Introduction 

Therewith, the study of scientific literature demonstrates the relevance of studying the experience of industrial modernization both in different industries and in different countries, the experience of which is significantly different. Quite a large number of works are devoted to the experience of China as one of the largest industrial powers [6-8]. Several works, such as by Y.-K. Min, S.-G. Lee, Y. Aoshima [9], G. Beier, S. Niehoff, T. Ziems, B. Xue [4] are devoted to the comparative experience of China and other countries. Individual works, for example, the work of T. Yao, Y. Wang [5] or M. Ahmad, Z. Khan, M.K. Anser, G. Jabeen [6], focus on studying not just the experience of China, but a more detailed examination of the practice of individual Chinese regions. Several works are devoted to the experience of modernization of individual industries in different countries: the automotive industry in Sweden [10], the food industry in Ukraine [2], the coal industry in China [7]. Therewith, these works quite inconsistently characterize the results of industrial transformation in different countries and industries. C. Bai, P. Dallasega, G. Orzes, J. Sarkis [11] note that the modernization of such industries as automotive, electronics, food and beverage production, as well as the textile, clothing, and footwear industries has the greatest impact on the sustainable development of the territory, which should be taken into account when investing in the industry. In this regard, it is promising and expedient to carry out a purposeful industrial policy of the state to determine the priorities for improving production.

In connection with such a significant difference in the experience of industrial development in different industries and different countries, the study of the level of industrial development separately in the Russian Federation becomes relevant. In this study, an attempt is made to analyze how the industry is developing and modernizing in some regions of the Russian Federation and how this is related to the general state of the economy and society of these territories. The results of such a study will determine the effectiveness of regional industrial policy in the Russian Federation, the ways of its further improvement, and prospects for development.

Materials and Methods        

Individual regions of the Russian Federation were selected as the objects of the study. The effectiveness of their state industrial policy was evaluated based on the following methodology.

Initially, the main indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of industrial policy were identified. The indicators were grouped into 6 thematic groups (Table 1).

The graph in Figure 2 shows a significant difference in the estimates of different blocks in each of the considered regions. Several groups of indicators can be considered more developed in each region. This fact can be considered as a positive result, that is, the presence of a significant level of industrial development and its impact on the socio-economic development of the territory, at least in a separate direction. However, if we take into account the fact that the development of industry and policy in this direction is complex, then this kind of result should be considered as not the most promising. The graph in Figure 2 clearly shows that only in one region – the Republic of Tatarstan, all estimates are higher than 0.6, that is, they can be considered as an effective result of industrial development. In another region – the Nizhny Novgorod region – the estimates of all groups of indicators are higher than 0.4, that is, at least, they reflect at least the average level of efficiency of industrial policy in certain areas. There are estimates of individual groups below 0.4 in all the other 12 regions, that is, showing a low result of industrial development and, accordingly, a low level of efficiency of industrial policy in individual blocks.

The same conclusions can be drawn for the integrated assessment of regions as for the assessments for individual thematic groups of indicators. Thus, Figure 3 clearly shows that the rating of each region practically does not change from year to year, its fluctuations do not have a general trend, the ratio of ratings (ranks) of different regions remains almost unchanged. This conclusion is also confirmed by the data from Table 2.

As can be seen from Table 2, a significant change in the comprehensive assessment, which affected a significant change in the rank of the region, is inherent only in the republics of Mordovia, Udmurtia, and Chuvashia. Separately, it should be noted that Tatarstan has become the leading region in the comprehensive assessment of the implementation of industrial policy, which is a consequence of the conclusion about the effectiveness of industrial development for each block. However, it is worth noting that the average final score of this region is only 0.71, which is more than a quarter lower than the maximum possible. This indicates significant prospects for the development of industry in the Republic of Tatarstan and the need to continue to pursue an active industrial policy in this subject of the Russian Federation. It is also possible to distinguish the Nizhny Novgorod region, where all the ratings of the thematic blocks were not lower than the average level. Due to the significant development of individual industry indicators, the comprehensive assessment of this region is also high, in contrast to other regions.

Conclusion

According to the results of the comprehensive assessment, the regions of the Russian Federation considered were distributed as follows according to the level of effectiveness of the implementation of industrial policy (Table 3).

Based on the results of the analysis, as well as the conclusions in Table 3, we can talk about the following results of the study:

1. The level of development of industrial policy in the regions of the Russian Federation is still quite far from the maximum possible. Even in the leading region, the rating is almost more than 25% lower than the potential one. This indicates significant prospects and the need for further development and improvement of regional industrial policy, even in the leading regions – the Republic of Tatarstan and the Nizhny Novgorod Region.
2. The insufficiently high level of efficiency of industrial policy can be explained by the fact that the development of industry in different areas (personnel, innovation, investment, etc.) differs significantly from each other. The lag in the development of one segment hinders the development of the industry as a whole and creates a barrier to improving the effectiveness of the industrial policy of the region.
3. The level of industrial development in the regions of the Russian Federation remains almost unchanged. It was not possible to identify significant rates of industrial development in any of the considered regions. If we take into account the fact that even the leading regions are still far from the highest assessments of industrial development, then the absence of significant changes in the efficiency of industrial policy is unfavorable even for them.

Such conclusions about the problems of industrial policy in certain regions of the Russian Federation make it necessary to develop recommendations for the development of industry and improving the efficiency of this area of state activity. It is worth noting that the recommendations for each region should be developed taking into account its specifics and be focused on compensating for the weakest aspects of industrial production. If we refer to the most general trends characteristic of most of the regions considered, we can note the problem of slow modernization of production, its obsolescence, depreciation of funds, and limited introduction of innovations in the industry. In this regard, as well as taking into account the global trends of industrial modernization based on the concept of Industry 4.0, the following proposals will be relevant for the considered regions and their sustainable development. It is necessary to reduce the degree of depreciation of fixed assets. In our opinion, in this direction it is necessary to withdraw the old equipment from circulation, which has served its service life many times, to introduce penalties for the use of completely worn-out fixed assets of the industry, to use the mechanism of accelerated depreciation. To accelerate modernization, it is necessary to develop a system of grant support for industrial innovations, and involve business associations in the process of selecting winners of grant competitions. The transition to the "innovation track" can also be facilitated by replicating within industrial enterprises, regions, and the country as a whole, effective practices for the implementation of innovative projects by universities and research institutions, identifying demand from enterprises in the real sector of the economy for breakthrough research and development of these institutions.

Thus, the study of the level of industrial development and the effectiveness of the implementation of industrial policy in certain regions of Russia revealed some general trends in this area and offered some recommendations for improving the effectiveness of industrial policy at the level of the subjects of the Russian Federation.

Acknowledgments: None

Conflict of interest: None

Financial support: None

Ethics statement: None