russian software developing industry and software exports

Methodology
these changes are not that significant
and are quite natural. For instance, the
reduced share of Moscow companies can 50%
be caused by the actual decrease in their
number. In Moscow major companies grew 40%
much faster than in other cities. Especially,
they increased at the expense of small 30%
companies: not all of them survived due
to the outflow of key specialists.
20%
Gross turnover of Moscow companies
greatly exceeds this indicator for
13%
10%
St. Petersburg companies, although
their number is almost the same. It
should be noted, that the distribution 0%
of gross revenue and export relates to
respondents only. The analysis of the
correctness of sampling by each city was
not made. Anyway, such analysis is unlikely
to considerably alter the distribution.
The representation of companies with different
turnover remains practically the same against year-onyear.
The increase in the number of respondents was
stimulated by small and mid-sized companies.
The companies participating in the survey are not
exporters and mainly represent small business.
It may be assumed that the number of respondents
expanded owing to companies mainly oriented at the
home market rather than export.
Probably, the vast majority of companies that have
not indicated their share of exports in total revenue
offer their services chiefly in the Russian market.
19%
17.5%
up to 10%
Respondents by the share of export revenues in gross earnings
9%
10% 10%
from 11%
to 25%
2006 year-end
15%
13%
10%
from 26%
to 50 %
12%
10%
5%
from 51%
to 75 %
42%
28%
24.5%
over 75 %
14%
20%
28%
not specified
2007 year-end 2008 year-end
Export revenue by respondents' HQ locations
Moscow
St. Petersburg
Novosibirsk
Others
2%
36%
12%
50%
Total revenue by respondents' HQ locations
Non-exporting respondents by gross turnover
Moscow
St. Petersburg
Novosibirsk
Others
1.6%
29.2%
21.2%
48%
up to 0.5 MUSD
from 0.5 MUSD
to 4 MUSD
from 4 MUSD
to 20 MUSD
26%
7%
5%
63%
over 20 MUSD
5