sustainability in an Emerging Market Economy: When Does Public Debt Turn Bad?. J. Policy Model. 2017; 39(1): 99–113. Publisher Full Text
Barykin SE, Borisoglebskaya LN, Provotorov VV, et al.: Sustainability of Management Decisions in a Digital Logistics Network. Sustainability. 2021a; 13(16): 9289. Publisher Full Text
Barykin SY, Kapustina IV, Valebnikova OA, et al.: Digital Technologies for Personnel Management: Implications for Open Innovations. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2021b; 20(2): 1–14.Reference Source
Barykin SE, Mikheev AA, Kiseleva EG, et al.: Sustainability of the regional financial system ENG (1).xlsx. figshare. Dataset. 2022. Publisher Full Text
Checherita-Westphal C, Hughes Hallett A, Rother P: Fiscal Sustainability Using Growth-Maximizing Debt Targets. Appl. Econ. 2014; 46(6): 638–647. Publisher Full Text
Chupina Z, Abanina I, Abramov V, et al.: Management of Monetary Policy in the Framework of Decision Making on Setting Interest Rates for Sustainable Social System: Example of the Russian Federation. Sustainability. 2021; 14(1): 79. Publisher Full Text
Eberhardt M, Presbitero AF: Public Debt and Growth: Heterogeneity and Non-Linearity. J. Int. Econ. 2015; 97(1): 45–58. Publisher Full Text
Égert B: Public Debt, Economic Growth and Nonlinear Effects: Myth or Reality?. J. Macroecon. 2015; 43(March): 226–238. Publisher Full Text
Federal State Statistics Services: Socio-economic situation of the federal districts.n.d.-a. Accessed on 30^th March 2022.Reference Source
Federal State Statistics Services: Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators.n.d.-b. Accessed on 30^th March 2022.Reference Source
Federal State Statistics Services: Russian Statistical Yearbook.n.d.-c. Accessed on 30^th March 2022.Reference Source
Ghosh S, Sahu TN: Financial Inclusion and Economic Status of the States of India: An Empirical Evidence. Econ. Notes. 2021; 50(2). Publisher Full Text
Grassa R, Moumen N, Hussainey K: Do Ownership Structures Affect Risk Disclosure in Islamic Banks? International Evidence. J. Financ. Report. Account. 2021; 19(3): 369–391. Publisher Full Text
Gurrea-Martínez A: Theory, Evidence, and Policy on Dual-Class Shares: A Country-Specific Response to a Global Debate. Eur. Bus. Organ. Law Rev. 2021; 22(3): 475–515. Publisher Full Text
Gustiana A, Nasrudin.: Evaluating Financial System Stability Using Heatmap from Aggregate Financial Stability Index with Change Point Analysis Approach. Asia-Pacific Finan. Markets. 2021; 28(3): 367–396. Publisher Full Text
He Q, Korhonen I, Qian Z: Monetary Policy Transmission with Two Exchange Rates of a Single Currency: The Chinese Experience. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2021; 75(September): 558–576. Publisher Full Text
Jadoon IA, Mumtaz R, Sheikh J, et al.: The Impact of Green Growth on Financial Stability. J. Financ. Regul. Compliance. 2021; 29(5): 533–560. Publisher Full Text
Jiang Y, Li C, Zhang J, et al.: Financial Stability and Sustainability under the Coordination of Monetary Policy and Macroprudential Policy: New Evidence from China. Sustainability. 2019; 11(6): 1616. Publisher Full Text
Khalatur S, Velychko L, Pavlenko O, et al.: A Model for Analyzing the Financial Stability of Banks in the VUCA-World Conditions. Banks Bank Syst. 2021; 16(1): 182–194. Publisher Full Text
Kiseleva EG: The Impact of Digital Transformation on the Investment Potential of the Russian Cities. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2020; 24(5): 72–83. Publisher Full Text
Kurushin DS, Vasilyeva EE: The Construction of a Typology of Branch Banks on the Basis of Cluster Analysis and Neural Networks. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2017; 21(6): 6–19. Publisher Full Text
Li X, Ge X, Fan W, et al.: Research on Spatial Correlation Characteristics and Their Spatial Spillover Effect of Local Government Debt Risks in China. Sustainability. 2021; 13(5): 2687. Publisher Full Text
Mazanec J, Bartosova V: Prediction Model as Sustainability Tool for Assessing Financial Status of Non-Profit Organizations in the Slovak Republic. Sustainability. 2021; 13(17): 9721. Publisher Full Text
Nasreen S, Anwar S: Financial Stability and Monetary Policy Reaction Function for South Asian Countries: An Econometric Approach. Singap. Econ. Rev. 2019 August; 1–30. Publisher Full Text
Rendon JA: Global and Regional Risks in Currency Returns. Int. J. Theor. Appl. Finance. 2019; 22(08): 1950046. Publisher Full Text
Santos E, Lisboa I, Eugénio T: Economic Sustainability in Wastewater Treatment Companies: A Regional Analysis for the Iberian Peninsula. Appl. Sci. 2021; 11(21): 9876. Publisher Full Text
Schellhorn C: Financial System Stability, the Timing of Climate Change Action and the Federal Reserve. J. Cent. Bank. Theory Pract. 2020; 9(3): 45–59. Publisher Full Text
Schinasi GJ: Defining Financial Stability. International Capital Markets Department. Washington:International Monetary Fund;2004. Accessed on 26^th January 2022Reference Source
Shkolnyk I, Kozmenko S, Kozmenko O, et al.: Modeling of the Financial System’s Stability on the Example of Ukraine. Equilibrium. 2021; 16(2): 377–411. Publisher Full Text
Străchinaru AI, Dumitrescu BA: Assessing the Sustainability of Inflation Targeting: Evidence from EU Countries with Non-EURO Currencies. Sustainability. 2019; 11(20): 5654. Publisher Full Text
State system of legal information. Official internet portal of legal information: Budget code of the Russian Federation as of July 31, 1998, No.145-FZ.n.d.. Accessed on 30^th March 2022.Reference Source
Zolkover AO, Rusina YO, Bielialov TE, et al.: The Influence of Innovative Potential on Gross Production and Economic Security: Regional Analysis. Int. J. Manag. 2020; 11(4): 439–452. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 08 Aug 2022

Author details Author details

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology

Alexey Aleksandrovich Mikheev
Roles: Validation

Elena Grigorievna Kiseleva
Roles: Conceptualization, Software

Yuriy Evgenievich Putikhin
Roles: Formal Analysis

Elena De La Poza Plaza
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing

Natalia Sergeevna Alekseeva
Roles: Investigation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The research of E.G.K., S.E.B, and N.S.A. is partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation under the strategic academic leadership program 'Priority 2030' (Agreement 075-15-2021-1333, dated 30.09.2021).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 04 Oct 2022, 11:908

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123197.2

version 1

Published: 08 Aug 2022, 11:908

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123197.1

© 2022 Evgenievich Barykin S et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Evgenievich Barykin S, Aleksandrovich Mikheev A, Grigorievna Kiseleva E et al. Sustainability of the regional financial system: a case study of the Northwestern Federal District [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 11:908 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.123197.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 04 Oct 2022

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 05 Oct 2022

Muhammad Ibrar, Department of Sociology, University of Swabi, Swabi, Pakistan

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139012.r152333

Title, abstract, introduction, literature, methods, results, and discussions are informative enough. ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 08 Aug 2022

Views

Reviewer Report 23 Aug 2022

Alexey Petrovich Zhabko, St Petersburg University, St Petersburg, Russian Federation

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.135281.r146838

The paper explores the sustainability of Russian regions’ financial systems in the Northwestern federal district of Russia. I can see that it is an interesting title and deserves some merits. However, there are minor issues to be solved in the ... Continue reading

The discussion section is too small; it needs to be deepened and expanded, referring to the results of previous studies in assessing the stability of regional financial systems.
How would you explain the choice of indicators in each of the four sectors of the financial system? Why exactly did they go there? The composition of the indicators is well described at the beginning of Section 3, but it is not clear how the choice of indicators within each sector was made. Clarify, please.
One of the blocks for assessing the financial system’s stability is debt sustainability. However, the authors do not discuss the concept of a country's debt sustainability in detail. Are our debt management practices similar between developed and developing countries? Especially the issues of debt sustainability of the country's budgets are essential for the federal structure of the state. The article says that the indicators R4, R5, and R6 refer to indicators that regulate the debt burden in the Russian Federation and are regulated by the Budget Code. Still, a more detailed description of holding the debt burden of the budget in the Russian Federation is not presented.
What is the fiscal autonomy, in particular, the budgetary autonomy of regional and local governments and the spending autonomy of regions, and what types of transfers, under what conditions and criteria do regional governments (local governments) receive transfers from the federal government (from the regional government) of Russia? It may be worth presenting the debt potential of regions with fiscal transfers of the federal government and comparing it with the debt potential of regions without fiscal transfers of the federal government, as already studied in the international literature in question.
The article does not present the foreign trade competencies of Russian regions. Can the governments of Russian regions actively pursue their foreign trade policy, especially exports and imports, without the federal government's approval? What is the share of export revenues of the studied regions in their regional budget? Suppose Russian regions have no such foreign trade competence. In that case, the increase or decrease of a region's exports is not due to its decision but to the federal government’s conclusion. When the federal government decides on exports and gets most of its income from them, then what justification and informative value does indicator 3 (R3) have?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 01 Dec 2022

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin, Graduate School of Service and Trade, Petersburg Polytechnic University, Russia, Russian Federation

01 Dec 2022

Author Response
1. Thank you. The composition of the indicators is explained by the accumulated experience of other scientists who presented research results and justified the choice of indicators of the
... Continue reading
Thank you. The composition of the indicators is explained by the accumulated experience of other scientists who presented research results and justified the choice of indicators of the sustainability of the financial system, as well as the availability of data collected by the State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation.

The distribution of indicators by sector should have been logical. If the indicator characterizes the state of public debt and the microeconomics of the country as a whole, then such indicators were attributed to the debt sustainability sector. If the indicator characterizes the development of the banking system, then it was assigned to the financial sustainability sector. If the indicator describes personal finances (various incomes and expenditures of the population), then it was assigned to the personal sustainability sector. If this indicator characterizes the financial condition of enterprises and corporations in the region, then it was assigned to the corporate sustainability sector.

Yes, indeed, the main issue in assessing the sustainability of the financial system is the debt sustainability block. And one of the directions of this topic is the assessment of the acceptable level of public debt. This is an interesting and at the same time quite complex topic. In this paper, we really did not present target values for indicators of the debt level regional budgets, focusing on the methodology for assessing the sustainability of the country's financial system and describing the results obtained, as well as discussing them. At the same time, the authors conduct a study of the safe level of public debt and describe the results in another article. It can be found on the website of the MDPI publishing house (https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/10/5/106)

The issues of fiscal autonomy are interesting, but in our opinion, it should be the subject of a separate paper. The authors did not conduct research on how the presence or absence of fiscal transfers affects the state of debt sustainability of the financial system of the Russian Federation. Fiscal transfers of the federal government are carried out only under certain conditions and are unevenly distributed across the regions of the Northwestern Federal District. Some regions of the Northwestern Federal District do not have fiscal transfers from the federal budget (federal government) at all. Inclusion in the assessment of the sustainability of regional financial systems is problematic, since there is no publicly available information on the amounts of fiscal transfers.

The foreign trade competencies of the Russian regions are quite broad. Since the products for export are produced by enterprises located in a particular region, then most of the income from the sale of export products goes to the regional budget, but not to the federal budget. That is why regions with a high volume of exports have less debt dependence and greater sustainability of regional financial systems. This is confirmed by the results obtained in the paper. Therefore, it is advisable to include R3 indicators in the assessment. At the same time, the value of this indicator R3 in most regions of the Northwestern Federal District (Table 1) is very high, which we assess negatively. This is due to the fact that only a few regions of the Northwestern Federal District sell products for export in high volumes.
Thank you. The composition of the indicators is explained by the accumulated experience of other scientists who presented research results and justified the choice of indicators of the sustainability of the financial system, as well as the availability of data collected by the State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation.

The distribution of indicators by sector should have been logical. If the indicator characterizes the state of public debt and the microeconomics of the country as a whole, then such indicators were attributed to the debt sustainability sector. If the indicator characterizes the development of the banking system, then it was assigned to the financial sustainability sector. If the indicator describes personal finances (various incomes and expenditures of the population), then it was assigned to the personal sustainability sector. If this indicator characterizes the financial condition of enterprises and corporations in the region, then it was assigned to the corporate sustainability sector.

Yes, indeed, the main issue in assessing the sustainability of the financial system is the debt sustainability block. And one of the directions of this topic is the assessment of the acceptable level of public debt. This is an interesting and at the same time quite complex topic. In this paper, we really did not present target values for indicators of the debt level regional budgets, focusing on the methodology for assessing the sustainability of the country's financial system and describing the results obtained, as well as discussing them. At the same time, the authors conduct a study of the safe level of public debt and describe the results in another article. It can be found on the website of the MDPI publishing house (https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/10/5/106)

The issues of fiscal autonomy are interesting, but in our opinion, it should be the subject of a separate paper. The authors did not conduct research on how the presence or absence of fiscal transfers affects the state of debt sustainability of the financial system of the Russian Federation. Fiscal transfers of the federal government are carried out only under certain conditions and are unevenly distributed across the regions of the Northwestern Federal District. Some regions of the Northwestern Federal District do not have fiscal transfers from the federal budget (federal government) at all. Inclusion in the assessment of the sustainability of regional financial systems is problematic, since there is no publicly available information on the amounts of fiscal transfers.

The foreign trade competencies of the Russian regions are quite broad. Since the products for export are produced by enterprises located in a particular region, then most of the income from the sale of export products goes to the regional budget, but not to the federal budget. That is why regions with a high volume of exports have less debt dependence and greater sustainability of regional financial systems. This is confirmed by the results obtained in the paper. Therefore, it is advisable to include R3 indicators in the assessment. At the same time, the value of this indicator R3 in most regions of the Northwestern Federal District (Table 1) is very high, which we assess negatively. This is due to the fact that only a few regions of the Northwestern Federal District sell products for export in high volumes.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 01 Dec 2022

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin, Graduate School of Service and Trade, Petersburg Polytechnic University, Russia, Russian Federation

01 Dec 2022

Author Response
1. Thank you. The composition of the indicators is explained by the accumulated experience of other scientists who presented research results and justified the choice of indicators of the
... Continue reading
Thank you. The composition of the indicators is explained by the accumulated experience of other scientists who presented research results and justified the choice of indicators of the sustainability of the financial system, as well as the availability of data collected by the State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation.

The distribution of indicators by sector should have been logical. If the indicator characterizes the state of public debt and the microeconomics of the country as a whole, then such indicators were attributed to the debt sustainability sector. If the indicator characterizes the development of the banking system, then it was assigned to the financial sustainability sector. If the indicator describes personal finances (various incomes and expenditures of the population), then it was assigned to the personal sustainability sector. If this indicator characterizes the financial condition of enterprises and corporations in the region, then it was assigned to the corporate sustainability sector.

Yes, indeed, the main issue in assessing the sustainability of the financial system is the debt sustainability block. And one of the directions of this topic is the assessment of the acceptable level of public debt. This is an interesting and at the same time quite complex topic. In this paper, we really did not present target values for indicators of the debt level regional budgets, focusing on the methodology for assessing the sustainability of the country's financial system and describing the results obtained, as well as discussing them. At the same time, the authors conduct a study of the safe level of public debt and describe the results in another article. It can be found on the website of the MDPI publishing house (https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/10/5/106)

The issues of fiscal autonomy are interesting, but in our opinion, it should be the subject of a separate paper. The authors did not conduct research on how the presence or absence of fiscal transfers affects the state of debt sustainability of the financial system of the Russian Federation. Fiscal transfers of the federal government are carried out only under certain conditions and are unevenly distributed across the regions of the Northwestern Federal District. Some regions of the Northwestern Federal District do not have fiscal transfers from the federal budget (federal government) at all. Inclusion in the assessment of the sustainability of regional financial systems is problematic, since there is no publicly available information on the amounts of fiscal transfers.

The foreign trade competencies of the Russian regions are quite broad. Since the products for export are produced by enterprises located in a particular region, then most of the income from the sale of export products goes to the regional budget, but not to the federal budget. That is why regions with a high volume of exports have less debt dependence and greater sustainability of regional financial systems. This is confirmed by the results obtained in the paper. Therefore, it is advisable to include R3 indicators in the assessment. At the same time, the value of this indicator R3 in most regions of the Northwestern Federal District (Table 1) is very high, which we assess negatively. This is due to the fact that only a few regions of the Northwestern Federal District sell products for export in high volumes.
Thank you. The composition of the indicators is explained by the accumulated experience of other scientists who presented research results and justified the choice of indicators of the sustainability of the financial system, as well as the availability of data collected by the State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation.

The distribution of indicators by sector should have been logical. If the indicator characterizes the state of public debt and the microeconomics of the country as a whole, then such indicators were attributed to the debt sustainability sector. If the indicator characterizes the development of the banking system, then it was assigned to the financial sustainability sector. If the indicator describes personal finances (various incomes and expenditures of the population), then it was assigned to the personal sustainability sector. If this indicator characterizes the financial condition of enterprises and corporations in the region, then it was assigned to the corporate sustainability sector.

Yes, indeed, the main issue in assessing the sustainability of the financial system is the debt sustainability block. And one of the directions of this topic is the assessment of the acceptable level of public debt. This is an interesting and at the same time quite complex topic. In this paper, we really did not present target values for indicators of the debt level regional budgets, focusing on the methodology for assessing the sustainability of the country's financial system and describing the results obtained, as well as discussing them. At the same time, the authors conduct a study of the safe level of public debt and describe the results in another article. It can be found on the website of the MDPI publishing house (https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/10/5/106)

The issues of fiscal autonomy are interesting, but in our opinion, it should be the subject of a separate paper. The authors did not conduct research on how the presence or absence of fiscal transfers affects the state of debt sustainability of the financial system of the Russian Federation. Fiscal transfers of the federal government are carried out only under certain conditions and are unevenly distributed across the regions of the Northwestern Federal District. Some regions of the Northwestern Federal District do not have fiscal transfers from the federal budget (federal government) at all. Inclusion in the assessment of the sustainability of regional financial systems is problematic, since there is no publicly available information on the amounts of fiscal transfers.

The foreign trade competencies of the Russian regions are quite broad. Since the products for export are produced by enterprises located in a particular region, then most of the income from the sale of export products goes to the regional budget, but not to the federal budget. That is why regions with a high volume of exports have less debt dependence and greater sustainability of regional financial systems. This is confirmed by the results obtained in the paper. Therefore, it is advisable to include R3 indicators in the assessment. At the same time, the value of this indicator R3 in most regions of the Northwestern Federal District (Table 1) is very high, which we assess negatively. This is due to the fact that only a few regions of the Northwestern Federal District sell products for export in high volumes.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 16 Aug 2022

Muhammad Ibrar, Department of Sociology, University of Swabi, Swabi, Pakistan

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.135281.r146837

Paper title: Sustainability of the regional financial system: a case study of the Northwestern Federal District
Thank you so much for the opportunity to read and review your paper. This is a very interesting and informative paper. The authors ... Continue reading

In the Methodology for assessing the debt sustainability of the regional budget system section on page 5 of the article, it is said that 45 financial sustainability indicators were selected at the first stage of the study. However, in section 2.3. Materials and Methods on the same page talk about 53 absolute indicators of the socio-economic development of Russian regions, of which 26 relative indicators were selected. How are indicators, absolute and relative indicators related in this study?
The study says that it is based on data on socio-economic development indicators from 2010 to 2019. What is the reason for the choice of the study period? Why was a more extended period taken, for example, over the last 20-40 years?
Tables 2,3,4,5 show sustainability indices from 2016 to 2019. Have such indices been calculated for an earlier period, given that macroeconomic indicators have been collected since 2010?
The study states in Section 2.3, "The study uses the methods of comparison and grouping, correlation analysis, Euclidean distances, calculation of the multivariate mean, and hierarchical cluster analysis." In these methods, for calculating the stability index of the financial system, the use of the multivariate average formula is of crucial importance; therefore, in our opinion, the formula should be given according to the text of the scientific work.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Social Sciences i.e. Developmental Research, Management,/Administration, Public Policy, International Relations, Socio-Cultural Studies, Political Science related Research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 04 Oct 2022

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin, Graduate School of Service and Trade, Petersburg Polytechnic University, Russia, Russian Federation

04 Oct 2022

Author Response

Answer 1: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, there was a typo in section 2.3, only 45 absolute variables of financial sustainability were selected for research at the initial stage.
... Continue reading Answer 1: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, there was a typo in section 2.3, only 45 absolute variables of financial sustainability were selected for research at the initial stage.
This is the most typical variables of the socio-economic development of Russian regions, collected annually by the Federal Statistics Service.
Absolute variables and relative indicators are interrelated, since relative indicators were calculated on the basis of absolute variables. For example, when calculating the ratio of the government debt to gross regional product, two absolute variables are used: GRP and public debt.
Answer 2: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, the study of debt indicators in the long term is of greater interest. And we also regret it. However, we could not find data on the selected 45 absolute variables in the public domain. This is due to the fact that the set of macroeconomic indicators collected by the Federal State Statistics Service in the Russian Federation changes from time to time, as well as the fact that only in the last decade this information has been presented openly on special resources. We were able to collect the full number of indicators only for the period from 2010 to 2019.
Answer 3: Thank you .Yes, the same indicators for four blocks were calculated for the period from 2010 to 2015, but due to the large volume of data, it is not possible to compactly fit the indicators from 2010 to 2019 in one table. Therefore, the results of the study are partially presented.
Answer 4: In the paper, in the Data Analysis section, after the quote "The calculation of the integral sustainability indicator was carried out using the multivariate mean formula ...", a link is given to the article where this formula is given on page 77. The entire bibliography of the article is in the list of references and the article is publicly available in the international database Scopus. If, after reading the comment, the reviewer deems it necessary to add the multivariate mean formula to the text of the paper, we will definitely do it.
Answer 1: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, there was a typo in section 2.3, only 45 absolute variables of financial sustainability were selected for research at the initial stage.
This is the most typical variables of the socio-economic development of Russian regions, collected annually by the Federal Statistics Service.
Absolute variables and relative indicators are interrelated, since relative indicators were calculated on the basis of absolute variables. For example, when calculating the ratio of the government debt to gross regional product, two absolute variables are used: GRP and public debt.
Answer 2: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, the study of debt indicators in the long term is of greater interest. And we also regret it. However, we could not find data on the selected 45 absolute variables in the public domain. This is due to the fact that the set of macroeconomic indicators collected by the Federal State Statistics Service in the Russian Federation changes from time to time, as well as the fact that only in the last decade this information has been presented openly on special resources. We were able to collect the full number of indicators only for the period from 2010 to 2019.
Answer 3: Thank you .Yes, the same indicators for four blocks were calculated for the period from 2010 to 2015, but due to the large volume of data, it is not possible to compactly fit the indicators from 2010 to 2019 in one table. Therefore, the results of the study are partially presented.
Answer 4: In the paper, in the Data Analysis section, after the quote "The calculation of the integral sustainability indicator was carried out using the multivariate mean formula ...", a link is given to the article where this formula is given on page 77. The entire bibliography of the article is in the list of references and the article is publicly available in the international database Scopus. If, after reading the comment, the reviewer deems it necessary to add the multivariate mean formula to the text of the paper, we will definitely do it.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 04 Oct 2022

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin, Graduate School of Service and Trade, Petersburg Polytechnic University, Russia, Russian Federation

04 Oct 2022

Author Response

Answer 1: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, there was a typo in section 2.3, only 45 absolute variables of financial sustainability were selected for research at the initial stage.
... Continue reading Answer 1: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, there was a typo in section 2.3, only 45 absolute variables of financial sustainability were selected for research at the initial stage.
This is the most typical variables of the socio-economic development of Russian regions, collected annually by the Federal Statistics Service.
Absolute variables and relative indicators are interrelated, since relative indicators were calculated on the basis of absolute variables. For example, when calculating the ratio of the government debt to gross regional product, two absolute variables are used: GRP and public debt.
Answer 2: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, the study of debt indicators in the long term is of greater interest. And we also regret it. However, we could not find data on the selected 45 absolute variables in the public domain. This is due to the fact that the set of macroeconomic indicators collected by the Federal State Statistics Service in the Russian Federation changes from time to time, as well as the fact that only in the last decade this information has been presented openly on special resources. We were able to collect the full number of indicators only for the period from 2010 to 2019.
Answer 3: Thank you .Yes, the same indicators for four blocks were calculated for the period from 2010 to 2015, but due to the large volume of data, it is not possible to compactly fit the indicators from 2010 to 2019 in one table. Therefore, the results of the study are partially presented.
Answer 4: In the paper, in the Data Analysis section, after the quote "The calculation of the integral sustainability indicator was carried out using the multivariate mean formula ...", a link is given to the article where this formula is given on page 77. The entire bibliography of the article is in the list of references and the article is publicly available in the international database Scopus. If, after reading the comment, the reviewer deems it necessary to add the multivariate mean formula to the text of the paper, we will definitely do it.
Answer 1: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, there was a typo in section 2.3, only 45 absolute variables of financial sustainability were selected for research at the initial stage.
This is the most typical variables of the socio-economic development of Russian regions, collected annually by the Federal Statistics Service.
Absolute variables and relative indicators are interrelated, since relative indicators were calculated on the basis of absolute variables. For example, when calculating the ratio of the government debt to gross regional product, two absolute variables are used: GRP and public debt.
Answer 2: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, the study of debt indicators in the long term is of greater interest. And we also regret it. However, we could not find data on the selected 45 absolute variables in the public domain. This is due to the fact that the set of macroeconomic indicators collected by the Federal State Statistics Service in the Russian Federation changes from time to time, as well as the fact that only in the last decade this information has been presented openly on special resources. We were able to collect the full number of indicators only for the period from 2010 to 2019.
Answer 3: Thank you .Yes, the same indicators for four blocks were calculated for the period from 2010 to 2015, but due to the large volume of data, it is not possible to compactly fit the indicators from 2010 to 2019 in one table. Therefore, the results of the study are partially presented.
Answer 4: In the paper, in the Data Analysis section, after the quote "The calculation of the integral sustainability indicator was carried out using the multivariate mean formula ...", a link is given to the article where this formula is given on page 77. The entire bibliography of the article is in the list of references and the article is publicly available in the international database Scopus. If, after reading the comment, the reviewer deems it necessary to add the multivariate mean formula to the text of the paper, we will definitely do it.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 08 Aug 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 04 Oct 22	read
Version 1 08 Aug 22	read	read

Muhammad Ibrar, University of Swabi, Swabi, Pakistan
Alexey Petrovich Zhabko, St Petersburg University, St Petersburg, Russian Federation

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

05 Oct 2022 | for Version 2

Muhammad Ibrar, Department of Sociology, University of Swabi, Swabi, Pakistan

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Title, abstract, introduction, literature, methods, results, and discussions are informative enough. Last but not least, the paper is well-written, and recommended for indexing.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Social Sciences i.e. Developmental Research, Management,/Administration, Public Policy, International Relations, Socio-Cultural Studies, Political Science related Research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

21 Views

23 Aug 2022 | for Version 1

Alexey Petrovich Zhabko, St Petersburg University, St Petersburg, Russian Federation

21 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

The discussion section is too small; it needs to be deepened and expanded, referring to the results of previous studies in assessing the stability of regional financial systems.
How would you explain the choice of indicators in each of the four sectors of the financial system? Why exactly did they go there? The composition of the indicators is well described at the beginning of Section 3, but it is not clear how the choice of indicators within each sector was made. Clarify, please.
One of the blocks for assessing the financial system’s stability is debt sustainability. However, the authors do not discuss the concept of a country's debt sustainability in detail. Are our debt management practices similar between developed and developing countries? Especially the issues of debt sustainability of the country's budgets are essential for the federal structure of the state. The article says that the indicators R4, R5, and R6 refer to indicators that regulate the debt burden in the Russian Federation and are regulated by the Budget Code. Still, a more detailed description of holding the debt burden of the budget in the Russian Federation is not presented.
What is the fiscal autonomy, in particular, the budgetary autonomy of regional and local governments and the spending autonomy of regions, and what types of transfers, under what conditions and criteria do regional governments (local governments) receive transfers from the federal government (from the regional government) of Russia? It may be worth presenting the debt potential of regions with fiscal transfers of the federal government and comparing it with the debt potential of regions without fiscal transfers of the federal government, as already studied in the international literature in question.
The article does not present the foreign trade competencies of Russian regions. Can the governments of Russian regions actively pursue their foreign trade policy, especially exports and imports, without the federal government's approval? What is the share of export revenues of the studied regions in their regional budget? Suppose Russian regions have no such foreign trade competence. In that case, the increase or decrease of a region's exports is not due to its decision but to the federal government’s conclusion. When the federal government decides on exports and gets most of its income from them, then what justification and informative value does indicator 3 (R3) have?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

01 Dec 2022

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin, Graduate School of Service and Trade, Petersburg Polytechnic University, Russia, Russian Federation

Thank you. The composition of the indicators is explained by the accumulated experience of other scientists who presented research results and justified the choice of indicators of the sustainability of the financial system, as well as the availability of data collected by the State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation.
The distribution of indicators by sector should have been logical. If the indicator characterizes the state of public debt and the microeconomics of the country as a whole, then such indicators were attributed to the debt sustainability sector. If the indicator characterizes the development of the banking system, then it was assigned to the financial sustainability sector. If the indicator describes personal finances (various incomes and expenditures of the population), then it was assigned to the personal sustainability sector. If this indicator characterizes the financial condition of enterprises and corporations in the region, then it was assigned to the corporate sustainability sector.
Yes, indeed, the main issue in assessing the sustainability of the financial system is the debt sustainability block. And one of the directions of this topic is the assessment of the acceptable level of public debt. This is an interesting and at the same time quite complex topic. In this paper, we really did not present target values for indicators of the debt level regional budgets, focusing on the methodology for assessing the sustainability of the country's financial system and describing the results obtained, as well as discussing them. At the same time, the authors conduct a study of the safe level of public debt and describe the results in another article. It can be found on the website of the MDPI publishing house (https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/10/5/106)
The issues of fiscal autonomy are interesting, but in our opinion, it should be the subject of a separate paper. The authors did not conduct research on how the presence or absence of fiscal transfers affects the state of debt sustainability of the financial system of the Russian Federation. Fiscal transfers of the federal government are carried out only under certain conditions and are unevenly distributed across the regions of the Northwestern Federal District. Some regions of the Northwestern Federal District do not have fiscal transfers from the federal budget (federal government) at all. Inclusion in the assessment of the sustainability of regional financial systems is problematic, since there is no publicly available information on the amounts of fiscal transfers.
The foreign trade competencies of the Russian regions are quite broad. Since the products for export are produced by enterprises located in a particular region, then most of the income from the sale of export products goes to the regional budget, but not to the federal budget. That is why regions with a high volume of exports have less debt dependence and greater sustainability of regional financial systems. This is confirmed by the results obtained in the paper. Therefore, it is advisable to include R3 indicators in the assessment. At the same time, the value of this indicator R3 in most regions of the Northwestern Federal District (Table 1) is very high, which we assess negatively. This is due to the fact that only a few regions of the Northwestern Federal District sell products for export in high volumes.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

29 Views

16 Aug 2022 | for Version 1

Muhammad Ibrar, Department of Sociology, University of Swabi, Swabi, Pakistan

29 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

In the Methodology for assessing the debt sustainability of the regional budget system section on page 5 of the article, it is said that 45 financial sustainability indicators were selected at the first stage of the study. However, in section 2.3. Materials and Methods on the same page talk about 53 absolute indicators of the socio-economic development of Russian regions, of which 26 relative indicators were selected. How are indicators, absolute and relative indicators related in this study?
The study says that it is based on data on socio-economic development indicators from 2010 to 2019. What is the reason for the choice of the study period? Why was a more extended period taken, for example, over the last 20-40 years?
Tables 2,3,4,5 show sustainability indices from 2016 to 2019. Have such indices been calculated for an earlier period, given that macroeconomic indicators have been collected since 2010?
The study states in Section 2.3, "The study uses the methods of comparison and grouping, correlation analysis, Euclidean distances, calculation of the multivariate mean, and hierarchical cluster analysis." In these methods, for calculating the stability index of the financial system, the use of the multivariate average formula is of crucial importance; therefore, in our opinion, the formula should be given according to the text of the scientific work.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Social Sciences i.e. Developmental Research, Management,/Administration, Public Policy, International Relations, Socio-Cultural Studies, Political Science related Research

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

04 Oct 2022

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin, Graduate School of Service and Trade, Petersburg Polytechnic University, Russia, Russian Federation

Answer 1: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, there was a typo in section 2.3, only 45 absolute variables of financial sustainability were selected for research at the initial stage.
This is the most typical variables of the socio-economic development of Russian regions, collected annually by the Federal Statistics Service.
Absolute variables and relative indicators are interrelated, since relative indicators were calculated on the basis of absolute variables. For example, when calculating the ratio of the government debt to gross regional product, two absolute variables are used: GRP and public debt.
Answer 2: Thank you for your comment. Indeed, the study of debt indicators in the long term is of greater interest. And we also regret it. However, we could not find data on the selected 45 absolute variables in the public domain. This is due to the fact that the set of macroeconomic indicators collected by the Federal State Statistics Service in the Russian Federation changes from time to time, as well as the fact that only in the last decade this information has been presented openly on special resources. We were able to collect the full number of indicators only for the period from 2010 to 2019.
Answer 3: Thank you .Yes, the same indicators for four blocks were calculated for the period from 2010 to 2015, but due to the large volume of data, it is not possible to compactly fit the indicators from 2010 to 2019 in one table. Therefore, the results of the study are partially presented.
Answer 4: In the paper, in the Data Analysis section, after the quote "The calculation of the integral sustainability indicator was carried out using the multivariate mean formula ...", a link is given to the article where this formula is given on page 77. The entire bibliography of the article is in the list of references and the article is publicly available in the international database Scopus. If, after reading the comment, the reviewer deems it necessary to add the multivariate mean formula to the text of the paper, we will definitely do it.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] Acharya VV, Ryan SG: Banks’ Financial Reporting and Financial System Stability. J. Account. Res. 2016; 54(2): 277–340. Publisher Full Text

[2] Albulescu CT: Forecasting the Romanian Financial System Stability Using a Stochastic Simulation Model. Rom. J. Econ. Forecast. 2010; 13(1).

[3] Arzamasov V, Penikas H: A Financial Stability Index for Israel. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2014; 31: 985–994. Publisher Full Text

[4] Babar S, Latief R, Ashraf S, et al.: Financial Stability Index for the Financial Sector of Pakistan. Economies. 2019; 7(3): 81. Publisher Full Text

[5] Badertscher BA, Burks JJ, Easton PD: A Convenient Scapegoat: Fair Value Accounting by Commercial Banks during the Financial Crisis. Account. Rev. 2012; 87(1): 59–90. Publisher Full Text

[6] Bagirova AP, Shubat OM: Models of Grandparents’ Labour in the Socio-Economic Space of Russia. Econ. Reg. 2021; 17(1): 197–208. Publisher Full Text

[7] Baharumshah AZ, Soon S-V, Lau E: Fiscal Sustainability in an Emerging Market Economy: When Does Public Debt Turn Bad?. J. Policy Model. 2017; 39(1): 99–113. Publisher Full Text

[8] Barykin SE, Borisoglebskaya LN, Provotorov VV, et al.: Sustainability of Management Decisions in a Digital Logistics Network. Sustainability. 2021a; 13(16): 9289. Publisher Full Text

[9] Barykin SY, Kapustina IV, Valebnikova OA, et al.: Digital Technologies for Personnel Management: Implications for Open Innovations. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2021b; 20(2): 1–14.Reference Source

[10] Barykin SE, Mikheev AA, Kiseleva EG, et al.: Sustainability of the regional financial system ENG (1).xlsx. figshare. Dataset. 2022. Publisher Full Text

[11] Checherita-Westphal C, Hughes Hallett A, Rother P: Fiscal Sustainability Using Growth-Maximizing Debt Targets. Appl. Econ. 2014; 46(6): 638–647. Publisher Full Text

[12] Chupina Z, Abanina I, Abramov V, et al.: Management of Monetary Policy in the Framework of Decision Making on Setting Interest Rates for Sustainable Social System: Example of the Russian Federation. Sustainability. 2021; 14(1): 79. Publisher Full Text

[13] Eberhardt M, Presbitero AF: Public Debt and Growth: Heterogeneity and Non-Linearity. J. Int. Econ. 2015; 97(1): 45–58. Publisher Full Text

[14] Égert B: Public Debt, Economic Growth and Nonlinear Effects: Myth or Reality?. J. Macroecon. 2015; 43(March): 226–238. Publisher Full Text

[15] Federal State Statistics Services: Socio-economic situation of the federal districts.n.d.-a. Accessed on 30^th March 2022.Reference Source

[16] Federal State Statistics Services: Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators.n.d.-b. Accessed on 30^th March 2022.Reference Source

[17] Federal State Statistics Services: Russian Statistical Yearbook.n.d.-c. Accessed on 30^th March 2022.Reference Source

[18] Ghosh S, Sahu TN: Financial Inclusion and Economic Status of the States of India: An Empirical Evidence. Econ. Notes. 2021; 50(2). Publisher Full Text

[19] Grassa R, Moumen N, Hussainey K: Do Ownership Structures Affect Risk Disclosure in Islamic Banks? International Evidence. J. Financ. Report. Account. 2021; 19(3): 369–391. Publisher Full Text

[20] Gurrea-Martínez A: Theory, Evidence, and Policy on Dual-Class Shares: A Country-Specific Response to a Global Debate. Eur. Bus. Organ. Law Rev. 2021; 22(3): 475–515. Publisher Full Text

[21] Gustiana A, Nasrudin.: Evaluating Financial System Stability Using Heatmap from Aggregate Financial Stability Index with Change Point Analysis Approach. Asia-Pacific Finan. Markets. 2021; 28(3): 367–396. Publisher Full Text

[22] He Q, Korhonen I, Qian Z: Monetary Policy Transmission with Two Exchange Rates of a Single Currency: The Chinese Experience. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2021; 75(September): 558–576. Publisher Full Text

[23] Jadoon IA, Mumtaz R, Sheikh J, et al.: The Impact of Green Growth on Financial Stability. J. Financ. Regul. Compliance. 2021; 29(5): 533–560. Publisher Full Text

[24] Jiang Y, Li C, Zhang J, et al.: Financial Stability and Sustainability under the Coordination of Monetary Policy and Macroprudential Policy: New Evidence from China. Sustainability. 2019; 11(6): 1616. Publisher Full Text

[25] Khalatur S, Velychko L, Pavlenko O, et al.: A Model for Analyzing the Financial Stability of Banks in the VUCA-World Conditions. Banks Bank Syst. 2021; 16(1): 182–194. Publisher Full Text

[26] Kiseleva EG: The Impact of Digital Transformation on the Investment Potential of the Russian Cities. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2020; 24(5): 72–83. Publisher Full Text

[27] Kurushin DS, Vasilyeva EE: The Construction of a Typology of Branch Banks on the Basis of Cluster Analysis and Neural Networks. Finance: Theory and Practice. 2017; 21(6): 6–19. Publisher Full Text

[28] Li X, Ge X, Fan W, et al.: Research on Spatial Correlation Characteristics and Their Spatial Spillover Effect of Local Government Debt Risks in China. Sustainability. 2021; 13(5): 2687. Publisher Full Text

[29] Mazanec J, Bartosova V: Prediction Model as Sustainability Tool for Assessing Financial Status of Non-Profit Organizations in the Slovak Republic. Sustainability. 2021; 13(17): 9721. Publisher Full Text

[30] Nasreen S, Anwar S: Financial Stability and Monetary Policy Reaction Function for South Asian Countries: An Econometric Approach. Singap. Econ. Rev. 2019 August; 1–30. Publisher Full Text

[31] Rendon JA: Global and Regional Risks in Currency Returns. Int. J. Theor. Appl. Finance. 2019; 22(08): 1950046. Publisher Full Text

[32] Santos E, Lisboa I, Eugénio T: Economic Sustainability in Wastewater Treatment Companies: A Regional Analysis for the Iberian Peninsula. Appl. Sci. 2021; 11(21): 9876. Publisher Full Text

[33] Schellhorn C: Financial System Stability, the Timing of Climate Change Action and the Federal Reserve. J. Cent. Bank. Theory Pract. 2020; 9(3): 45–59. Publisher Full Text

[34] Schinasi GJ: Defining Financial Stability. International Capital Markets Department. Washington:International Monetary Fund;2004. Accessed on 26^th January 2022Reference Source

[35] Shkolnyk I, Kozmenko S, Kozmenko O, et al.: Modeling of the Financial System’s Stability on the Example of Ukraine. Equilibrium. 2021; 16(2): 377–411. Publisher Full Text

[36] Străchinaru AI, Dumitrescu BA: Assessing the Sustainability of Inflation Targeting: Evidence from EU Countries with Non-EURO Currencies. Sustainability. 2019; 11(20): 5654. Publisher Full Text

[37] State system of legal information. Official internet portal of legal information: Budget code of the Russian Federation as of July 31, 1998, No.145-FZ.n.d.. Accessed on 30^th March 2022.Reference Source

[38] Zolkover AO, Rusina YO, Bielialov TE, et al.: The Influence of Innovative Potential on Gross Production and Economic Security: Regional Analysis. Int. J. Manag. 2020; 11(4): 439–452. Publisher Full Text

Sustainability of the regional financial system: a case study of the Northwestern Federal District

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Literature review

Methods

Methodology for assessing the debt sustainability of the regional budget system

Figure 1. Methodology for assessing the sustainability of the financial system.

Study design

Data analysis

Results

Evidence of Russian regions

Table 1. Partial results of the study: debt sustainability indicators of Northwestern Federal District’s (NWFD) financial system (by the authors’ calculations).

Table 2. Results of the debt sustainability study for the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) (by the authors’ calculations).

Table 3. Results of the financial sustainability study for the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) (by the authors’ calculations).

Table 4. Results of the corporative sustainability study for the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) (by the authors’ calculations).

Table 5. Results of the personal (household statistics) sustainability study for the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) (by the authors’ calculations).

The public finance sector

Table 6. The scale of values of the regional debt sustainability index (IDS) (the authors’ calculations).

The financial sector

The sector of corporative and personal finance

Table 7. Results of the study of clusters by regions of the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) and volume of budget constraints (by the authors’ calculations).

Discussion

Conclusions

Data availability

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Table 6. The scale of values of the regional debt sustainability index (I_DS) (the authors’ calculations).