Institutional Aspects of Regional Craftsmanship Based on The Principles of Subsidiarity and Cultural Sustainability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31150/ajshr.v6i6.3703Keywords:
subsidiarity, business, crafts, resources, exports, econometrics, forecastAbstract
In the given research, attention is paid to the institutional background of local crafts as subsidiarity and cultural sustainability, their functions in strengthening the development of local economy and maintaining the cultural heritage of the region. Although the awareness of handicrafts as a cultural and economic resource has been increasing, effective institutional framework combining those postulates has not yet been developed clearly. In order to fill this gap, the research utilized qualitative analysis of the regional documents of an existing policy related to the family-based enterprises of the craft industry, empirical assessment of its evolution and existence in a given territory, as well as a comparison of the international experience. It emerges that governance grounded on subsidiarity promotes local initiative, whereas cultural sustainability will guarantee sustainability of traditional knowledge and competitiveness in the international markets. Findings reflect the significance of grouping family companies, mentorship in the vocations sector and incorporation of craftwork in tourism routes. The lessons provided present the framework of sustainable regional development, and it is proposed that the institutional frameworks based on cultural identity can successfully regulate the safeguarding of the heritage and modernization of an economy.
References
[1] President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, On additional measures to develop family entrepreneurship and expand sources of income for the population, Decree No. PQ-55, Dec. 20, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://lex.uz
[2] President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, On further improvement of the system to support handicraft activities, Decree No. PQ-77, Dec. 30, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://lex.uz/docs/5807559
[3] R. Basco, "Family business and regional development: A theoretical model of regional familiness," J. Fam. Bus. Strategy, vol. 6, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2015.04
[4] E. R. Banalieva, K. A. Eddleston, and T. M. Zellweger, "When do family firms have an advantage in transitioning economies? Toward a dynamic institution-based view," Strategic Management Journal, vol. 36, no. 9, 2015.
[5] A. O‘lmasov, Family Economy. Tashkent: Mehnat, 1998.
[6] M. Q. Pardaev, Family Household Economy and Entrepreneurship. Samarkand, 2001.
[7] F. A. Norqobilova, "Role of the Economic Freedom Index in the Development of Handicrafts," Int. Sci. Pract. Conf., 2023, pp. 255–257. [Online]. Available: https://zenodo.org
[8] R. Arens, "Complex processes for envelopes of normal noise," IRE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. IT-3, pp. 204–207, Sept. 1957.
[9] Kh. S. Mukhitdinov and F. A. Norqobilova, "Prospects of Digitalization of Craftsmanship Development in the Region," J. Pharm. Negative Results, vol. 13, special issue 9, 2022.
[10] F. A. Norqobilova, "Systematic Analysis, Synthesis, and Optimization in Modeling Service Sectors," Int. J. Conf. Ser. Educ. Soc. Sci., vol. 1, no. 2, 2021, pp. 224–228.
[11] A. A. Kizim, A. N. Valvashov, and I. V. Kulkova, "Improving the Investment Attractiveness of the Region Through the Development of a Tourism Cluster," Reg. Econ.: Theory Pract., no. 26 (161), 2010, pp. 52–59.
[12] S. A. Kojevnikov, "Vertical Integration of Production as a Key Condition for Modernizing the Russian Economy," Modern Sci. Res. Innov., no. 7, 2016, pp. 24–32.
[13] Y. N. Lapigin and D. V. Tulinova, "Conditions for Cluster Formation," Vestnik GUU, no. 7, 2020, pp. 114–119.
[14] B. F. Lomov, "On the Problem of Activity in Psychology," Psychol. J., vol. 2, no. 5, 1981, pp. 3–22.
[15] M. A. Morozov and O. Kol, "Tourism: Practice, Problems, Perspectives," Tourism, no. 1, 1998, pp. 8–19.
