A marked difference between million-plus cities was observed on the level of investments as well. The volume of investments per one Muscovite was 162,000 rubles in 2017; per one resident of Saint Petersburg, 127,000 rubles; and in other million-plus cities, 94,000 rubles. From this, we see that the level of investment in regional cities is only 58% of the investment level in Moscow. In absolute terms, the overall situation is as follows: Moscow attracted about 2 trillion rubles in 2017, Saint Petersburg brought in 0.67 trillion, and other million-plus cities received a total of 1.6 trillion.

Million-plus cities vary significantly among themselves, not only in economic terms, but in terms of environmental quality. In regional million-plus cities, the urban environment ranked significantly worse than in Moscow — and even worse than the Russian average. A study of the urban environment quality in 1,112 Russian cities conducted in 2017 by Strelka KB in collaboration with an integrated housing development institution DOM.RF found Moscow's quality of life to be good (214 points out of a possible 300), while other million-plus cities earned an average score of 135 (the average score for the entire country is 137 out of 300). This is a poor showing. Even Saint Petersburg only boasts a "satisfactory" rating, at 181 out of 300.

Such a considerable difference between the contribution of million-plus cities (apart from Moscow) to the country's economy and the resources available for their development show that these population centers do not employ the full scope of resources that they produce. As a result, they simply do not have any internal stimulus for development. If this tendency persists, it could lead to a reduction in the potential of million-plus cities over the long term and, as a result, to the reduction of their role in the country's economy.

With a GMP per capita comparable to second-tier cities in China and major cities in Turkey and Poland, million-plus cities in Russia grow significantly more slowly — comparable to wealthy cities in Western Europe. A comparison of growth rates between Russian million-plus cities and poorer cities that have only just begun their path toward dynamic growth (such as Indian, Vietnamese, and Indonesian cities) is even less favorable. One of the reasons is that the growth factors for these cities simply do not apply to Russia as it left the stage of active urban growth when rural residents began resettling in cities and the contemporary consumer economy was first introduced. In this way, Russian million-plus cities, with the exception of Moscow, are in some sort of middle-income trap. Having used up the initial resources needed for economic growth and having achieved a particular level of well-being, they still cannot develop approaches for further sustainable growth.

It is noteworthy that over the last 7 years, the economies of 15 million-plus cities grew slightly faster on average than Moscow did, although slower than the rest of the country. The entire country grew 1.4% per year on average (per capita). Saint Petersburg grew 1.85% per year, and regional million-plus cities grew 0.8% per year. Meanwhile, Moscow's GRP per capita did not change in real terms. Overall, million-plus cities grew an average of 0.5% per year.

If you look at the trends in the GMP of million-plus cities over the past 7 years in more detail, then it becomes clear that 2014 was a breaking point for the economies of regional million-plus cities. Strelka KB's study showed that the 2014 economic crisis affected them most of all, while Moscow and Saint Petersburg weathered the storm more easily. After a period of stable growth from 2010–2014, the gross product per capita of regional million-plus cities fell much further (5.1%) than the GDP of Russia as a whole (0.4%). In Moscow, the drop was insignificant (1.8%), while Saint Petersburg was able to maintain a small but sustainable (2.4%) level of economic growth.

If the development trends of Russian cities seen between 2010–2017 continue into the future, then the average regional million-plus city will need about 100 years to catch up to Moscow's 2017 level in terms of gross product per capita.

In order to shorten this timeframe, cities must radically speed up the growth of their own economies. The specific timeframe and increase in growth rate depend on the starting positions of a given city.

At present, the million-plus cities (except Moscow) can be divided into progressive (average growth rate in 2010-2017 of 1.4%) and lagging (average growth rate in 2010-2017 of 0.2%) in terms of gross metropolitan product. Among the progressive cities (Ekaterinburg, Saint Petersburg, Kazan, Ufa, Samara, and Krasnodar), 10 years of 5.9% growth per year would be necessary to reach Moscow's 2017 level, while lagging cities (Voronezh, Omsk, Chelyabinsk, Novosibirsk, Volgograd, Rostov-on-Don, Perm, Krasnoyarsk, and Nizhny Novgorod) would need an average of 20 years at 5.4% growth per year.

If these cities can speed up and hit Moscow's level, they will increase the growth in the country's overall GDP and be important actors in the national economy. Based on the current forecast from the Ministry of Economic Development, in 2018-2030 the average annual growth of Russia's GDP will reach 2.9%. Based on a forecast formulated as part of the study, this rate can be extrapolated to a growth rate in regional million-plus cities of 3.2%. In this way, if Russian million-plus cities are able to achieve 5.4-5.9% growth (the necessary level to reach Moscow's 2017 level of economic development), this will only increase the likelihood of achieving the projected level of GDP growth.

One of the defining factors of economic growth is fixed asset investments. For this reason, the volume and structure of investments are key characteristics that define the trends of gross product change. In order for the gross product to grow, investments must grow as well.

This won't be an easy task for Russian cities for at least one reason: a negative trend over the past three years which has been noted above. Since 2014, the proportion of investments compared to the gross metropolitan product in regional million-plus cities fell by 30% — from 23.1% in 2010–2014 to 17.6% in 2015–2017, while in Saint Petersburg, the relationship between investment and GRP fell from 17.6% on average in 2010–2014 to 15.5% in 2015–2017.

We should note that since 2014, million-plus cities lag behind the majority of European cities with similar or much higher gross metropolitan product per capita in terms of the relationship between investment and gross metropolitan product. However, the low levels of investment are not as critical for European cities as they are for Russian ones. In the wealthy cities of Western Europe (like Madrid, Hamburg, and Stuttgart), investments exceed 20% of GMP, while in the sustainably growing cities of Eastern and Central Europe (like Krakow, Bratislava, and Prague), this indicator regularly exceeds 25%. The comparison with dynamically growing cities in developing countries is even more depressing: for example, investments make up 30% of GMP in Delhi, while in certain cities in China with available statistics (Chengdu), they make up 57%.

Looking at comparable cities in Eastern and Central Europe, we can conclude that investments must make up a minimum of 25% GMP to maintain stable development. Looking on the Russian national goal of bringing investments up to 25% of GDP, then the level of investment in regional million-plus cities must reach 26.5–27%, based on the established proportion between national and local investment activities from the pre-crisis period (2010−2014).

Another factor that could speed up the growth of urban economies is the creation of motivations for local authorities. At the present moment, there are not many such stimuli, as according to our research, the level of growth in municipal budgets lags behind the speed of gross metropolitan product by a factor of two. Over 7 years, Russian million-plus cities (excluding Moscow and Saint Petersburg) grew their GMP by an average of two times (97% in nominal prices), while city budget revenues grew by just 49% in nominal prices.

If we compare Russian regional million-plus cities with German ones such as Munich and Cologne, then we see that the difference between the rate of gross metropolitan product change and urban budget change is considerably lower. Recalculating the budget revenues of Russian cities according to the German method gives the sum of 479 billion rubles over 7 years (about 5.2 billion rubles per year per city, making up 22% of annual revenues). This is the amount of revenues that regional million-plus cities could have received if the difference between the rate of gross metropolitan product change and the urban budget had been aligned to the German practice in the 2010-2017 period.

Investments that can be converted into stable economic growth are not a pro forma achievement of the official KPIs, but a process that takes into consideration the specific characteristics of urban economies.

It's important to remember the specifics of the economies in each of million-plus cities, and consider these nuances when investing.

Russian million-plus cities differ significantly in terms of the structure of their economies, the number of people employed in various fields, and in their productivity.

Eight Russian million-plus cities have their own specializations: fields where the majority of people work at a high level of productivity compared to other million-plus cities. For example, among cities with a high percentage of people engaged in trade are Krasnodar and Ekaterinburg, while manufacturing employ the majority in Omsk, Ufa, and Kazan. Krasnodar is distinguished by a high rate of employment and productivity in the construction sector, while the real estate sector is particularly strong in Krasnodar, Samara, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Ekaterinburg, and Novosibirsk.

Cities also differ widely in terms of the main drivers of their economies. In some places, small businesses are developing rapidly, while in others life continues to revolve around industrial titans. In Ufa, Novosibirsk, Krasnodar, Chelyabinsk, Voronezh, and Rostov-on-Don, the small business sector is outpacing the average growth rates of the cities' economies. Meanwhile, large businesses grow faster than smaller ones in Omsk, Samara, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, and Volgograd.

The balance between the structure of the economy, the relative proportions of various sized businesses, and the relationship between productivity levels in different fields can serve as the basis for cities'investment policies. Fields with high levels of employment and productivity can serve as a base for forming industry-centric clusters capable of operating on a national or worldwide scale. Fields with high employment and low productivity can become focal points for transformations, and the remaining labor resources and physical assets (including real estate) can be redirected to more perspective uses.

This study clearly shows that the investment strategies of Russian cities must be created. The cities' positions in the regional and worldwide economy need to be found, considering their unique specializations and favorable growth factors.

By doing that, million-plus cities can become drivers of GDP growth, although they should also create conditions for internal development and provide a flow of investments to the most promising fields. On one hand, this would allow to set changes in the cities and provide conditions for human development; on the other hand, it would help them provide the GMP growth that the entire country needs. In order for this to happen, cities must have access to the value that they create and use their rights to develop further.