The main stage of market competition analysis is assessment of the degree of market exposure to competition processes based on an analysis of the main factors determining the intensity of competition.

Since the competitive environment is formed not only under the influence of the struggle of intra-industry competitors, to analyze competition in the market in accordance with M. Porter’s model, the following groups of factors are taken into account:

• rivalry among sellers competing in a given market (“central ring”) - industry situation;
• competition from substitute products - influence of substitute goods;
• the threat of new competitors emerging - ;
• positions of suppliers, their economic capabilities - supplier influence;
• consumer positions, their economic opportunities - buyer influence.

Each of the competitive forces under consideration can have a different impact on the situation in the industry, both in direction and in significance, and their total impact ultimately determines the characteristics of competition in the industry, the profitability of the industry, the company’s place in the market and its success.

The main factors determining the level of competition in the industry, combined into groups, as well as signs of their manifestation are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Competition factors in the industry market.

	Competition factors	Signs of manifestation of factors in the market
1. Industry situation
		There is a group of firms of equal power or there is one or more firms that are clearly superior in power to the one under study.
		Effective demand for goods is falling, the forecast is unfavorable.
		Competing firms are not specialized in types of goods. The company's product and competing products are practically interchangeable.
		The costs of switching a client from one manufacturer to another are minimal, i.e. the likelihood of the company's clients leaving for competitors and vice versa is high.
		The range of services provided by competing firms in the firm's industry for the product is generally identical.
		The costs of a company leaving the market for a given product are high (retraining of personnel, loss of a sales network, liquidation of fixed assets, etc.).
		The initial costs for launching work on the market for this product are low. The product on the market is standardized.
		The level of competition in related product markets is high (for example, for the furniture market, related markets are construction materials, house construction, etc.).
		Individual firms are implementing or are ready to implement an aggressive policy of strengthening their positions at the expense of other competitors.
		There is clearly expanding demand, great potential opportunities, favorable forecast
		The amount of capital required to enter the industry market is not high. Efficient production scale can be achieved quite quickly. Firms in the industry are not inclined to use aggressive strategies against "newcomers" and do not coordinate their activities within the industry to reflect expansion into the industry
		There are a large number of resellers in the industry market with weak connections to manufacturers. Creating your own distribution network or attracting existing intermediaries to cooperate does not require significant costs on the part of “newbies”
	Industry benefits	Enterprises in the industry do not have significant advantages over new competitors related to access to sources of raw materials, patents and know-how, fixed capital, convenient locations of the enterprise, etc.
3. Supplier influence
	Uniqueness of the supply channel	The degree of product differentiation among suppliers is so high that it is difficult or expensive to switch from one supplier to another.
	Buyer importance	Enterprises in the industry are not important (main) clients for supplier firms.
	Individual supplier share	The share of one supplier mainly determines the supply costs of producing a product (mono supplier).
4. Buyer influence
	Buyers status	There are few buyers in the industry. Basically, these are large buyers who buy goods in large quantities. Their consumption constitutes a significant percentage of all industry sales.
		Our product and similar products of our competitors are not an important component in the buyer’s purchase mix.
	Product standardization	The product is standardized (low degree of differentiation). The cost of switching buyers to a new seller is negligible.
		Lower prices and the availability of substitute products create a price ceiling for our industry's products.
	Switching cost	The cost of “switching” to a substitute product (costs of retraining personnel, correcting technological processes, etc. for the client when switching from our product to a substitute product) is low.
	Quality of the main product	Maintaining the required quality of our product requires higher costs than for a substitute product

Thus, it becomes possible to assess the significance of factors according to the degree to which their symptoms manifest themselves in the market of the product under study and draw a conclusion about the general level of competition in this market.

Let us analyze the nature of the influencing factors included in the group " industry situation".

The number and power of firms competing in the market largely determine the level of competition. In principle, the intensity of competition is considered to be greatest when there are a significant number of competitors of approximately equal strength in the market, and it is not at all necessary that the competing firms be particularly large. However, this rule is not universal and is always true from the position of a company conducting market research. Thus, for a large company with powerful resources and numerous advantages, competition is, as a rule, only from companies of a similar size with similar capabilities. On the contrary, for a medium-sized and, especially, a small company, the presence of even one large competitor can be a significant obstacle to successful sales. It should be noted that the number of firms operating in the market, indicating a high degree of competition, can vary significantly depending on the industry, and even the field of activity.

Unification of product services in the industry reflects the ability of firms to expand the range of work and services in this field of activity. The presence in the market of a large number of competing firms with a high degree of diversification of services indicates the impossibility of moving into a “niche,” that is, avoiding competition through specialization in some work or services. Thus, a high degree of unification of product services in the industry tends to reduce competition in the market under study.

Change in effective demand in the market strengthens or weakens the effect of the first two factors. Indeed, an increase in volume softens, and a decrease, on the contrary, intensifies competition in the market.

The degree of standardization of the product offered on the market acts in the direction of intensifying competition. Indeed, when each manufacturer offers its own product model or its own set of services intended for one market segment, competition is reduced to a minimum. And, on the contrary, when all manufacturers produce homogeneous products intended equally for all consumers, competition between them is high. Of course, these are extreme cases. In practice, products in any market are differentiated to one degree or another, which does not eliminate competition, but only somewhat reduces the degree of competition.

Costs of switching a client from one manufacturer to another, especially with significant volumes of after-sales service, can to some extent reduce the level of competition threatening the supplier company. Indeed, pre-determined features of the supplied product may make it unprofitable or simply impossible to invite a third party to provide after-sales service.

Barriers to leaving the market work towards increasing competition in the market. If switching to another industry market or leaving a given area of ​​business is associated with significant costs (liquidation of fixed assets, loss of a sales network, etc.), then it is natural to expect greater persistence of firms being forced out of the market in the struggle for their positions.

Barriers to market entry are closely related to the previous factor and act in exactly the opposite direction, that is, increasing barriers helps reduce competition and vice versa. This is due to the need for significant investments, the need to acquire special knowledge and qualifications, etc. The barriers to penetration are higher, the greater the differentiation by type of technology, operational characteristics and other factors. In this case, existing firms have advantages over newly emerging competitors due to their focus on a specific customer, prestige and experience.

The situation in related product markets has a significant impact on competition in this market. A high level of competition in related product markets, as a rule, leads to an intensification of the struggle in this market.

Strategies of competing firms operating in the market are examined in order to identify differences and commonalities in the strategic settings of competitors. Thus, if most firms adhere to the same strategy, then the level of competition increases. On the contrary, if most firms pursue different strategies, the level of competition is relatively reduced.

Market attractiveness of this product significantly determines the level of competition. For example, a sharp increase in demand causes a rapid influx of competitors.

Now let’s look at how it affects the level of competition in the industry influence of potential competitors.

The severity of this threat depends on the magnitude of the barriers, that is, the difficulties and costs which a “newbie” has to overcome compared to the “old-timers” of the industry.

Factors that reduce pressure from new competitors are: the need for initial capital to penetrate the industry; efficient scale of production, temporarily unattainable for a beginner; difficult access to distribution channels, etc.

Supplier influence manifests itself as follows. Suppliers interact with firms, exerting a direct influence on them, which increases in the following cases:

• Suppliers' products are highly differentiated or unique, making it difficult for the buyer to switch suppliers;
• firms in the industry are not important clients for the supplier;
• costs of switching to another supplier.

Supplier pressure can be reduced by creating alternative supply channels.

Buyers can greatly influence the strength of competition in the industry. This power increases in the following cases:

• products are standardized and not differentiated;
• the purchased goods do not occupy an important place in the buyer’s priorities;
• the buyer has good information about all possible suppliers.

The influence of buyers weakens with the expansion of the boundaries of the industry market, differentiation and specialization of the product, coordination of the efforts of industry producers, and the absence of substitute products.

Scientific and technological progress predetermines the emergence substitute goods- new goods and services that can successfully perform the functions of traditional goods. The pressure from firms producing substitute goods is that the prices and availability of substitutes create a price ceiling for essential goods when the price of the essential goods is above that ceiling.

Competition from substitutes depends on whether it is easy or difficult for consumers to reorient to it, and what the cost of reorientation is. The lower the price of the substitute, the lower the cost of reorientation to the substitute, and the higher the quality of the product, the greater the pressure of competitive forces from substitutes.

Each of the factors characterizing competition in the market (see Table 1) is assessed by experts on a point scale. Managers and leading specialists of the enterprise can be involved as experts. For example, if a factor, in the expert’s opinion, does not appear on the market or there are no signs of its manifestation, then the strength of manifestation of this factor is assessed as 1 point; if the factor is weakly manifested - 2 points; if the factor is clearly manifested - 3 points.

In addition, the factors considered have different effects on competition in the market. To take into account the relative importance of various factors, the specific “weight” of each of them is determined directly during the analysis.

The resulting assessment of the degree of influence of each of the five forces of competition in the market is a weighted average score:

Where b ij - score j - manifestation degree expert i -th factor;
n - number of experts;
k i - importance factor i -th factor
m

Based on the obtained weighted average score, the following conclusions are drawn (Fig. 1):

Fig.1. Assessing the degree of influence of competition on the market

the level of competition is very high

,

Where b max - a weighted average score corresponding to the case of a clear manifestation of competitive factors in the market, b avg - weighted average score corresponding to the case of weak manifestation of competitive factors in the market;

level of competitive strength is high, if the resulting weighted average score falls within the interval

;

moderate level of competitive strength, if the resulting weighted average score falls within the interval

,

Where b min - weighted average score corresponding to the case of non-existence of competitive factors in the market;

reduced level of competitive strength, if the resulting weighted average score falls within the interval

.

In addition, at the stage of analysis of competition factors, a forecast of the development of competition in the market is carried out based on forecast estimates of changes in the effect of each factor. The predictive assessment of changes in the effect of a factor corresponds, for example, to the following point estimates: “+1” - if the effect of the factor will increase, “0” - will remain stable, “-1” - will weaken.

Based on the obtained expert assessments of the forecast for the development of each of the factors, a weighted average assessment of the forecast for the development of competitive forces in the market is determined:

Where with ij - score j -th development forecast expert i -th factor;
n - number of experts;
k i - importance factor i -th factor
m - number of factors considered.

In the case when the weighted average estimate of the forecast falls within the interval (0.25; 1), a conclusion is drawn about increasing the level of competitive strength in the market, (-0.25; 0.25) - level of competition strength will remain stable, (-1; -0,25) - will go down(Fig. 2).

Fig.2. Assessment of the forecast for the development of the level of competition in the market

An example of using the technique

We will illustrate the use of the considered methodology using the example of assessing the level and forecast of competition for the market of standardized structures as one of the markets for the products of Metal-Profil CJSC.

In the example under consideration, the exposure of the specified market to competition processes is assessed based on an analysis of the main factors determining the intensity of competition. A forecast of the state of competition is given.

Information on this section was obtained through a survey of experts - managers and leading specialists of the enterprise.

The state and forecast of changes in competition factors in the market for standardized steel structures, obtained as a result of processing expert information, are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Competition factors in the market for standardized steel structures.

	Competition factors	Expert review	Factor change forecast
1. Industry situation
	Number and power of firms competing in the market	weakly manifested	will remain stable
	Change in effective demand	does not appear	will remain stable
	The degree of standardization of the product offered on the market	weakly manifested	will remain stable
	Costs of switching a client from one manufacturer to another	clearly manifested	will remain stable
	Unification of product services in the industry	weakly manifested	will remain stable
	Barriers to exiting the market (company costs for re-profiling)	clearly manifested	will remain stable
	Barriers to market entry	weakly manifested	will remain stable
	The situation in related product markets (markets for goods with similar technologies and areas of application)	clearly manifested	will definitely increase
	Strategies of competing firms (behavior)	weakly manifested	will remain stable
	Market attractiveness of this product	clearly manifested	will definitely increase
2. Influence of potential competitors
	Difficulties in entering the industry market	weakly manifested	will remain stable
	Access to distribution channels	weakly manifested	will remain stable
	Industry benefits	weakly manifested	will remain stable
3. Supplier influence
	Uniqueness of the supply channel	weakly manifested	will remain stable
	Buyer importance	weakly manifested	will remain stable
	Individual supplier share	weakly manifested	will remain stable
4. Buyer influence
	Buyers status	weakly manifested	will remain stable
	The importance of the product to the buyer	weakly manifested	will remain stable
	Product standardization	clearly manifested	will remain stable
5. The influence of substitute products
		clearly manifested	will remain stable
	Switching cost	clearly manifested	will remain stable
	Quality of the main product	clearly manifested	will remain stable

Intensity of competition - this is the degree of opposition from competitors in the struggle for consumers and new market niches, one of the most important characteristics of the activity of the competitive environment of an enterprise.

Competitive forces / elements of competition / are not isolated from each other and have a cumulative effect that manifests itself in market situations, so it is difficult to separate them into individual components, which complicates the assessment of the interaction of these elements.

The intensity of competition cannot be accurately determined due to the difficulty of directly assessing the interaction of factors in the competitive environment; therefore, only an average measurement of the intensity of competition is possible; based on the analysis, three aggregated factors were identified.

Aggregate factors determining the intensity of competition :

1. The nature of the distribution of market parts between competitors

2. Market growth rate

3. Market profitability.

Distribution of market parts between competitors and intensity of competition:

1. Quadruple competition indicator CR4

To assess the nature of the distribution of parts of the market between competitors, they usually use an indicator that reflects the degree of competition in production in the industry - four-part competition indicator CR4. It allows you to assess the degree of market monopolization and is the inverse of the intensity of competition.

CR4=(OP1+OP2+OP3+OP4)/OP

OR – the total volume of sales of products of a given range, expressed in monetary units;

OR1 – sales volume of the i-th enterprise;

OP1 = max (OP1) for all i=1….n;

OP2 = max (OP2) for all i=1-(n-1);

OP3 = max (OP1,OP2) for all i=1-(n-2);

OP4 = max (OP1,OP2,OP3) for all i=1-(n-3);

n – total number of enterprises that sell these products /=4/.

CR4represents the common part of the first 4 enterprises on the market that sell the maximum volume of products in the total volume of sales in this market. If CR4 exceeds 75%, then this market is considered as an object of monopolization and restrictions must be introduced.

A significant disadvantage of the competition indicator is its insensitivity to various options for dividing parts between competitors. For example, CR=0.8, if one enterprise controls 77% of the market, and the other three control 1% each; in the same way, CR = 0.8 if four equally powerful enterprises each own 20% of the market.

Herfindahl index — assessment of the division of market parts using the sum of squares of competitors’ market parts.

In= ∑ Di 2 , if Di is in % or

In = 10000∑ Di 2 , if Di is in fractions

Di is part of the i-th enterprise in the total volume of sales of products of this range

Di=OPi/OP, 1

0

In=1 – with absolute monopoly.

In an industry where there are 100 equal enterprises with equal shares In=0.01.

If the value of In exceeds 0.18, then the market has high concentration, i.e. low intensity of competition; the market requires the influence of the state to normalize the situation in it.

Market profitability and intensity of competition:

1. Market profitability ratio

2. Lerner coefficient

3. Indicator of competition intensity

Market profitability ratio - an economic factor that determines the intensity of competition, which is expressed by the ratio of the total profit received by an enterprise in a given market to total sales:

Рр = P/OR

A market with a high degree of profitability is characterized by an excess of demand over supply. With a decrease in business profitability, the situation changes to the opposite.

Lerner coefficient - displays the seller’s ability to influence the price of the product:

L = (C - MC) / C = -1/En

P – price of the product;

MC – marginal costs for the production and sale of goods;

En is the elasticity of demand for the price of the goods that the enterprise produces.

The higher the Lerner coefficient, the stronger the power of the enterprise in the market, which means the less the enterprise depends on competitors, suppliers, and consumers.

The degree of competition varies in different markets and depends on the number of sellers and buyers; availability and accessibility of reliable information; opportunities for easy market access for other businesses; degree of product homogeneity. According to the theory of the American economist and Harvard University professor Michael Porter, competition, including in the global market, is a dynamic, developing process based on innovation and constant updating of technology. He identified five competitive forces that create a competitive climate and determine the level of profit in an industry. This:

1) penetration of new competitors;

2) the threat of the appearance on the market of substitute goods (substitute goods) produced using a different technology;

3) buyers' capabilities;

4) supplier capabilities;

5) rivalry between companies that have already established themselves in the market.

The threat of new competitors is reflected in a decrease in the overall level of profitability of the industry, because new enterprises enter the industry with additional production capacity, which causes an increase in supply and a decrease in prices. There are certain barriers to entry of new competitors into the market. But nevertheless, the threat of new competitors entering is high. For example, suppliers of imported agricultural products seek to win market shares from domestic enterprises in the agricultural sector, which intensifies competition.

The emergence of substitute products limits the profitability of an industry by placing a ceiling on the prices that businesses can charge for their products. But due to the fact that there is no alternative to grain as a natural product, we believe that the threat of the emergence of substitute products can be ignored.

Large buyers or suppliers, in the process of trading, can impose unfavorable deals on enterprises in the industry, which causes a decrease in profits. In agriculture, buyers of products (mainly powerful processing enterprises, for example, elevators), as well as suppliers of equipment or fertilizers (large engineering and chemical enterprises), are stronger than agricultural enterprises. This inequality of power leads to the fact that prices for industrial products consumed in the agricultural sector grow faster than prices for agricultural products, and this again reduces profits.

A company can determine its own strengths and weaknesses by analyzing the forces that influence competition in a given industry and the reasons behind them. As competition intensifies, industry enterprises have to increase advertising and marketing costs and invest large sums in upgrading production capacities.

These elements of the competitive environment act together and change the level of intensity of competition. Among the factors that determine the intensity of competition between companies operating on the market, M. Porter, first of all, notes “a large number of competitors or the approximate equality of their strengths.

G.L. Azoev, in assessing the interaction of factors in the competitive environment, also considers the nature of the distribution of market shares between competitors. The second factor is the market growth rate; and the third is market profitability.

We used the theoretical conclusions of M. Porter and the methodology of G.L. Azoev to determine the level of intensity of competition in the grain market. Taking into account the specifics of the grain sector of the agricultural economy, the methodology used was revised and supplemented.

According to scientists dealing with this problem, “the greatest competitive activity is observed when the shares are approximately equal.” Because in this case, the strategies of enterprises often coincide and this leads, with “equal power of enterprises,” to a conflicting state of the market, and the intensity of competition increases. In a competitive market, an agricultural producer strives to obtain the greatest profit. Therefore, first of all, the company tries to increase its share in total sales. The share of an enterprise in the total volume, according to economic theory, depends on:

Numbers of competitors;

Supply and demand relationships;

Competitiveness of enterprises;

Product competitiveness.

Using “changes in the degree of similarity of market shares of competitors” through the coefficient of variation, the intensity of competition is determined, under the influence of the first factor of the three listed above.

I D = 1 – B(D) / D avg, (1)

where: I D is the intensity of competition in the product market under consideration, measured based on an assessment of the degree of similarity of competitors’ shares;

B(D) /D av – coefficient of variation of market shares (D i) of competitors;

B(D) – standard deviation D i;

D av – arithmetic mean value of D i;

n is the number of enterprises in the product market under consideration.

The development of supply and demand over time can be expressed in the growth rate of sales volume. When measuring the intensity of competition, this must be taken into account. “High rates, for example, in rapidly developing markets, ensured by the growing demand and supply of goods, push into the background many problems, including competition. This happens mainly due to the fact that the increase in the market shares of enterprises does not occur at the expense of competitors, but by increasing the number of consumers or the volume (multiplicity) of purchases to existing consumers. In this situation, the intensity of competition decreases." Based on business practice, the values ​​of the competition intensity indicator are distributed, taking into account the growth rate of sales volumes in the market under consideration (ITR) in the range from 70% to 140%.

AND TR = 1 – (T p – 70) / (140 – 70), (2)

where T r is the annual growth rate of sales volume on the product market under consideration without taking into account the inflation component, %.

We believe that in relation to agricultural production this formula needs to be improved and presented in the following form:

AND TP =1-(T p -k min) / (k max -k min), (3)

where k max, k min can be established empirically for a specific product market, considering the dynamics of grain sales over a long period of time.

According to L.G. Azoev, a market with high profitability (P r) is characterized by an excess of demand over supply. “The higher the profitability, the lower the competitive pressure and, therefore, the lower the intensity of competition and vice versa.” This conclusion can be summarized as a formula:

I r = 1 – P / F = 1 – R r, (4)

where I p is an indicator of the intensity of competition, taking into account the level of market profitability.

P – total profit;

Ор – total sales volume.

It seems to us advisable for agricultural production, which is highly dependent on weather and climatic conditions, to make an adjustment in this formula to the level of profitability at which expanded reproduction becomes possible. According to many agricultural economists, a 20 percent level can be considered as such. Then the formula will take the form:

1) And r = (1-R r) + (20 / 100 – R r), (5)

2) And р = (1-Р р) x (1 + (20 / 100 –Р р)), (6)

Competition practice shows that most changes in the competitive environment are reflected “in the dynamics of competitors’ market shares, growth rates and market profitability,” therefore, “for the convenience of conducting a comparative analysis of the intensity of competition in various markets (market segments) and assessing their attractiveness (from a competitive point of view activity) it seems useful to operate with a generalized characteristic of the intensity of competition.

where Ik is a generalized intensity indicator, 0 ≤ Ik ≤ 1".

To determine the intensity of competition, we propose to also take into account the influence of product quality. If the products are of approximately the same quality, the intensity of competition will increase, since the consumer does not care from whom to purchase it. The greater the differences in product quality, the lower the intensity of competition, since high-quality products, being more competitive, will be sold first. Enterprises with low-quality products will suffer losses, and the intensity of competition will generally decrease.

We will determine the influence of quality on the intensity of competition using the known coefficient of variation.

where Q int. – the product of the credit coefficient /Q 1 / and the coefficient expressing the ratio of grain in weight after processing to grain in the initially received mass (Q 2);

Q av – average grain quality for the totality of agricultural enterprises;

n – number of enterprises.

Now the general coefficient of competition intensity can be calculated using the formula:

The generalized indicator of competition intensity varies from 0 to 1. It should be noted that the presented factors do not exhaust all possible directions of influence of the competitive environment on the intensity of competition.

As a result, the main significance of competition, with varying levels of intensity, is in the active orientation of enterprises to increase the competitiveness of their products, causing the functioning and development of a market economy.

Literature:

1. Azoev G.L. Competition: analysis, strategy and practice. – M.: Center for Economics and Marketing, 1996. – P.5, 41-45.

2. Porter M. International competition. / Per. from English; Under. ed. and with a foreword by V.D. Shchetinin. - M.: International. relations, 1993. – P.39.

Industry analysis is primarily an analysis of supply. It is based on the analysis of quantitative and qualitative factors of production. It is worth emphasizing the role of competition and competitors in the formation of supply: these phenomena more significantly affect supply volumes, quality of goods, prices, production costs, etc.

Analysis of the industry and the competitive environment in it should be carried out in a certain sequence.

Stages of industry analysis

1) selection and calculation of the main economic indicators (parameters) that most fully characterize the industry;

2) determining the competitive forces operating in the industry and their influence on the situation, conducting a competitive analysis;

3) identification of factors, driving forces that cause changes in the structure of competitive forces in the industry;

4) identification of enterprises that have the strongest and weakest competitive positions in the industry;

5) forecasting the most likely strategic moves of competitors;

6) identification of key factors for the success of an enterprise in competition;

7) making a final decision regarding the profitability and attractiveness of the industry (final stage).

Let's consider these stages in more detail.

At the first stage, industry parameters are calculated.

It is most fully characterized by the following:

The place of the industry in the national economy of the country;

Market size (annual production and sales);

Market dynamics (rate of change in%);

The stage of the life cycle at which the market is located (inception, rise, rapid growth, maturity, saturation, stagnation and aging, decline);

The number of competitors and their share, the scale of competition;

Number of buyers (clients) and their purchasing power;

Technological and innovative level of the industry (for example: technology is homogeneous, changes slowly; changes in quality, etc.);

Availability of entry into and exit from the industry (difficulties: start-up capital, administrative obstacles, monopolistic prices, etc.);

The degree of differentiation of competitors' products;

Possibility to save on production scale;

The level of production capacity utilization in the industry;

Raw materials markets;

Industry investment level;

Level and pace of innovation;

Industry profitability level (up to the average level for the country’s economy).

Table 4.9 provides examples of the strategic importance of industry economic characteristics.

Table 4.9. EXAMPLES OF THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDUSTRY

Economic characteristics	Strategic importance
Market size	Small markets do not attract large/new competitors; Broad markets often attract the attention of corporations who are interested in attracting companies with strong competitive positions in a given industry
Market growth rate	Rapid growth facilitates market penetration, slowing growth leads to the exit of the weakest firms from the market
Excess or shortage of capacity	Excess production capacity leads to falling prices and profits, reduction in capacity leads to growth
Industry profitability	High profitability promotes the emergence of new companies on the market, low profitability leads to a reduction in the number of companies
Barriers to entering or exiting the market	High barriers protect the positions of firms already operating in the market; low barriers will make their positions vulnerable to newcomers.
Price is the most important factor for buyers	More buyers purchase at lower prices
Standard Products	Buyers have an advantage because they can more easily switch from one seller to another
Rapid technological change	The risk increases: investments under these conditions may turn out to be unproductive due to rapid obsolescence
Starting capital requirements	High requirements for the size of start-up capital is a significant barrier to entry and exit from the industry
Vertical integration	Increases start-up capital requirements, affects the nature of competition and the level of expenses in strongly and weakly integrated companies
Economies of scale	Increases production volume and market share needed to achieve competitive unit costs
Rapid product improvement	Reduces the product life cycle, increases the risk of competitors quickly introducing new product models to the market

The second important stage of industry analysis is to determine the competitive forces and competitive position of an enterprise in the industry, or, as it is also called, competitive analysis.

Competitive analysis is performed in the following sequence: first, the main competitive forces in the industry are determined, and later the general main alternatives of competitive strategies are formed.

M. Porter, a professor at Harvard Business School, is considered a generally recognized leader in the development of approaches to competitive analysis.

The forces of competition in the industry according to M. Porter are the following (Fig. 4.4): competitors who are already firmly entrenched in the industry; potential (possible, new) competitors; threats from substitute goods (substitutes); suppliers (sellers); clients (buyers, consumers).

Rice. 4.4. V

The importance of each of these five factors varies from industry to industry and ultimately determines the profitability of industries and enterprises. In industries where these factors work favorably, multiple competitors can earn high returns on their invested capital. In those industries where at least one, and even more so several factors act unfavorably, not all enterprises manage to maintain high profits.

The five competitive forces determine the profitability of an industry because they influence the prices a business can command, the costs a business must incur, and the amount of capital investment required to compete in the industry. Therefore, by changing its strategy, a company can influence these forces in its favor.

Let us take a closer look at the influence of the five forces of competition on the activities of an enterprise.

Threat of new competitors reduces overall profitability potential because they bring new production capacity into the industry and seek market share, thereby reducing profit potential. The competitive strength of this factor is highly dependent on the height of barriers to entry (the cost of entry into the industry). There are three main sources of such barriers:

Customer brand loyalty;

Absolute cost advantages;

Economies of production scale.

All this creates significant difficulties for companies that start production.

Availability of substitute products limits the price that businesses competing in the industry can charge, higher prices will push buyers to turn to a substitute, which will reduce the industry's output.

Pressure from suppliers lies in their threat to raise prices, forcing companies to reduce output and, therefore, profits. The most powerful pressure from suppliers is in the following cases:

The product supplied has practically no substitutes and is important for the company;

Companies in the industry are of little importance to suppliers;

Suppliers exploit the threat of vertical integration. The ability of buyers to "bargain" poses the threat of pressure on prices due to the need for better quality or service. Consumers are most powerful in the following situations:

The industry supplying the goods consists of many small companies and few buyers;

Buyers make purchases in large quantities;

The industry depends on buyers for most of its activities;

Buyers can choose between supplying industries based on the criterion of minimum prices, which increases price competition in the industry;

When, from an economic point of view, purchases from different companies are considered as a single whole for buyers.

Rivalry between existing companies in the industry also reduces profitability, therefore, in order to maintain competitiveness, it is necessary to incur additional costs (advertising, sales organization, research and development work) or the profit “flows out” to the buyer due to lower prices.

The significance of each of the five competitive factors is determined by the structure of the industry, that is, its basic economic and technical characteristics. Each sector of the economy is unique and has a structure unique to it.

The structure of the industry is relatively stable, but can still change over time. Taking into account the structure of the industry is reflected in solving the problem of its competitiveness.

Intensity of competition in the industry distinguished by the following types: attractive-weak, moderate, intense, persistent. Competition is said to be intense if competitors' actions reduce average profits in the industry. Moderate competition occurs when most businesses earn profits close to the industry average. Weak - when most enterprises can make above average profits by investing only in production.

Factors influencing the intensity of competition in the industry

a) a large number of competing enterprises with approximately the same sales volumes, which increases the likelihood of strategic initiatives;

b) slow growth of demand (increases the intensity of competition);

c) business conditions in the industry (may encourage competitors to lower prices or other methods of increasing sales volumes);

d) the costs of buyers when switching from the production of one brand to another (low - make it easier for consumers to intercept competitors' products);

e) dissatisfaction of several market participants with their position in it (may prompt them to take aggressive actions);

f) increased competition is proportional to the growth of profits from successful strategic decisions, attracting the attention of all market participants to them;

yes) competition becomes intense when the costs of exiting a given market are higher than remaining in it and taking part in the competition;

g) competition increases when large companies buy a weak enterprise in a given industry and take drastic measures to prevent bankruptcy.

An industry is attractive from the point of view of generating large profits if competitive forces do not significantly affect the situation in it. The ideal competitive environment for high profits is one in which suppliers and buyers have a weak bargaining position, there are no quality substitutes, barriers to entry are high, and competition is moderate. However, if at least one of the competitive forces is strong, the industry will become attractive only to those enterprises whose strategy works sufficiently against the pressure of this competitive force and at the same time allows for above-average profits.

The third stage of industry analysis.

At the third stage of industry analysis determine the driving forces that will lead to the greatest influence and nature of changes in the structure of competitive forces in the strategic period. Most often, these driving forces can be:

Drastic changes in legislation and economic policy of the state;

A sharp change in aggregate demand;

The emergence of new products;

Significant technological changes;

Significant innovation, dissemination of know-how;

Significant changes in marketing;

The emergence or exit of large enterprises in the industry;

Significant globalization of the industry;

Significant changes in cost structure or productivity;

The transition of consumer preferences from standard products to differentiated ones or vice versa;

Significant changes in the social system, value orientations and other macroenvironmental factors;

Changes in industry economic development trends;

Changes in the composition of consumers and ways of using the product;

Significant changes in the influence of uncertainty and risk factors.

Taking into account these driving forces, strategies are being developed that would soften their impact on the enterprise, even cause a reverse influence of the enterprise on competitive forces, and provide its advantage in the competitive struggle.

The fourth stage of industry analysis.

At the fourth stage group all enterprises according to their competitive position in the industry, determine the strongest and weakest, that is, draw up a map of strategic groups.

Experience shows that enterprises that operate in the same industry are not always actually competitors, and real competition is fought between enterprises belonging to the same strategic group.

Strategic group of competitors is a group of enterprises in an industry that occupy close positions in the market and compete with each other on the basis of the same competitive advantages, using similar methods.

One strategic group, for example, includes enterprises that have the same size, product range, the same sales channels and customers with similar competitive advantages, have the same strategic guidelines, operate in the same geographic area, etc.

So, it is necessary to determine which strategic group the enterprise belongs to and identify enterprises in this group that have stronger competitive positions in order to develop an appropriate strategy. In addition, for the same purpose, they determine the level and type of competition between strategic groups of enterprises in the industry, identifying which of them have strong competitive positions.

At the fifth stage of industry analysis and the competitive environment in it, the most likely behavior of the enterprise’s strategic competitors is predicted so as not to compete blindly. This is the most difficult, although the most important component of microenvironment analysis.

To this end, attention is focused and data is collected to assess the potential of each competitor to perform better or worse than others. At the same time, attention is paid to the fact that radical strategic steps should be expected from aggressive competitors. Competitors who are satisfied with their current position will try to maintain it by making only minor changes to the current strategy. Weak enterprises will take either defensive steps or offensive, aggressive ones. Analysts should study whether the competitor is capable of taking decisive steps, whether he has the capabilities and desire for this, he is only able to adhere to the chosen strategy, only slightly adjusting it. This analysis should result in effective countermeasures.

At the sixth stage of industry analysis and competition are determined by the key success factors (KSF) of the enterprise.

To detect CFU, you can, in particular, use G. Grant’s methodology, according to which you need to ask and answer two questions: 1. What do buyers want? 2. How to survive in competition?

Based on the answers to these two questions, industry-specific

The seventh and final stage of industry analysis and the competitive environment is to assess the situation as a whole and determine the attractiveness or unattractiveness of the industry, both currently and in the strategic period, according to the following criteria:

Stability of demand;

Sensitivity to the influence of industry driving forces;

Weakening (increasing) the influence of competitive forces;

The severity of the challenges facing the industry as a whole;

Degree of uncertainty and risk;

Growth (decrease) in industry profitability.

Such a large-scale analysis of the industry and competitive environment is carried out not only when developing a strategy, but also every 1-3 years. In between, clarification and monitoring are carried out. There is no other way. A stop threatens the collapse of the strategy.

conclusions

The formation of an effective strategy requires a comprehensive study of the state of the enterprise environment, which is the goal of strategic analysis, which is specified in its following tasks: identification and assessment of strategic potential; assessment of market attractiveness; determining the strategic position of the enterprise.

First of all, it is necessary to identify internal variables that characterize those internal capabilities and the potential that an enterprise can count on in competition in the process of achieving its goal.

Ensuring that the strategy and overall policies of an enterprise are correctly defined requires identifying and clarifying the opportunities and threats that may arise for the enterprise in the future, which is the task of opportunity and threat analysis. To carry it out, the following methods are used: SWOT analysis, SNW analysis, STEP and PEST analysis, ETOM.

Each industry develops its own competitive environment. That is why an enterprise must correctly assess its competitors and their interests, the industry (or industries) in which it operates, in order to develop the most effective competitive strategies that would ensure its high competitiveness and competitive stability.

The purpose of industry analysis is to determine the attractiveness of the industry and its individual product markets. Such an analysis allows us to understand the structure and dynamics of the industry, its characteristic opportunities and existing threats, identify key success factors and, on this basis, develop a strategy for the enterprise’s behavior in the market.

Bondarenko I.V., graduate student of the Siberian Institute of Management - branch of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Novosibirsk, irina_bondarenko87@maii.ru

The article analyzes the ranking of Russian regions by the degree of competition intensity and the state of the competitive environment based on information from the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation (FAS Russia). The algorithm for the formation of each of the composite sub-ratings included in the FAS Russia rating is considered. Indicators have been defined and time periods included to assess the competitive environment of the regions in various aspects have been identified. Some methodological errors were identified when compiling the FAS Russia rating. To analyze the objectivity of the given results of the rating of regions according to the state of the competitive environment and the intensity of competition, a correlation analysis of the results of the rating of the FAS of Russia and the ratings of Russian regions, characterizing the socio-economic situation and the degree of favorable investment climate in the regions, was carried out. To assess the closeness of the relationship between the three ratings, the Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated (in pairs for composite sub-ratings), and to assess the degree of consistency of the conclusions expressed in the composite sub-ratings, the Kendal concordance coefficient was calculated. Based on the analysis of the methodology for compiling the FAS Russia rating and the use of statistical analysis methods for comparing ranking values, the necessary methodological changes in compiling the rating of the state of the competitive environment of Russian regions were identified.

Introduction

Since 2006, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia (hereinafter referred to as FAS Russia) has been preparing and submitting to the Government of the Russian Federation a report on the state and development of competition in the country. The report reflects the main indicators of the state of the competitive environment, trends in the development of competition in various industrial and regional markets of Russia, the results of the work of the antimonopoly service and its territorial bodies on the protection, stimulation and advocacy of competition, as well as on the implementation of state competition policy and control over the implementation of antimonopoly legislation Russia. In addition to summing up the results, the annual reports of the FAS Russia reflect the main areas of work in the field of

the importance of stimulating competition, developing competitive processes and the competitive environment in Russia. In the works of S. I. Avdasheva, N. Volchkova [Volchkova, 2014] A. G. Shastitko, I. V. Knyazeva, questions about existing methods for assessing the state of competitive processes and diagnosing entrepreneurial activity were repeatedly considered [Knyazeva, Lukashenko, 2009] .

The problem is that currently most existing empirical methods for assessing the competitive environment take the form of surveying business entities on the intensity of competition and the degree of favorable business climate. However, assessing the purely subjective perception of the intensity of competition on the part of business representatives does not fully reflect the state of the competitive environment due to

certain methodological omissions when compiling surveys [Knyazeva et al., 2014]. Thus, there is a need to use an integrated approach to assessing the state of competition in the regions, which would allow, on the one hand, to take into account the diversity of indicators of the state of the competitive environment, and on the other hand, to ensure a comparison of all regions according to certain indicators. An effective tool for assessing the condition of objects is a rating, since it allows you to include a large number of indicators and factors in the assessment, as well as compare the objects under study for comparative analysis.

In order to systematize and visually present information on the state of the competitive environment in the regions of Russia, in 2012, President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin instructed the FAS Russia, together with the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, to ensure an annual assessment of the state of the competitive environment in the Russian Federation with the subsequent formation of a rating of subjects of the Russian Federation on the degree of intensity of competition and the state of the competitive environment and its presentation in the annual report of the FAS of Russia [Putin, 2012].

This issue received active discussion within the framework of the round table “Assessment of the state of competition and the competitive environment” at the Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation in 2014. Speeches by A. G. Tsyganov, A. G. Sushkevich, I. Knyazeva, N. Volchko- howl, A. Varlamova and other researchers in this area showed the difficulty of developing certain criteria and parameters, methodology and assessment technology [Transcript, 2014].

The purpose of this article is to systematically review the ranking of constituent entities of the Russian Federation according to the degree of competition intensity and the state of the competitive environment, and develop proposals

to improve the rating methodology.

The results of the study can be used by the Federal Antimonopoly Service in preparing the next annual ranking of regions according to the degree of competition intensity.

In a 2014 report, the FAS Russia presented the results of its work on assessing the state of competition and published the first rating of Russian regions by the degree of competition intensity and the state of the competitive environment (hereinafter referred to as the final rating).

The rating is based on aggregate indicators characterizing the state of regional markets and the degree of competition between firms competing in them, as well as the state of the institutional infrastructure and existing barriers [FAS, 2014].

According to the compilation methodology presented by the FAS of Russia, the final rating is formed on the basis of four ratings of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, reflecting various aspects of the state of competition in regional markets.

1. Rating “Markets” - regions of Russia were ranked on the basis of analytical reports of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia, characterizing the degree of economic concentration in individual product markets in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (the markets for fuels and lubricants (fuels and lubricants), markets for construction work were identified as the most important regional markets , reconstruction and major repairs of roads and artificial road structures, financial services markets, market for premises security services, market for repair and maintenance services for elevators).

Table 1. Rating of Russian Federation's regions by the degree of competition intensity and competitive environment

Krasnodar region 1 14 6 9 22

Belgorod region 2 21 12 22 19

Republic of Tatarstan 2 8 31 1 36

Kaluga region 2 10 46 9 9

Novosibirsk region 5 11 60 1 6

Tyumen region 6 1 8 30 48

Voronezh region 7 31 30 22 7

Moscow 7 2 7 14 66

Ryazan region 9 18 23 3 56

Kursk region 10 40 34 9 21

Smolensk region 11 56 14 6 30

Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) 11 18 16 30 43

St. Petersburg 13 4 35 14 59

Komi Republic 13 46 48 14 4

Primorsky Krai 15 37 26 35 17

Stavropol Territory 16 37 25 22 34

Orenburg region 16 34 45 9 29

Moscow region 16 6 44 55 14

Samara region 19 23 11 6 82

Sverdlovsk region 19 20 27 14 60

Republic of Kalmykia 19 48 9 55 11

Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria 22 72 4 30 22

Republic of Karelia 22 36 59 22 11

Kostroma region 24 32 32 14 57

Pskov region 25 32 21 66 18

Republic of Bashkortostan 26 54 13 35 39

Chelyabinsk region 26 30 42 35 35

Novgorod region 26 29 49 63 1

Chukotka Autonomous 26 15 72 42 14

Yamalo-Nenets 30 39 10 66 30

autonomous region

Bryansk region 30 79 41 22 5

Magadan region 30 12 43 79 14

Republic of Ingushetia 30 44 3 76 22

Khanty-Mansiysk 30 12 28 76 30

autonomous region

Saratov region 35 60 5 35 51

Irkutsk region 35 45 36 42 28

Lipetsk region 37 64 40 55 3

Continuation of the table. 1

Republic of Mordovia 37 76 19 30 38

Tomsk region 37 16 75 35 37

Republic of North Ossetia - Alania 37 81 18 55 10

Kemerovo region 37 41 54 14 54

Republic of Tyva 42 71 20 22 53

Rostov region 42 22 58 42 46

Republic of Dagestan 42 80 2 42 41

Krasnoyarsk region 42 5 73 14 76

Penza region 42 51 70 42 2

Vladimir region 47 62 39 22 48

Republic of Khakassia 47 43 62 3 62

Yaroslavl region 47 28 69 55 20

Republic of Adygea 50 53 15 35 70

Tver region 50 60 37 6 73

Omsk region 52 26 66 35 52

Karachay-Cherkess Republic 52 69 24 63 22

Kamchatka Territory 52 9 52 55 61

Altai Territory 55 58 47 5 73

Tambov region 55 50 51 14 67

Nizhny Novgorod region 55 24 56 22 79

Arkhangelsk region (including Nenets Autonomous Okrug) 55 48 65 42 27

Vologda region 59 7 33 79 71

Murmansk region 60 64 53 63 13

Republic of Mari El 61 73 17 30 81

Tula region 61 58 61 9 75

Sakhalin region 61 25 71 42 65

Kaliningrad region 61 3 67 66 68

Khabarovsk Territory 65 34 74 42 57

Chechen Republic 65 82 1 76 47

Perm region 67 17 79 55 64

Oryol region 68 57 63 55 44

Altai Republic 68 63 55 66 33

Transbaikal region 68 74 22 82 39

Republic of Buryatia 68 75 57 42 45

Volgograd region 68 51 29 66 71

Kirov region 73 41 64 42 78

Chuvash Republic 74 67 78 42 42

Leningrad region 74 27 81 66 55

Jewish Autonomous Region 76 78 82 66 8

* Source: Report of the FAS of Russia “On the state of competition in the Russian Federation” [FAS, 2014].

End of table. 1

Ulyanovsk region 77 47 76 42 83

Udmurt Republic 78 68 68 66 50

Astrakhan region 79 55 80 42 77

Kurgan region 80 77 50 66 69

Ivanovo region 80 66 38 79 79

Amur region 82 70 77 66 63

the current environment by the economic entities themselves.

4. “Macro” rating - a rating of regions, which is based on indicators that indirectly characterize the state of competition in the region (the number of entrepreneurs and business entities in relation to the population and the size of the gross regional product (GRP), the size and sign of the balance of the migration flow, etc. .).

The presented regional ratings reflect a multifaceted assessment of the intensity of competition in Russia, including both direct characteristics that objectively reflect the state of the competitive environment (degree of economic concentration) and indirect indicators indicating the development of competitive relations in the regions (the number of economic entities). In addition, the subjective opinion and perception by business entities of the intensity of competitive processes in regional markets based on materials from sociological surveys is included. The number and frequency of appeals to the territorial departments of the FAS of Russia regarding violations of antimonopoly legislation are indirect indicators reflecting the state of the competitive environment.

they characterize the state of the competitive environment in the regions. The construction of rating places, according to the opinion and intention of the developers, apparently involved the creation of some kind of integral rating assessing the state of the competitive environment in the regions (Fig. 1).

Methodological comment

According to the ranking methodology, each sub-rating was based on scaling indicators and ranking regions according to these indicators. The “Markets” sub-rating was based on the calculated indicators of the concentration coefficient for the three largest enterprises (CR3) and the Herfindahl-Hirschman coefficient (HH1) in the markets of gasoline, pharmacies, road construction, electric power and elevator repairs. The use of the concentration coefficient as a basic parameter for assessing the state of the market is quite logical, since this coefficient allows not only to compare different industries and markets by concentration level, but also to analyze the dynamics of concentration, to determine at the expense of which enterprises there is a regrouping of forces in the market, which is important when tracking the main regional trends in the rating in subsequent years. At the same time, in the author’s opinion, it is also justified to use the Herfindahl-Hirshman coefficient in ranking regions in the “Markets” sub-rating,

since the concentration coefficient has a certain “insensitiveness” to various options for the distribution of shares between competitors, while HH1 takes into account both the number of enterprises and the inequality of their position in the market.

However, an analytical assessment by the FAS of Russia and its territorial divisions of economic concentration and the degree of market monopolization is not carried out annually. In addition, not all analyzed markets have geographic boundaries that coincide with the borders of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. And since the “Markets” sub-rating includes the results of market analysis at different times (for the period 2010-2013), this leads to methodological incorrectness in constructing the rating due to the lack of time consistency.

availability of data taken to calculate the indicated indicators.

An important aspect of assessing the state of competition according to the “Markets” sub-rating is determining the type of market being analyzed. According to the methodology for creating a sub-rating proposed in 2015, regions characterized by the representation of certain markets with an average level of concentration (45%< CR3 < 70%, 1000 < НН1 < 2000), присваивается один штрафной балл, для регионов с высококонцентрированным рынком ^3 >70%, НН1 > 2000) - 3 penalty points. However, markets of average concentration are not always characterized by low intensity of competitive processes. In oligopolistic markets, business entities are actively competing, so the accrual

Penalty points for regions with such markets leads to a distortion of the real picture of the state of competition. To increase the objectivity of ranking regions by concentration indicators, in our opinion, it is more expedient to use a differentiated approach to assigning penalty points: for markets with an oligopolistic structure, without the obvious presence of a leader or dominant entity, penalty points should not be assigned, and in markets with a monopolistic structure structure, with the obvious presence of a dominant subject, provide for - 1 penalty point. I. V. Knyazeva spoke about this subtle methodological aspect at the round table “Assessing the state of competition and the competitive environment” [Knyazeva, 2014].

Since the main purpose of the rating is not only the ranking of territories as such, but rather the demonstration of the vector of changes, in the author’s opinion, it is necessary to include indicators characterizing the dynamics of the HH1 coefficient in the “Markets” sub-rating. Depending on the level of concentration in the market, a greater or lesser change in the HH1 coefficient in the reporting year compared to the base year may indicate a decrease or increase in the intensity of competition between business entities. Therefore, the accrual of penalty points for the “Markets” sub-rating is possible not only taking into account the assignment of a region to any group based on the level of concentration, but also based on its dynamics.

The rating of Russian regions according to the degree of intensity of competition and the state of the competitive environment has the form of a multifactor rating, therefore, in the author’s opinion, it is advisable to determine the relative importance of each sub-rating and parameter. The absence of weights for the composite sub-ratings leads to a distortion of the existing picture in the final rating. This is due to the fact that various indicators characterize the level of development of the competitive environment to varying degrees, and for an analyst from the perspective

In assessing the intensity of competition, indicators of the development of the macroenvironment are less important than indicators of the development of industry markets. For example, the Belgorod region takes 22nd and 19th places in the sub-ratings “Markets” and “Polls”, the Novosibirsk region takes 1st and 6th respectively, in the final ranking the Belgorod region takes 2nd place, and the Novosibirsk region takes 2nd place. 5th. Similar discrepancies are observed in a number of ranking places of many regions included in the analysis, and this is connected primarily, in the author’s opinion, exclusively with the equilibrium indicators by which the regions are assessed.

In this case, it is necessary to determine the weighting coefficients not only for each of the four component sub-ratings, but also for the indicators underlying the “Markets” and “Macro” sub-ratings, since they also have a multifactor form.

Thus, when compiling the final rating, it is advisable to conduct an expert assessment of the relative importance not only of each sub-rating, but also to assign weighting coefficients to each indicator in the group of indicators by which regions are ranked in the sub-ratings. This will provide the most accurate assessment of the competitive environment, taking into account the varying degrees of influence of one or another factor on the state of competition.

In order to assess the objectivity of the measurements taken, the degree of individuality or identity of the rating order, the objectivity of the parameters used, we will analyze the degree of correlation between the FAS Russia rating for assessing the intensity of competition and the state of the competitive environment and widely available, generally recognized ratings of Russian regions compiled by rating

agencies of the country. For the analysis, two ratings were selected that characterize the socio-economic development of the regions and their business/investment climate (for the purposes of this article, we used the assumption that the terms business and investment climate are synonymous in their economic sense).

These ratings of Russian regions were chosen for several reasons: firstly, the ratings are generally recognized, widely available and have been compiled over a long period of time. Secondly, it is obvious that the state of the competitive environment in the region directly affects the state of the business climate in the region, and therefore its socio-economic development, so it seems logical to assume that regions demonstrating a high level of socio-economic development and having favorable conditions for doing business, will have an effective competitive environment and intense competition between business entities.

Based on the understanding that the competitive environment largely characterizes the business climate in the region, which has a significant impact on the socio-economic situation of the region, it has been assumed that there is a high degree of correlation between these ratings and the final rating of the FAS Russia. However, Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between the final rating of the FAS of Russia and the rating of the socio-economic situation of the regions of Russia and the rating of investment attractiveness of the RA Expert, equal to 0.358 and 0.333, respectively, indicate a moderate close relationship between the ratings in question (Table 2), while the correlation coefficient Spearman's correlation between the rating of socio-economic status and investment attractiveness is 0.7913 (which indicates a high degree of correlation). The data obtained allow us to conclude that the final rating of the FAS of Russia does not quite correctly reflect the situation in the regions, which may be caused by a number of methodological omissions noted above in compiling the rating.

Table 2. Spearman correlation coefficients for the FAS Russia rating, the rating of the socio-economic situation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the rating of investment attractiveness of Russian regions

Table 2. Correlation between the Rating of Russian regions by the degree of competition intensity and competitive environment, by their socio-economic status and investment appeal

socio-economic status of the regions was identified in the “Macro” sub-rating, the Spearman coefficient was 0.441 and 0.609, respectively (see Table 2). According to the author, this is due to the fact that the methods for compiling the considered ratings and the Macro sub-rating use cross-sectional general economic indicators published by Rosstat.

At the same time, the sub-ratings “Statements” and “Polls” are absolutely inconsistent with the rating of the socio-economic situation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the rating of investment attractiveness of Russian regions (Spearman coefficients in all cases are negative and range from -0.041 to -0.091). This may be due to the incorrect compilation of the designated sub-ratings, since the “Polls” sub-rating is based only on the results of a survey of entrepreneurs in the construction industry. These results cannot be unambiguously transposed to other industry markets, which leads to a distortion of the overall picture of entrepreneurs’ assessment of the state of the competitive environment in the region.

Pairwise correlation analysis of the composite sub-ratings also showed a weak connection. The Spearman correlation coefficient between pairs of composite subranks ranges from -0.111 to 0.227,

which indicates the absence of actual parallelism between the four quantitative series of the presented sub-ratings. Different tools used in ratings often show diametrically opposite results (for example, according to the “Markets” rating, the Novgorod region takes 63rd place, and according to the “Polls” rating - 1st place; Tver region - 6th and 73rd e places respectively).

The low consistency of expert opinions in the conclusions expressed in the composite sub-ratings is also indicated by the low coefficient of multiple rank correlation. The Kendal concordance coefficient of the considered sub-ratings is 0.1024, which indicates a significant degree of dispersion in the opinions of the expert community when assessing the degree of competition intensity in the regions.

Such dispersion in the assessment is due to the fact that the initial data set for ranking regions in different sub-ratings are indicators of development of different markets and in different periods of time (Table 3).

In addition to the lack of temporal comparability in the compilation of the “Markets” sub-rating, in the compilation of the final rating there is also sectoral incomparability, since in different sub-ratings it is used as the analyzed material -

Study period Not specified Not specified 2010-2013 2013

Markets under study Without reference to individual markets Without reference to individual markets Gasoline, pharmacies, road construction, electricity, elevator repair Construction