Innovative development of the Arctic territories in the framework of ensuring national competitiveness

. This study presents a comparative analysis of innovative development, advantages and threats of the Arctic zones belonging to Russia, Norway and Sweden by rating positioning using mathematical analysis methods. In order to determine the strengths and weaknesses of Russia among its Arctic competitors a comparative analysis was carried out using the index (coefficient) of innovative development of all these research subjects. The study also included the comparison of the parameters that make up its categories (enlarged group indicators) and subcategories (single indicators included in the categories). The results of the comparative analysis showed that for most of the studied indicators included in the subcategories ('labor productivity', 'foundation of new enterprises', 'certification', 'high-tech production', etc.), Russia lags far behind Norway and Sweden. Russia's advantages lie in such subcategories as the development of innovative links between universities and the industrial sector in R&D, trade, diversification, and scope of market. Russia also successfully competes in such subcategories as business environment formation and creation of information and communication technologies. It was noted that these areas are promising for Russia and they should be given great attention to increase the competitiveness of Russia's Arctic.


Introduction
Each State implements activities to ensure its sovereignty and national security, creating favorable conditions for the development and economic growth of its territory. In modern conditions, great importance is attached to the development of the Arctic region as it becomes more accessible due to innovative technologies for the development of its natural landscape and useful resources, modernization of existing business processes, and reduction of transaction costs. The innovative economy is becoming a fundamental trend of the XXI century. It is based on the full use of intangible assets, focusing on knowledge, intelligence and science. The subject of national development in the Arctic region of the Russian Federation is not only the traditional extractive industries of the economy but also logistics routes for the organization of international commodity flows, tourist destinations, scientific research including geological and climatological observations, environmental protection, military-technical and geopolitical strategic perspective, etc.
Exploration and extraction of minerals is still the most important of the listed drivers of the development and development of the Arctic zones by sovereign states competing with each other for technological and resource priorities in this economic sphere. International expertise on the scale of natural resources of the Arctic and subarctic zone states that up to a quarter of the world's hydrocarbon reserves, an even larger share of solid minerals, fresh water in the form of ice, etc. can be located in these latitudes. Theoretically, up to 25% of the world's oil and gas reserves can be stored in the Arctic. An average estimate of the size of these currently unused reserves states that there are 14.31 billion cubic meters (90 billion barrels) of oil, as well as 47.233 trillion cubic meters of natural gasin the depths of the Arctic Circle. At the same time, approximately 84% is located in marine areas [1]. A significant area of the Arctic and subarctic territory belongs to the Russian Federation. More than 28.3% of natural reserves of crude oil and 57.8% of natural gas are stored in it [2].
The Arctic can also be considered as huge reserves of fresh water in ice, which is extremely important during the emerging global water crisis due to the shortage of fresh water. Currently, no one is surprised by the delivery of icebergs to the coast in order to melt them into fresh water.
The intense melting of the Arctic ice is becoming an irreversible process. According to experts of the Arctic Council, the Arctic ice zones are decreasing, and as a result, in about half a century the Earth may completely lose the Arctic ice cover. For this reason, many experts assume that in the XXI century, most of the Arctic water space would be completely free of ice during the warmer months of the year, and this would open up new prospects for the sea transportation of goods. Therefore, in the XXI century, there is the sharpest competition among the Arctic states unfolded for the right to control the existing and future transcontinental sea transport routes in the Arctic.
The Russian Federation cannot stay away from this struggle and sets itself a program to develop an effective response to global challenges. Among the current challenges for Russia, the Government of the Russian Federation indicated [2]: • depletion of the potential of the raw-materials model of economic development; • technological changes; • innovations in socio-economic development; • increasing role of human capital as the main factor of economic development.
Increased competition for the development of the Arctic covers not only the traditional markets of goods, capital, technology and human resources but also the systems of national development, management and innovation support. In a short time, it is necessary to justify the opportunities for strengthening geopolitical positions Russia in the global markets. The basis of such developments should be the innovative development of national Arctic territories [3,4].
As a result of the emerging lag in the competitive position of the Russian Federation in innovative development, significant changes in the technological base are required through the use of the latest achievements in science, computer science, nanotechnology, and in other areas. This seems to be a serious challenge for Russia since it requires strengthening its strategic importance in the markets of high-tech products and intellectual services.
To achieve this goal, it is necessary to increase the role of human resource as the main factor in the economic development of a modern innovative economy, and this is largely determined by the quality of professional personnel and the modern level of their competence. The answer to this challenge for Russia involves the use of its capabilities based on traditions in the development of human potential through the national education system. This is especially relevant for the Arctic region and the northern territories of the country, where there is a shortage not only in the population but also in qualified workers.
The basis for this kind of changes is the consideration of the current state and prospects for the development of the competitive position of the Russian Federation in the innovation sphere among its Arctic neighbors. This study considers Norway and Sweden as geographical competitors in the Arctic region. The time interval was chosen based on the well-known global trend of decline in national economic activity due to the pandemic of the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in 2020-2022.
Over the past 3 years, more than 100 articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals on environmental innovations in Russia, and more than 2,500 articles on the sustainable development of the region. There also exist dozens of dissertations on these issues. About 250 articles on the role of innovation in the sustainable development of the region have been published in journals indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases [8].
The works of Russian scientists deal with theoretical and practical problems of assessing the sustainability of the development of territorial socio-ecological and economic systems [5,6].
The Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation notes that the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation has huge reserves and a variety of natural resources like hydrocarbons (oil, gas), biological resources (fur game and game fish), etc. According to the experts of the Institute of Regional Problems, Russia is the leader in oil and gas reserves in the region: 41% of oil and 90% of gas reserves. However, to date, the subsoil of the Russian Arctic has been developed by only 2% [6].
It is worth noting that the decrease is due to the deterioration of infrastructure and the results of creative activity. This indicates a reduction in the issuance of patents for developments and inventions. At the same time, social institutions of innovation activity are gradually developing in Russia, which contributes to the development of the innovation market.
During the same period, world science also closely monitors the parameters of business activity. So, for example, articles by E. Moss, R. Nunn, C. Paunov, S. Planes-Satorra, J. Shambaugh, et al. contain the data necessary for the preparation of this study on the extent and causes of the decline in economic activity in various regions of the world during this pandemic [7].

Materials and methods
Many different methods of assessing the innovative development of the state can be found in the scientific literature. Here, the most comprehensive is the methodology developed by the International Business School INSEAD (France) (Global Innovation Index (GII)) [11]. According to the methodology, the coefficient (index) of innovative development is the arithmetic mean of data from seven blocks (categories) that influence national development and the value of innovation (X i ): • Business environment: political, regulatory, trade, business (X 1 ); • Human resource and scientific research: education, higher education, research and scientific development (R&D) (X 2 ); • The country's infrastructure: information and communication technologies, general infrastructure (transport, logistics, hospitality industry, etc.), environmental sustainability (X 3 ); • The degree of market development, market barriers, credit availability, investment attractiveness, trade, diversification and scale of market (X 4 ); • Degree of business development: business environment, knowledge workers, innovative connections, knowledge application (X 5 ); • Knowledge and technology: Creation, impact and distribution of knowledge (X 6 ); • Results of creative activity: intangible assets, creative goods and services, Internet creativity (X 7 ). Each of the constituent parameters of the specified list is assigned a world rating in values from 0 to 100 (standardized data). In total, when calculating this coefficient (index), 81 indicators were taken into account. They were also grouped into seven categories. Thus, it is possible to consider the value of each indicator in the corresponding subcategory of the world ranking. These values are subsequently combined and averaged. The index (coefficient) of innovative development is thus calculated as follows (formula 1): Finally, based on the value of the index (coefficient) of innovative development, an integral national rating is built. A comparative analysis of this indicator for neighboring countries in the Arctic region would make it possible to make a rating of Russia and assess its development opportunities against the background of other mentioned states.
The study was carried out by the method of system comparative analysis. The study was conducted at two hierarchical levels: an integral categorical and a sub-category approaches. The data for the analyzed time period from 2017 to 2021 were analyzed for three geographical subjects competing in the Arctic region: Russia, Norway and Sweden [9,10,12].
The object of the study is statistical data obtained from publicly available sources The array of statistical data being analyzed is a collection of objects (IDI) and features (categories and subcategories) that describe them.
The interval scale has an important parameter for describing the analyzed data array: defined zero.
The absolute scale assumes that the measurements in it can be used as an indicator of the degree or base of the logarithm: the quality of life index, etc.
The methods of parametric statistics assumed that a random vector of variables forms some multidimensional distribution and is transformed into a normal distribution.
By means of comparative analysis, the factor analysis was carried out. It involved quantifying the magnitude of the effect of the analyzed factors, identifying the most significant one. Thus, it became possible to understand the nature (causal mechanism) of the studied phenomenon. Thus, the predictive values of the analyzed functions were identified with the assigned range of factor values during a computational experiment in order to obtain average time forecasts. By means of factor analysis, the number of variables was reduced based on the classification of the significance of variables and the determination of the magnitude of the relations between them.
Comparisons of the average data from various sources were also carried out by means of a one-factor analysis of variance, in which the dependence of the quantitative attribute on the qualitative characteristics of the analyzed factors was investigated.
Based on the measurement of various features of a certain object, in order to assign it to one of the specified groups, the study used multidimensional parametric discriminant analysis for the empirical classification of multidimensional situational observations. Differences (discrimination) were formulated as follows (Formula 3).
where X 1 , X 2 , ..., X K are features of an object Verification of the consistency of the taken object belonging to the empirical classification was carried out by measuring the minimum probability of false classification. In parametric discriminant analysis, the distribution of feature vectors in each totality always occurs normally, although there is no information about the parameters of this distribution.
Correlation-correlation functions identified in previous analysis methods served as the basis for cause-effect structural modeling of changes in the analyzed functions (SEPATH) [13]. By means of SEPATH, causal relationships were established between the elements of the analyzed system of functions for the analyzed period 2017-2021.

Integral categorial approach
At this level, the research examined the integrated values of the innovation development index (IDI) for each of the three countries: Russia, Norway and Sweden. The categories that make up the essential content of the specified index were also analyzed at this level. Table 1 shows the categorial values involved in the calculation of the IDI of the Russian Federation for the last five years and the integral values of this coefficient for the same period. To understand the nature of national development in the innovation field, the value of the chain index of dynamics of each indicator averaged over the same time is provided. Based on the numerical value of the coefficient of innovative development, Russia ranks 45th (2021) among 132 countries. In comparison with 2020, its rating has risen by 2 points.
The dynamics of innovative development over the past five years shows that in Russia, innovative development has a stable trend conditioned by the preservation of the value of the studied coefficient. Among the components of its content, the values of the indicator 'Business environment' (1.03) and the degree of market development (1.01) are changing the most actively, and the least dynamics in the analyzed period is demonstrated by the indicator of the degree of business development (0.94).
At the same time, according to the value of the indicator of the business environment, Russia occupies only 67th place in the world ranking, and for this reason its leading dynamics would positively affect the integral value of the overall development index in future. The indicator of the degree of market development with slightly greater dynamics in the total value of the calculated index of innovative development also significantly lags behind the integral rating in the world ranking of this category (61st place).
One should point out that the category 'Human resource and scientific researc" in the world ranking within its category has a significant gap from the values of this indicator among other countries: the 23rd place in the world ranking. The stability of the values in this category in the last five years is a good sign of the sustainability of the innovative development in Russia. This category of indicators has led to the fact that Russia has fallen into the quartile of countries with an 'above average' level of innovative development.
At the same time, the subcategories of the number of university graduates in natural and technical sciences enrolled in universities and the level of higher education in the country have very significant positions in the world rankings: 13th, 14th and 15th places respectively. Hopefully, in the near future these subcategories would lead to a noticeable increase in both their category and in the rating of the integral index (coefficient) of innovative development of Russia. Table 2 shows the IDI calculation data (2017-2021) for Norway. Norway ranks 20th in the innovation development ranking, the same as a year ago. The Arctic region for this country is the most important priority of both domestic and foreign policy. The government allocates huge funds for the implementation of projects in the Far North. The Arctic territory of Norway collectively has an area of 0.746 million square kilometers and includes: • Nordland province on the mainland; • Troms province on the mainland; • Finnmark province on the mainland; • Svalbard Archipelago; • Jan Mayen Island.
By 2021, the value of the integral index (coefficient) of innovative development has significantly deteriorated compared to 2017 (56.4 and 57.7 points respectively). These changes are associated with a pandemic from 2020 to the present. Considering the categories that make up the studied index (coefficient), it can be noted that Norway has a fairly well-developed Infrastructure of the country and its business environment (1st and 3rd place in the world ranking respectively), which is significantly higher compared to Russia (63 and 67 places respectively). The distinctive value of the category 'Human resource and scientific research' for Russia (23rd place in the world ranking) lags significantly behind the similar value of Norway (13th place). Table 3 shows the values of the analyzed IDI indicator and its constituent categories for Sweden for the same period (2017-2021). Sweden occupies a leading place among the three studied countries of the Arctic region, taking the 2nd place in the world ranking in terms of the value of the innovation development index. Sweden is one of the countries that has been ranked 2nd in this ranking for several years. However, considering the values of the coefficient in dynamics over 5 years, it is possible to notice fluctuations, which in 2021 significantly decreased: 63.1 points against 66.3 in 2017. It is possible to associate these changes with the course of the pandemic in the period from 2020 to the present. In general, there is no strong reduction in the values of the indicators for the studied year.
Based on the data in Tables 1-3, it should be noted that in terms of both the integral index of innovation activity IDI and the values of its individual categories, Russia lags far behind the values of similar indicators in Norway and Sweden. In general, considering the trend of values over the years, it can be seen that all indicators of the studied indicators in all three countries are declining by 2021. The possible reason is the decline in economic activity during the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic. Table 4 presents a comparative analysis of the categories taken into account when calculating the IDI of the analyzed countries. The numerical value of the studied categories of Russia is taken as one. As can be seen, the minimum discrepancies are in the categories of 'Human resource and scientific research' (1.19 and 1.34 for Norway and Sweden, respectively) and 'Degree of market development' (1.2 and 1.35 for Norway and Sweden, respectively). This means that these categories of indicators of the innovation development index that Russia has opportunities to successfully compete with its neighbors in the Arctic region. Table 5 presents a comparative analysis of the subcategories of the innovation development index of the countries under study [13]. It should be noted that in the 'Innovative communications' sub-category, Russia is significantly ahead of its Arctic neighbors (0.24 and 0.4 for the values of the same indicator of Norway and Sweden respectively). The advance of Russia is also noticeable in the category of 'Higher education' (0.78 and 0.86 for the values of the same indicator of Norway and Sweden respectively). Finally, its superiority in the 'Trade, competition and scale of market' sub-category is very attractive for Russia (0.91 and 0.97 for the values of the same indicator of Norway and Sweden respectively).

Subcategorial approach
According to the 'Information and communication technologies' sub-category, Russia's position is in approximate parity with its Arctic neighbors (1.1 and 1.08 for the values of the same indicator of Norway and Sweden respectively).

Discussion
Based on the comparative analysis and calculations made, it is possible to distinguish the advantages of Russia in the IDI subcategories: • Russia's experience in the development of innovative ties is successful especially in cooperation between universities and the industrial sector in the field of R&D is quite well developed; the cluster system is most effectively developed, etc.; • the assimilation of knowledge (the use of knowledge in practice) in Russia is more effective than in Norway; • Russia successfully competes with the two Arctic neighbors in the sphere of forming a business environment. It is worth noting that these areas are promising for Russia, which should be given great attention.
Noting the subcategories in which Russia's position is weak, it is necessary to pay attention to: • financing of innovative development; • development of intangible assets; • implementation of the results of intellectual activity; • weak level of environmental sustainability.

Conclusion
The conducted systematic analysis of Russia's positions in the innovation sphere in comparison with its Arctic neighbors (Norway and Sweden) are ambiguous. On the one hand, Russia's position in the IDI world ranking is significantly lower than the countries analyzed in this article: it is 45th place, despite the fact that Norway has the 20th place in this ranking, and Sweden has the 2nd place. On the other hand, the multilevel analysis revealed Russia's unique competitive advantages among the analyzed countries. Thus, it was found that the minimum discrepancies in the values of the analyzed IDI categories fall on 'Human resource and scientific research' and 'Degree of market development'. In these IDI categories, Russia has open opportunities to compete successfully with its neighbors in the Arctic region.
Based on the results of a comparative analysis in the IDI subcategories, Russia's unique competitive advantages among the analyzed countries of its Arctic environment are revealed: the development of innovative links, cooperation between universities and the industrial sector in the field of R&D, the use of knowledge in practice, the formation of the business environment, etc. These types of activities are promising for Russia, and much attention should be paid to them.
The positions on which, as the results of this research have shown, it is inferior to its Arctic neighbors are valuable for the administration of the Arctic zones of the Russian Federation: financing of innovative development, development of intangible assets, realization of the results of intellectual activity, and the level of environmental sustainability. In these types of activities, Russia's position is weak in comparison with its regional competitors and it is necessary to strengthen the identified weaknesses in a short time to strengthen its sovereignty and competitive stability.
These data are new. The study discusses the key parameters of Russia's competitiveness in the innovation field among its neighbors in the Arctic region. Such information cannot be found in other publications. These parameters would be useful in the strategic planning of the development of this most important geopolitical space.
The minimum time period is from 2017 to 2021. These data can be used in strategic planning of the development of the Arctic region in the short and medium term.
Information is provided on the indicators of the competitiveness of the Russian position in the Arctic before and after the pandemic of the new coronavirus, which can be used to build a model of future crisis phenomena.