Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000
Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Transportation Research Procedia 63 (2022) 1359–1369

X International Scientific Siberian Transport Forum

X International Scientific Siberian Transport Forum
Investments in transport infrastructure as a factor of stimulation of
Investments in transport infrastructure as a factor of stimulation of
economic development
economic development
Almaz Kadyralievaa, Gulnaz Supaevaa,a, *, Baktiar Bakasaa, Tamara Dzholdoshevaaa, Nurdin
AlmazDzholdoshev
Kadyraliev ,bGulnaz
, SuzanaSupaeva
Balovacc,*,Yuliya
Baktiar Bakasc,,Konstantin
Tyurina Tamara Dzholdosheva
Krinichansky, ccNurdin
Dzholdoshev , Suzana Balova , Yuliya Tyurina , Konstantin Krinichansky
b c
a
Kyrgyz Economic University Named By M. Ryskulbekov, ul. Moldo Skating rink 58, 720033, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
b
International
a
Academy
Kyrgyz Economic of Management,
University Named ByLaw,
M.Finance and Business,
Ryskulbekov, 6aSkating
ul. Moldo Belorusskaya
rink 58,str., 720001,
720033, Bishkek,
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan
c b
FinancialInternational Academy
University under of Management,
the Government of theLaw, Finance
Russian and Business,
Federation, 6a Belorusskaya
49 Leningradsky str., Moscow,
Prospekt, 720001, Bishkek,
125993, Kyrgyzstan
Russian Federation
c
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, 49 Leningradsky Prospekt, Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation

Abstract
Abstract
The view that transport infrastructure projects have a significant impact on the development of the economy is often used to
The view
justify the that transport
allocation of infrastructure
resources. Faced projects
with have a significant
increasing impact
difficulties on the development
in financing of the economy
transport infrastructure, manyis often
countriesusedare
to
justify
seekingthe allocation
to allocate of resources
their resources.inFaced
such awith
way increasing
as to maximizedifficulties in financing
net returns. In order transport infrastructure,
to facilitate many itcountries
such distribution, are
is necessary
seeking
to fully to allocate their
understand resources
all the in such
large–scale a way as to of
consequences maximize net returns.
infrastructure In orderTransport
investments. to facilitate such distribution,
infrastructure can beit defined
is necessary
as a
to fullythat
factor understand
guarantees allgrowth
the large–scale consequences
and economic of infrastructure
development, thanks to theinvestments.
functions ofTransport infrastructure
crossing space in terms can bemovement
of the defined asofa
factor that
people andguarantees
the exchange growth and economic
of goods. The effectdevelopment,
of the impact thanks to the functions
of transport of crossing
infrastructure on thespace in terms
economy of the
largely movement
depends on howof
people
society and
usesthetheexchange of goods.
services offered The effect of facilities
by infrastructure the impact of transport
(Mottaeva infrastructure
& Nechaeva, 2021). onInfrastructure,
the economy largely depends
as a factor on how
that activates
society uses the services
socio–economic progress,offered
is alsobyone
infrastructure facilities
of the important (Mottaeva
factors & Nechaeva,
determining 2021).
the living Infrastructure,
conditions of the as a factor that
population. It isactivates
widely
socio–economic
believed progress,
that improper is alsoand
planning oneimplementation
of the important factors
of an determining
infrastructure the living
project can haveconditions
a negative of impact
the population. It is widely
on the economy and
believed that improper
environment planning
of the region. and implementation
In some of an infrastructure
cases, infrastructure investments may project
posecan
a have
threata to
negative impact that
communities on the economy
will and
be directly
environment
affected by this of project.
the region. In some cases, infrastructure investments may pose a threat to communities that will be directly
affected
© 2022 Theby this project.
Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
© 2022
This The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
This is an open access article
is an open access article under
under the
the CC
CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
This
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
is an
Peer-review open access
under article
responsibilityunder
of the CC BY-NC-ND
scientific committeelicense
of the X International
X International Scientific
Scientific Siberian
Siberian Transport
Transport ForumForum
Peer-review
Keywords: under responsibility
Transport of the scientific
infrastructure; sustainable committee
development; of theefficiency;
investment X International Scientific
information Siberian
security; Transport
information Forum
protection; information
filter; socialTransport
Keywords: infrastructure;
engineering; sustainable
young transport development; investment efficiency; information security; information protection; information
professionals.
filter; social engineering; young transport professionals.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +7-926-974-8432.

* E-mail
Corresponding shakizada.niyazbekova@gmail.com
address:author. Tel.: +7-926-974-8432.
E-mail address: shakizada.niyazbekova@gmail.com
2352-1465 © 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
This is an open
2352-1465 access
© 2022 Thearticle under
Authors. the CC BY-NC-ND
Published by ELSEVIER B.V.(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
license
Peer-review under
This is an open responsibility
access of the scientific
article under CC BY-NC-NDcommittee
license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
of the X International Scientific Siberian Transport Forum )
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the X International Scientific Siberian Transport Forum
2352-1465 © 2022 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the X International Scientific Siberian Transport Forum
10.1016/j.trpro.2022.06.146
1360 Almaz Kadyraliev et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 63 (2022) 1359–1369
2 Almaz Kadyraliev et al / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction

Infrastructure influences the formation of human, social and cultural capital, opportunities for the development of
economic initiatives and the attraction of external capital, opportunities for the modernization of agricultural
production growth, improving people's lives, the formation of multifunctional and sustainable rural development. In
addition, it determines the possibility of civilizational progress and increased territorial cohesion. According to
Thacker, infrastructure directly or indirectly affects the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Sustainable development is defined in different ways, but in practice it has three dimensions – economic,
environmental and social. The word «sustainable development» has become a global buzzword as a potential
solution to many international, regional and local problems that societies face today: overpopulation, diseases,
political conflicts, deterioration of infrastructure, environmental pollution and unlimited expansion of cities with
limited resources (Karieva & Mottaeva, 2020).
The doctrine of sustainable development is aimed at achieving social justice through the economic and
environmental efficiency of projects, provided together with strict consideration of production costs.
The concept of sustainable transport development is a planning concept, which is a long–term comprehensive
action plan aimed at achieving strategic goals that are laid down in the overall sustainable development strategy. The
first dimension of these goals (economic) is expressed in the desire to increase the economic efficiency of passenger
and freight transport. In the social dimension, the activity is subordinated to improving the accessibility, quality and
safety of transport. The third, environmental aspect, is aimed at reducing environmental pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions, reducing energy consumption and noise levels. The negative impact of road transport on the
environment contradicts the needs of the economy.
Innovative solutions are important for sustainable development, as they allow providing transport services in
accordance with the stated idea and contribute to achieving a satisfactory economic result by enterprises providing
transport–related services, while receiving maximum benefits in the form of increasing the availability and quality of
transport services at the lowest possible cost. In the process of rural development, transport and tourism
infrastructure are presented as elements of creating business activity, they determine its scale, spatial distribution and
form elements of supply and demand. Transport accessibility can determine attractiveness or unattractiveness, which
means opportunities or barriers to further development of the entire economy.
From an economic point of view, the most important characteristic of transport infrastructure is the public nature
of the services it provides. It affects the economy and society, creating favorable conditions for the movement of
people and goods. The changes taking place, in particular, in the field of telecommunications and transport, due to
constant technological progress, force the development of transport and communication infrastructure, thanks to
which less developed areas are better connected with areas with higher economic business activity, which
contributes to an easier influx of factors of production, including knowledge and technology, opportunities to
improve the skills of the workforce. Transport infrastructure is considered one of the most important, since the costs
associated with it are crucial for determining the location of enterprises and, consequently, for economic
development (Maparu et al., 2019).
An effectively developed transport infrastructure can have a stimulating effect on a certain territory, lead to an
increase in economic activity and competitiveness. In particular, the state of the road infrastructure and its
compatibility with the main communication arteries, according to many authors, is a necessary condition for
attractiveness for potential investors and doing business.

2. Literature review

The study of the impact of transport infrastructure on GDP has always been the subject of extensive research.
According to one hypothesis, the impact of transport infrastructure on the economy is reflected in various aspects.
Transport improvements can increase the strength of the agglomeration economy to the extent that they are
enhanced within the spatial economy. By changing the ways people and firms access economic activity, transport
influences the realization of the external effects of agglomeration, hence the productivity effect obtained from it
(Graham, 2007).
 Almaz Kadyraliev et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 63 (2022) 1359–1369 1361
Almaz Kadyraliev et al / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 3

In fact, the role of investments in transport infrastructure for the economy is considered so important that it is
necessary to recall and give an example of state injections in the United States during the Great Depression of the
30s of the last century. The infrastructure investment program included the construction of new roads and railways
aimed at stimulating the stagnant economy.
Such a public policy was based on the principle that investments in transport infrastructure and economic
indicators are positively linked, which is a key justification for allocating resources to the transport sector. Thus, one
of the main goals of the highway construction programs related to economic development was to attract and
maintain activities that create jobs. Similarly, transport investment strategies have been implemented in the UK and
continental Europe to stimulate job creation, especially in disadvantaged regions.
The two fastest–growing economies in the world, China and Vietnam, invest approximately 10% of their GDP in
infrastructure, and even at this rate they are struggling to keep up with the demand for electricity and transport
infrastructure. Evidence suggests that infrastructure can be a catalyst for growth at a number of levels. However,
only if it is supported by a broader stable institutional and regulatory environment. This is clearly represented by the
results of the World Bank's Investment Climate Research program (World Bank, 2015).
A common empirical approach studying the relationship between investment in transport and economic output is
to assess the production function, where output is explained by several costs, such as labor, capital, investment and
other components, such as education or public investment in healthcare and hospital services (Evans and Karras,
1994). A typical specification corresponds to a production function:

(1)
Yit = g ( Z it , Tit ), f ( X it )
where Yit is the private volume of production in area I at time t, f(Xit) is the production technology using factors of
production, usually labor (Lit) and capital (Kit). Transport infrastructure can be introduced either as a direct factor in
the production function, or, as is more common in the literature, through Hicks–neutral technical changes. The term
g (Zip,Txt) is a Hicks–neutral shift factor and is a function of various environmental factors Zit (for example,
education level, agglomeration of the economy) and transport infrastructure, Tit, the formula is usually used:

g ( Z it , Tit ) = ∏ Z zit z tTit

β βt
(2)
z

The most common functional form is the Cobb–Douglas specification (Ozbay et al., 2007), where the logarithm
βT represents the elasticity of output relative to capital and is obtained as a partial derivative of lnYit:

ln Yit = β l ln Lit + β k ln K it + ∑ β z ln Z z ,it + β T ln Tit (3)

z

The impact of capital on the growth of economic production was also assessed within the framework of the
production function by evaluating regression growth models (Bonaglia et al., 2000). In addition to growth
regressions, some researchers (Batina, 1998) use vector autoregression models in which a dependent variable (for
example, production volume) is explained by its own lagging values and past values of other explanatory variables
(for example, investment in infrastructure).
Most studies measure transport values in monetary terms (Cullison, 1993), (Maisigova et al. 2021), (Nurpeisova
et al., 2021) although some measure them in physical units, usually using indicators of road length and mileage.
Monetary indicators are easier to collect and compare, but they can hide a huge heterogeneity in how resources were
spent (for example, a new airport or a new high–speed railway line may have the same monetary value, but may
have a completely different impact on production).
On the other hand, physical units, such as the length of roads expressed in kilometers, is a more uniform
indicator. Since the monetary indicators of transport infrastructure are less capable of distinguishing between
1362 Almaz Kadyraliev et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 63 (2022) 1359–1369
4 Almaz Kadyraliev et al / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

different types of investments than the physical indicators of transport infrastructure, we can expect a greater spread.
It is difficult to predict whether the use of monetary or physical measures of transport infrastructure affects the value
of estimates of the elasticity of output (Hansen, 1965).
Consequently, estimates of the elasticity of output of transport investments may differ from country to country
due to differences in their levels of development. Moreover, estimates of investment elasticity for one country may
change as the country.
Transport as an economic factor is a measure of economic activity, and at the same time it affects economic
activity (Skorobogatova, 2017). Thus, transport functions as a factor of economic evolution. Economic progress in
certain parts of the country is usually preceded by the development of transport, which brings markets closer,
including raw materials.
Nevertheless, the question of whether investments in transport infrastructure contribute to broader economic
benefits continues to cause debate and debate in economics (Banister and Berechman, 2000). This debate is not
about direct transport benefits, such as travel time savings, but revolves around whether such investments lead to
additional economic benefits, and if so, how to measure these benefits.
Periods of prolonged economic downturn may force governments to reduce spending on infrastructure
investments, such as road infrastructure, to a greater extent than other types of spending. However, the postponement
or cancellation of such investment projects may affect the overall volume of economic production. Investments in
transport infrastructure can play a role in reducing the impact of the economic crisis by creating jobs immediately,
while at the same time creating the basis for achieving rapid growth when the crisis weakens (Lavee et al, 2011).
One of the main goals of transport policy is the sustainable development of transport, taking into account
economic efficiency, environmental rationality and social viability. According to the definition adopted by the
European Conference of Ministers of Transport of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(2004), a sustainable transport system allows meeting the basic needs of individuals and society for access to the
transport system, supporting the economy and reducing emissions, waste and consumption of non–renewable
resources, land use, as well as noise levels.
As mentioned earlier, the development of transport is one of the factors determining economic growth. In this
case, the quantitative and qualitative state of the transport infrastructure is important. Investments in infrastructure
can have a significant impact on the economy, and especially on the economy, usually through:
– reducing the unemployment rate;
– favorable conditions for settlement;
– increasing the value of land and real estate;
– increasing the investment attractiveness of territories.
Investments in transport infrastructure can increase the scale of this impact by improving transport accessibility or
improving the area of influence of small urban centers on the countryside, which allows the integration of
neighboring labor markets. Transport links allow us to meet the needs of people. The effect of investments in the
field of transport infrastructure directly affects the reduction of transport costs of its users and the increase in the area
of activity of companies and enterprises selling services. Many authors (Kim et all, 2012) also point out that in
addition to reducing travel time, other benefits associated with a developed infrastructure include social effects, such
as increasing the level of mobility of society, which facilitates not only access to education and healthcare, but also
the movement of workers or reducing the costs of economic activity (Farhadi, 2015). The developed infrastructure
increases the comfort of movement and contributes to the improvement of the overall level and quality of life, and is
also an important element of business development.
The role of infrastructure in stimulating and supporting economic growth has been the subject of a large number
of studies. Over the past few years, it seemed that this topic had lost much interest in the community of development
economists. Recently, however, it seems to be returning to the research agenda again after donors and governments
began to pay more attention to infrastructure investments. Most studies in this area show a generally positive
relationship between infrastructure investment and economic growth, usually defined by an increase in income
(output).
A common way to analyze infrastructure and economic growth is to assess the social economic rate of return on
past and new investments. According to research, the economic return on investment projects is on average 30–40%
for telecommunications, more than 40% for electricity generation and 80% for roads (Estache, 2007). Another
 Almaz Kadyraliev et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 63 (2022) 1359–1369 1363
Almaz Kadyraliev et al / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 5

notable and obvious result is that returns tend to be higher in low–income countries than in middle–income countries
(Canning and Pedroni).
Another researcher Larson concluded that an additional 1 % of GDP in public investment leads to a
corresponding proportional reduction of poverty by 0.5 % over this period. Calderon and Servén (2004) found that
not only does the stock of infrastructure assets positively affect growth, but also that income inequality decreases
with an increase in the quantity and quality of infrastructure, which suggests that infrastructure development can be a
very effective means of combating poverty.
The transport sector, and in particular the road transport sector, is often cited as critical to international
development efforts because it can influence the pace and structure of economic growth. Improved transport
infrastructure reduces transaction costs and bottlenecks and works for economic growth on two levels. The first is in
terms of expanding the market and improving access to social infrastructure at the local level, which leads to
increased productivity; The second is in terms of improving the backbone links between large centers, stimulating
economic activity and reducing regional inequality (Willoughby, 2004).
Studies at the macro level trying to assess the actual contribution of transport infrastructure to GDP give mixed
results, with some disagreement about the causal relationship. To what extent does GDP growth increase the demand
for transport services, and to what extent does improving the quality and quantity of the transport fleet increase
GDP? Two principal mechanisms are used to measure this relationship – the earliest evidence and measurements of
this relationship were based on the use of release elasticity; this approach is based on the assumption that
investments in transport infrastructure have an economic effect in the form of an increase in the level of economic
activity and productivity of private capital.
Although many commentators consider this approach to be overstated (Calderon, 2009), the seminal work of
Aschauer (1989) revealed a strong correlation between high growth rates and increased investment in transport. The
estimated elasticity of output relative to capital was calculated as 0.39, which means that an increase in the capital
stock by 1% leads to an increase in output in the private sector by 0.39 %. Recently, economists have been using
travel time savings and the associated increase in labor productivity as an alternative indicator of growth.
The key aspect at both the micro and macro levels in terms of sustainable long–term economic growth is not only
new infrastructure, but also management and maintenance. In addition, the external operating environment is crucial.
Service operators should be stimulated by appropriate combinations of competition and regulation in order to
respond effectively to market demand and opportunities offered by technological progress.

3. Results

3.1. Evaluation of the effectiveness of investments in transport infrastructure on the example of the Kyrgyz Republic

The economy of the Kyrgyz Republic relies on three main sources of income: re–export operations, extraction of
natural resources and remittances of migrants. The agricultural sector, which accounts for 25 % of GDP, also plays a
significant role in the economy. Thus, the quality of transport infrastructure plays a key role in the development of
the main sectors of the country's economy.
From 1992 to 2018, international agreements were signed with the Kyrgyz Republic on the provision of external
financial assistance in the amount of 10 billion 193 million USD, of which the recoverable amounts in the form of
loans amounted to 7 billion. 320 million USD, and grants – 2 billion 873 million USD (Figure 1).
1364 Almaz Kadyraliev et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 63 (2022) 1359–1369
6 Almaz Kadyraliev et al / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

Fig. 1. The volume of foreign aid to the Kyrgyz Republic from 1992 to 2018. Source: MF KR data Source: [1–20]. Source: developed by the
authors.

In 1993–2018, foreign aid served as a stable and substantial resource for economic and budget growth: on
average, the country annually attracted assistance equal to 11.2 % of GDP (including grants –2.3 % of GDP, loans –
8.8 % of GDP)
At the same time, external assistance was concentrated in three sectors: 73% of foreign aid (7.44 billion USD) is
directed to budget support, energy development and improvement of transport infrastructure.
Second after budget support, the development of transport infrastructure has become a significant sectoral object
of attention of international donors in the republic. During the years of reforms, 56 projects were implemented, for
which 26 % of all foreign aid was directed.

Table 1. 56 projects.

56 Projects Number of agreements Amount (mln USD)

Total signed 67 2 612.4

including Credits 48 2 239.3

including Grants 19 373.1

Source: developed by the authors.

The country's largest lender to the road network was the Export–Import Bank of China – 1 billion 173 million
USD, followed by the Asian Development Bank – 643 million USD.
USA and Japan – 317 million USD (Figure 2).
 Almaz Kadyraliev et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 63 (2022) 1359–1369 1365
Almaz Kadyraliev et al / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 7

4 10
317 49
643

173
5
60 1173
35
11
131

Japan France Saudi Arabia Kuwait

China IBR European Union EBRD
EDB Germany WB ADB

Fig. 2. Country distribution of aid. Source: MF KR (million USD). Source: developed by the authors.

Despite the significant amount of investment in transport infrastructure, debates and questions about its
effectiveness are currently growing (figure 3).

90 82
80
70
60
47
50
40 34 33
30
20 16
8
10
0
good satisfactory bad

2009 2019

Fig. 3. Quality assessment of rehabilitated roads in 2009 and 2019. Source: developed by the authors.

Due to the poor quality of the initial work, as well as over time, the transport infrastructure rehabilitated at the
expense of donor funds gradually wears out over time.
Foreign experts come to similar conclusions. According to the ADB: "Of the total length of roads of international
national significance, «33 % are in poor condition and require rehabilitation and reconstruction», including the main
Bishkek–Osh highway, due to climatic conditions, requires constant maintenance and maintenance work (ADB,
2013).
1366 Almaz Kadyraliev et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 63 (2022) 1359–1369
8 Almaz Kadyraliev et al / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

An assessment of the sector conducted by ADB in 2013 also showed that: «Although about 1 billion USD has
been invested in road development since 1994, the overall condition of the road network has not significantly
improved» (ADB, 2013)
Thus, as a result of the implementation of international projects in the road infrastructure, the Kyrgyz Republic
has come to the following results.
* The total amount of external debt obligations for road projects is 1,463 billion USD (including, the principal
amount – 1,261 billion USD, interest – 201 million USD).
• At the end of 2018, the share of loans for the road sector on average is about 34% of the total amount of external
debt servicing.
• The weighted average service life of existing loans for the road sector is about 9 years 4 months.
• At the same time, the maximum service life of roads is 20–24 years.
* Accordingly, the republic does not have much time between the terms of use of roads and the terms of
repayment of loans on them (the republic will repay debts, at the same time roads will begin to be disposed of).
Thus, as a result of the implementation of international projects in the road infrastructure, the Kyrgyz Republic has
come to the following results.
The main transport projects currently being implemented in the Kyrgyz Republic and their contribution to the
economy
Regression analysis of cargo turnover development in the Kyrgyz Republic.
Let's consider the model of dependence of the cargo turnover of transport in (million ton–kilometers) from the
following six factors:
x1 – Gross regional product per capita (thousand soms);
x2 – Investments in fixed assets (million soms)
x3 – Industrial output (million soms)
x4 – Freight transportation tariff index (as a percentage of the previous year)
x5 – Permanent population (thousand people)
x6 – Per capita monetary income (soms per month)
The proposed approach has a number of strong points, but it is most focused on setting and solving economic
problems. The starting point is the analysis of factors that more or less affect the result. The final step is
interpretation within the framework of the approach.
The data included in the model of dependence on the turnover of transport in the Kyrgyz Republic for 2013–2019
are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Economic indicators of the Kyrgyz Republic for 2013–2019.

Years Cargo Gross Investments Volume of Freight Permanent Average
turnover of regional in fixed industrial transportation population per capita
transport product per assets production tariff index (as a (thousand monetary
(million ton– capita (million (million percentage of people) income
kilometers) (thousand soms) soms) the previous (SOMS per
soms) year) month)
у х1 х2 х3 х4 х5 х6
2013 2 662.3 65.0 82 874.5 169 829.4 109.8 5 663.1 3 336.29
2014 2 497.1 71.8 107 884.6 171 108.9 126.5 5 776.6 3 957.54
2015 2 525.1 75.5 127 321.8 181 026.7 114.5 5 895.1 4 074.54
2016 2 466.4 81.8 135 469.6 209 812.0 113.6 6 019.5 4 257.99
2017 2 641.0 89.3 145 226.9 237 225.3 105.5 6 140.2 4 739.41
2018 2 777.3 93.8 151 467.9 257 348.5 102.4 6 256.7 5 337.34
2019 2 913.6 98.3 162 193.7 283 971.7 99.8 6 389.5 5 684.69
Source: calculated according to the National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic. Source: developed by the authors.
 Almaz Kadyraliev
Almaz et alet/ Transportation
Kadyraliev Research
al. / Transportation Procedia
Research 00 (2019)
Procedia 000–000
63 (2022) 1359–1369 13679

Before proceeding to the determination of finding estimates of regression coefficients, it is necessary to check a
number of prerequisites of the OLS. Regression equation (estimation of the regression equation)
Y = 31646.7206–57.9253X1 + 0.02451X2 + 0.02381X3–10.7209X4–5.709X5 + 0.6635X6
Since the number of observations is n = 7, the number of independent variables in the model is 6, and the number
of regressors taking into account the unit vector is equal to the number of unknown coefficients. Taking into account
the attribute Y, the dimension of the matrix becomes equal to 8. The matrix of independent variables X has
dimension (7 x 8). The matrix of correlation coefficients between the final indicator and factor variables has the
form:
Matrix of paired correlation coefficients R (table 3):

Table 3. Matrix of paired correlation coefficients R.

– y x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6

y 1 0.669 0.4979 0.7925 –0.8374 0.6882 0.7276

x1 0.669 1 0.9662 0.9767 –0.7341 0.9967 0.9827

x2 0.4979 0.9662 1 0.8974 –0.6155 0.966 0.9395

x3 0.7925 0.9767 0.8974 1 –0.8266 0.9803 0.9664

x4 –0.8374 –0.7341 –0.6155 –0.8266 1 –0.7522 –0.6981

x5 0.6882 0.9967 0.966 0.9803 –0.7522 1 0.9831

x6 0.7276 0.9827 0.9395 0.9664 –0.6981 0.9831 1

Source: developed by the authors.

Estimation of the regression equation.

Let's define the vector of estimates of regression coefficients. According to the least squares method, the vector s
is obtained from the expression:
s = (XTX)–1XTY
We add a single column to the matrix with variables Xj (table 4).

Table 4. We add a single column to the matrix with variables Xj.

1 65 82874.5 169829.4 5663.1 3336.29

1 71.8 107884.6 171108.9 5776.6 3957.54

1 75.5 127321.8 181026.7 5895.1 4074.54

1 81.8 135469.6 209812 6019.5 4257.99

1 89.3 145226.9 237225.3 6140.2 4739.41

1368 Almaz Kadyraliev et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 63 (2022) 1359–1369
10 Almaz Kadyraliev et al / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1 93.8 151467.9 257348.5 6256.7 5337.34

1 98.3 162193.7 283971.7 6389.5 5684.69

Source: developed by the authors.

All factors affecting the volume of traffic and on are factors affecting cargo turnover. It is known that transit
transportation brings three times more revenue than domestic cargo transportation. It should be noted that at present,
the transshipment capacities of motorways do not effectively cope with the growing volumes of cargo transportation,
new construction and repair of existing ones are required.
The analysis allows us to draw several conclusions:
1. The main volume of transportation falls on the cargo of the Kyrgyz–Chinese interstate trade. In the future, their
volume will only increase, including with other states;
2. The share of transit cargo will increase at a higher rate. These will be cargoes of China's trade with Russia (via
Kyrgyzstan) and Central Asian countries;
3. State–level measures are required to dramatically increase the transportation potential of international crossings
in order to develop the projected volumes;
4. Modern fundamental solutions are needed to attract transcontinental transit cargo flow in the direction of
Europe – Asia.

4. Conclusion

Most studies conclude that low–income countries receive significant benefits from improved infrastructure,
income growth, and in most cases this also has a positive impact on the poorest population. However, the difficulty
lies in developing specific national policies to lift the poorest out of poverty and, for example, to achieve the
Millennium Development Goals based on clear empirical data. Much more research and reliable, reliable data are
needed to establish a specific causal relationship between infrastructure measures and their impact. Nevertheless,
there is comprehensive and clear evidence that justifies infrastructure investment as a clear policy objective to assist
developing countries in their economic development and pro–poor growth.
For industry, time and cost savings, as well as increased availability and reliability due to transport infrastructure,
will increase productivity by improving production and distribution. Wider access to the market will create both new
business opportunities and increase competition, which leads to a further increase in the profitability of their
activities. Thus, it can be said that the transport infrastructure project has an impact on private capital and labor
productivity, and hence on overall economic growth.

References

2004. ECMT. Assessment & Decision Making for Sustainable Transport. European Conference of Ministers of Transport. OECD, Paris, France.
Aschauer, D.A., 1989. Is public expenditure productive? Journal of Monetary Economics 23(2), 177–200.
Banister, D., Berechman, J., 2000. Transport Investment and Economic Development. Routledge, London.
Batina, R.G., 1998. On the long run effects of public capital and disaggregated public capital on aggregate output. International Tax and Public
Finance 5, 263–281.
Bonaglia, F., la Ferrara, E., Marcellino, M., 2000. Public capital and economic performance: evidence from Italy. Giornale degli Economisti e
Annali di Economia 2, 221–244.
Calderon, C., Servén, L., 2004. The Effects of Infrastructure Development on Growth and Income Distribution. Policy Research Working Paper
3400, World Bank, Washington DC.
Canning, Pedroni, 2004. The Effect of Infrastructure on Long Run Economic Growth –CAER II Discussion Paper No. 57. Harvard Institute for
International Development, US. http://www.williams.edu/Economics/wp/pedroniinfrastructure.pdf.
Cullison, W.E., 1993. Public investment and economic growth. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly 79, 19–33.
Estache, A., 2007. Infrastructure and Development: A Survey of Recent and Upcoming Issues. Annual World Bank Conference on Development
Economics. World Bank, Washington D.C.
 Almaz Kadyraliev et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 63 (2022) 1359–1369 1369
Almaz Kadyraliev et al / Transportation Research Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 11

Evans, P., Karras, G., 1994. Are government activities productive? Evidence from a panel of U.S. states. The Review of Economics and Statistics
76, 1–11.
Farhadi, M., 2015. Transport Infrastructure and Long–Run Economic Growth in OECD Countries. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 74, 73–90.
Garcia–Mila, McGuire, T.J., 1992. The contribution of publicly provided inputs to states' economies. Regional Science and Urban Economics 22,
229–241.
Goigova, M.G., Anzorova, S.P., Niyazbekova, Sh., Kurmankulova, R.Z., Yessymkhanova, Z.K., 2021. Digital Transformation of Government
Procurement on the Level of State Governance. Socio–economic Systems: Paradigms for the Future. Studies in Systems, Decision and
Control 314. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3–030–56433–9_69.
Graham, D.J., 2007. Agglomeration, productivity and transport investment. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 41(3), 317–343.
Hansen, N.M., 1965. The structure and determinants of local public investment expenditures. The Review of Economics and Statistics 47, 150–
162.
https://www.un.org/ru/ga/pdf/brundtland.pdf.
Karieva, E., Mottaeva, A., 2020. Green economy in the world and in Russia: preconditions and prospects. E3S Web of Conf. 217, 07008.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202021707008.
Kim, H., Lee, D.H., Koo, J.D., Park, H.–S., Lee, J.–G., 2012. The direct employment impact analysis of highway construction investments.
KSCE J. Civil Eng. 16, 958–966.
Lavee, D., Beniad, G., Solomon, C., 2011. The Effect of Investment in Transportation Infrastructure on the Debt–to–GDP Ratio, Transport
Reviews 31(6), 769–789.
Maisigova, L.A., Niyazbekova, S.U., Isayeva, B.K., Dzholdosheva, T.Y., 2021. Features of Relations between Government Authorities, Business,
and Civil Society in the Digital Economy. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control 314, 1385–1391.
Maparu, T.S., Mazumder, T.N., 2017. Transport Infrastructure, Economic Development and Urbanization in India (1990–2011): Is There Any
Causal Relationship? Transp. Res. A Policy 100, 319–336.
Mottaeva, A, Nechaevа, M., Nechaev, V., 2021. The concept of sustainable development of territories E3S Web of Conf. 258, 03011.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125803011.
Mottaeva, A., 2021. Development of water supply services for the formation of eco-friendly city environment. Earth and Environmental Science
937, 042027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/937/4/042027
Nurpeisova, A.A., Smailova, L.K., Akimova, B.Z., Borisova, E.V., Niyazbekova, S.U., 2021. Condition and Prospects of Innovative
Development of the Economy in Kazakhstan. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control 314, 1773–1779.
Ozbay, K., Ozmen–Ertekin, D., Berechman, J., 2007. Contribution of transportation investments to county output. Transport Policy 14, 317–329.
Skorobogatova, O., Kuzmina–Merlino, I., 2017. Transport Infrastructure Development Performance. Procedia Eng. 178, 319–329.
Thacker, S., Adshead, D., Fay, M., Hallegatte, S., Harvey, M., Meller, H., O’Regan, N., Rozenberg, J., Watkins, G., Hall, J.W., 2019.
Infrastructure for sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 2, 324–331.
Willoughby, 2004. How Important is Infrastructure for Pro–Poor Growth? Room Document One, Prepared for DAC Network on Poverty
Reduction, Global Picture for Infrastructure and Pro–Poor Growth, Paris.