The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences № 1/2026. World Economy and international economic relations. 

Denis S. Lesnoy

Postgraduate Student at the Institute of Europe of the RAS, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0009-0002-4589-598X

STRUCTURAL DIVERGENCE AND SECTORAL SPECIALIZATION OF EU ARCTIC

173-190

362.88 K

Full text

The article analyses the evolution of economic structures in the Arctic regions of the European Union – Northern and Eastern Finland, Central Norrland and Upper Norrland (Sweden) – in comparison with national economies in 2000–2023. The essential features of the EU’s northern periphery are established, manifested in low population density, resource dependence, and limited sectoral diversification. Indicators of overall structural divergence and localization coefficients of regional economies are calculated. The results show that all three regions maintain differentiated economic sector profiles compared to the national economies. A conclusion is made about the reasons for the structural divergence due to deep specialization in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and extractive industries. The economies of Northern and Eastern Finland show moderate convergence with the national economy as a whole, as well as gradual diversification, while Central Norrland exhibits stable but moderate divergence. Against this backdrop, the sectoral structure of Upper Norrland is the most structurally unstable, reflecting its deep dependence on extractive industry and sensitivity to global resource market cycles. Based on these results, the author concludes that there is inertia in the development paths of the EU’s Arctic regions, with economies remaining resource-dependent and a ‘treadmill effect’ complicating the implementation of structural policies to diversify peripheral, sparsely populated territories. The results of the study also provide insight into the continuing regional comparative advantages and resource dependence, which are key topics in the field of regional economic development and Arctic policy research.

Keywords: Arctic regions of the European Union, structural divergence, sectoral specialization, resource dependence, peripheral regions.

JEL: R11, R12, F00

EDN: CIWKRO

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2026_1_173_190

References

1. Glømsrød S., Duhaime G., Aslaksen (eds.) The Economy of the North – ECONOR 2025. Sustainable Development Working Group, Arctic Council. 2025.
2. Gløersen E., Dubois A., Copus A., Schürmann C. Northern Peripheral, Sparsely Populated Regions in the European Union and in Norway. Nordregio Report. 2006:2.
3. Navigating Global Transitions in European Arctic Regions: Lessons from 14 Northern Sparsely Populated Areas. OECD Regional Development Studies. OECD Publishing. 2025. DOI: 10.1787/a2de0bf6-en.
4. Zamyatina N.Yu., Pilyasov A.N. Russian Arctic: Towards a New Understanding of Development Processes. Moscow: URSS, 2019. (In Russ.).
5. Grunfelder J., Norlén G., Mikkola N., Rispling L., Teräs J., Wang S. State of the Lapland Region. Nordregio. 2017.
6. Rethinking regional attractiveness in the Norrbotten County of Sweden. OECD Publishing. Regional Development Papers. 2023.
7. Pilyasov A.N., Kotov A.V. Russian Arctic-2035: Multi-scale Forecast // Economy of Regions. 2024. No. 2. Pp. 369–394. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17059/ekon.reg.2024-2-3. EDN: XEPSNM.
8. Martin R., Sunley P. Path dependence and regional economic evolution // Journal of Economic Geography. 2006. Vol. 6. No. 4. Pp. 395–437. DOI: 10.1093/jeg/lbl012.
9. Boschma R. Towards an evolutionary perspective on regional resilience // Regional Studies. 2015. Vol. 49. No. 5. Pp. 733–751. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2014.959481.
10. Auty R.M. Resource abundance and economic development. Oxford University 2001.
11. Tödtling F., Trippl M. One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach // Research Policy. 2005. Vol. 34. No. 8. Pp. 1203–1219. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018.
12. Chenery H.B. Patterns of industrial growth // The American Economic Review. 1960. Vol. 50. No. 4. Pp. 624–654.
13. Martin R. Regional economic resilience, hysteresis and recessionary shocks // Journal of Economic Geography. 2012. Vol. 12. No. 1. Pp. 1–32. DOI: 10.1093/jeg/lbr019.
14. Ricardo D. On the principles of political economy and taxation. 1817.
15. Krugman P. Geography and trade. Cambridge. MIT Press. 1991.
16. Boschma R., Frenken K. Technological relatedness, related variety and economic geography. In: Cooke P., Asheim B., Boschma R., Martin R., Schwartz D., Tödtling F. (eds.) Handbook of regional innovation and growth. Edward Elgar. 2011.
17. David P.A. Clio and the economics of QWERTY // The American Economic Review. 1985. Vol. 75. No. 2. Pp. 332–337.
18. Grabher G. The weakness of strong ties: The lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr In: Grabher G. (ed.) The embedded firm: On the socioeconomics of industrial networks. Routledge, 1993. Pp. 255–277.
19. Hassink R. How to unlock regional economies from path dependency? From learning region to learning cluster // European Planning Studies. 2005. Vol. 13. No. 4. Pp. 521–535. DOI: 10.1080/09654310500107134.
20. Grillitsch M., Sotarauta M. Trinity of change agency, regional development paths and opportunity spaces // Progress in Human Geography. 2020. Vol. 44. No. 4. Pp. 704–723. DOI: 10.1177/0309132519853870.

Manuscript submission date: 10.11.2025

Manuscript acceptance date: 24.02.2026

For citation:

Lesnoy D.S. Structural divergence and sectoral specialization of EU Arctic // Vestnik Instituta Ekonomiki Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk. 2026. № 1. Pp. 173-190. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2026_1_173_190 EDN: CIWKRO

  Creative Commons 4.0