System problems and directions of municipal development of the Russian Arctic 

. The subject of the study is the municipalities of the Arctic, their specifics of functioning and development in comparison with the southern regions of the Arctic states. The purpose of the work was to identify problem areas of regional development that affects the socio-economic situation of the Arctic municipalities, prospects, and directions of their development. The theoretical and methodological basis consisted of the works of Russian and foreign scientists on regulating and stimulating the socio-economic development of the territories and municipalities of the Arctic. The study grounds on an integrated approach to the functioning and development of municipalities in the specific conditions of the Arctic, as well as general and specific factors for the growth in the Russian Arctic, considering international research. An analysis of the leading indicators of the socio-economic situation of the Arctic territories showed several common problems for the development of municipalities. The main forces of state regulation should be aimed at solving the issues of human development, social and transport infrastructure and require the approval and state support of the Arctic territories. Government policies to minimize negative processes and factors for the municipalities of the Russian Arctic should base on international experience. Authorities and management can use the results of the study for the development of fiscal, tax, investment policy, programs, and plans for the socio-economic development of the Arctic territories.


Introduction
The social and economic development of municipalities, i.e., the primary management link to the functioning of towns is discussed within the specific conditions of Arctic territories to identify cardinal directions of their further development.
All countries, a part of which is in the Arctic, i.e., Russia, Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, USA (Alaska), Sweden, Finland, and Iceland face several common problems of municipalities.
These are difficult climatic conditions and increasing costs; inaccessibility and remoteness of towns from economic centers; mono-profile nature of the economy; increased level of population migration; high energy intensity and cost of electricity; lower level of social services and unfavorable ecological situation [10,Mikhailov K In addition to the difficult demographic situation in the Arctic, the issue of gender and age composition revealed. Previously, there was a lower proportion of the population of older working-age compared to the national average, especially in territories fully classified as AZRF (9.9% vs. 20.5% of the country's average) 4 . It is due to existing resettlement programs, and a higher proportion of the working population (when people moved to the North because of the so-called "long ruble"). The outflow of people of working age has increased, and the picture is smoother compared to the national indicators.
This may indicate, on the one hand, that people do not want to move to other territories of the country after a certain age, and, on the other hand, that the older population does not have such opportunities. In any case, these categories of citizens should enjoy a suitable social infra-   The main reasons for the migration from the Russian Arctic municipalities are related to:  the discrepancy of the comfort of living and compensatory costs to the population of Arctic cities. At present, the income of the population living in extreme climatic conditions is almost the same in most territories of central Russia, and the cost of social support is much higher than the all-Russian one. Reducing the difference in income between the Arctic and non-Arctic territories causes the outflow of population. The greatest outflow occurs when the difference with non-Arctic subjects of the Russian Federation is especially not obvious (e.g., the Murmansk Oblast) [15, Larchenko, pp. 69-75];  low level of socially relevant health and education services. In remote small Arctic settlements, the level and availability of social services are much lower due to the distance and the small number of settlements. From the perspective of the current reforms of health and education (especially higher education), a significant reduction and consolidation of social security facilities are observed together with the possibility of receiving it in administrative centers of territories of the Russian Federation;  depletion of natural resources and changing market conditions, leading to the economic and social decline of towns due to their mono -profile economy and focus on the resource extraction.
In the forecast period, the population outflow from areas with unfavorable working and living conditions will increase due to changes in pension legislation and the increase in retirement periods. The life expectancy in the North and the Arctic is lower than the national average, and in some territories -the lowest (Chukotka Autonomous Okrug -66.1 years) 7 . In combination with the above factors, the population outflow to the better areas of the country may increase significantly. Even though, in the Arctic, the mortality rate in working-age decreases at a similar rate, as in the country, this figure exceeds the national one by 15-20% 8 . Canada. Their Arctic policy is aimed at creating a favorable environment for the local population, which allowed to improve living standards significantly and not only reduce migration outflow but also successfully attract labor resources from other regions due to state investments in the social sphere 910 .
In the Russian Arctic, investment expenditures in the social sphere (education, health, culture, and sports) ( Table 2) of the four territories of the Arctic -the Murmansk Oblast and the Arkhangelsk Oblast, the Komi Republic and Karelia -is not compensated due to rising costs, and even below the average values for the country by 1.5 times or more. Oil-producing territories can invest in the development of individual industries and towns.
E.g., the Murmansk Oblast, the Arkhangelsk Oblast, and the Republic of Karelia almost always need the participation of the state in expensive and large investment projects because the level of investment flows in these entities is significantly different from the other Arctic territories ( Table   3). The volume of investments is comparable to the all-Russian level (and in parts of the territories and below), which is insufficient due to the increasing costs factors for the construction and operation of infrastructure and increased depreciation of fixed assets in extreme conditions of the Far North. Investment participation of the state is most noticeable only in those areas with joint corporate or foreign projects. A significant part of them goes to the development of extractive industries. The social and infrastructure necessary for human capital and small business development is not adequately funded to address these problems. These are Nenets, Yamalo-Nenets, and Chukotskiy Autonomous Okrug. In other territories of the Arctic, the level of participation of the state and municipality is higher in the territories fully assigned to the ASRF. Most likely, this is due to the need to compensate for the rising costs of both the federal and local levels and the municipal authorities.
As for the structure of investments, the pace and volume of housing construction in the  Budgetary institutions and large enterprises operating in the Arctic do not consider the compensation issue so acute, but for small business, it is a question of "survival" 17 . Therefore, the focus moved to small and medium-sized businesses in the Arctic. Transport accessibility of the Arctic territories should be a priority of federal and local authorities.
At the governmental level and in international forums, the promotion of small entrepreneurship has gained increased attention by creating an enabling environment for business through the federal and local programs to support entrepreneurship, "tax holidays", exemption from inspections, etc. In addition, in recent years, the Government has subsidized small agricultural enterprises and farms due to counter -sanctions policy for food products. These measures led to the growth of small enterprises, especially in the agricultural sector, e.g., in the Far East of the country. However, the figure shows (Fig. 2) that in the Arctic, both the number of small enterprises and the growth rate of small businesses significantly lag behind the average Russian indicators, especially in the subjects of the Russian Federation, fully recognized the Arctic zone, and in some of them (Chukotskiy and Nenets Autonomous Okrug), they remain at the low level.

Territories fully included in the AZRF Territories partly included in the AZRF Average for the RF territories
Meanwhile, small enterprises and their investments play an important role for municipalities. In territories with developed entrepreneurship (e.g., the Republic of Tatarstan and Nizhny Novgorod), investments of small enterprises amount to 15-18 billion rubles per year. In 2016, the average for the country was 9.4 billion rubles. 19 In Arctic towns, small business is a minor component in investment activity, because, firstly, it is poorly developed, secondly, in most municipalities of the ASRF, significant investors are large mining companies, and, thirdly, the need to compensate for the increased costs of activities reduces the volume of free financial resources.   Previous studies of the budgetary provision of the AZRF municipalities indicated a high degree of subsidization and decrease in tax revenues [23, Skufiina T.P., p. 214], which leads to limiting the capacity of municipal authorities to influence their social and economic development and reducing the investment activity of town administrations. The taxation system in Russia, centralization of power and accumulation of funds at the federal level put the Arctic territories and municipalities in a rigid dependence on decisions of higher authorities. Weak income sources of the municipal budget do not allow to solve problematic issues of the Arctic territories independently.

Conclusion
The results of the study, i.e., defining the problems and directions for the development of the Russian Arctic, make it is possible to say that the socio-economic development of Arctic municipalities with precise specifics of functioning, typical both for Russia and for most foreign Arctic towns, depends on the state solution of development issues, human potential, social and transport infrastructure, small businesses and exceptional support to the Arctic.
To deal with the identified demographic threats, to attract human capital and to reduce migration outflow from the Russian Arctic, it is necessary to develop a set of measures aimed at the quality urban environment, developed transport, and social infrastructure, incl. its modernization; ensuring accessibility and improving the quality of health care; the development of education and vocational training; new jobs and employment (especially in monoprofile settlements), as well as the growth of incomes of the Arctic population and the amendment of pension legislation to maintain previously existing retirement benefits.
The development of social and production infrastructure is possible only with the participation of public investments and large business due to high capital intensity in the Arctic conditions and rising costs. By analogy with foreign countries, specific social responsibility for the development of territories means a public-private and municipal-private partnership, which will give impetus to a network of business structures.
The slow entrepreneurship development and the lag in the volume of investment participation of small businesses in the economy of Arctic cities in comparison with the average Russian level are due to the underdeveloped logistics and infrastructure and additional expenses caused by payments and guarantees established by the Russian legislation for the residents of Far North.
Therefore, the development of small and medium-sized business in the municipalities of the Rus-sian Arctic requires additional support from the state through the improvement of labor legislation and various preferences for the Arctic employees in terms of compensation of travel costs to the place of vacation, district allowances and coefficients for small business.
Also, in Russian tax and budget legislation, it is necessary to reconsider the issues of financial security and autonomy of municipal authorities by means of changes in inter-budgetary regulation and fiscal policy. It is necessary to develop, change and amend the tax legislation by increasing the share of local taxes, which will strengthen the financial and economic base of the local budgets, especially in the Arctic areas with their high cost of living, fixed assets, production and social infrastructure that confirm the need to expand the list of local budget revenues.