Challenges and Policy of Spatial Development of Post-Soviet Russia as a Subject of a Unique Academic Research: From the Editors of the Special Issue

Abstract—

The article presents readers with a thematic issue of the journal Regional Research of Russia, dedicated to the selected results of long-term interdisciplinary academic research on the fundamental problems of modern Russia’s spatial development. The uniqueness of the design and content of these studies, conducted in 2009–2019, is revealed as part of a large-scale scientific megaproject. The article describes the goals, content, and results of four research programs successively carried out within its framework: “Fundamental Problems of Spatial Development of the Russian Federation: Interdisciplinary Synthesis” (2009–2011); “The Role of Space in Russia’s Modernization: Natural and Socioeconomic Potential” (2012–2014); “Russia’s Spatial Development in the 21st Century: Nature, Society, and Their Interaction” (2015–2017); “Spatial Restructuring of Russia Taking into Account Geopolitical, Socioeconomic and Geoecological Challenges” (2018–2019). These programs are distinguished by methodological, subject, and organizational continuity. The multifaceted results of research within the framework of the last three programs are published in Russian in the monograph “Challenges and Policy of Russia’s Spatial Development in the 21st Century” (2020). The ten articles in this issue reflect the most important subjects presented in the monograph.

A NEW STAGE OF SPATIAL RESEARCH IN MODERN RUSSIA

The challenges of the country’s spatial development have moved into the category of the most pressing issues of the state policy of modern Russia. This is evidenced by the corresponding strategic decisions. “The Fundamentals of the State Policy for Regional Development of the Russian Federation for the Period up to 2025” was approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation no. 13 of January 16, 2017; “The Strategy for Spatial Development of the Russian Federation for the Period up to 2025” was approved by Decree of the Russian Federation Government no. 207-r of February 13, 2019.

This change in public policy priorities should be seen as an important step in the right direction. The fact is that the spatial organization that developed in the Soviet period based on directive and planning decisions demanded at the turn of the 21st century cardinal substantive and structural transformations due to the transition to market principles and institutions. In order to adequately grasp the fundamentally new spatial circumstances and actively adapt to them when substantiating government decisions, it is extremely important to understand and correctly assess the prerequisites, meaning, and possible consequences of ongoing multiple and dynamic spatial changes. Such a quality level of public administration in spatial development can only be reached by relying on scientifically based ideas on the essence and patterns of spatial processes and phenomena. The reliable new knowledge required in this regard can only be obtained by academic science, with its highly qualified personnel and a rich accumulation of multiyear fundamental and applied research.

The project, developed over many years, was conceived, prepared, and launched in 2008–2009 under the supervision of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.G. Granberg. The idea and content of the project grew out of awareness of the need to search for new theoretical and methodological approaches, tools, and ways to organize scientific research on Russia’s spatial development.

For regionalist scientists, understanding the meaning, content, and patterns of the new spatial reality and assessing the consequences of its formation have become a new serious challenge. The answer demanded the organization of multidisciplinary systematic scientific research, mobilization of the scientific experience of many established scientific teams, and adaptation of their coordinated work to solve fundamentally new problems. As a result, under the megaproject, four fundamental research programs of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences were consistently implemented while maintaining the methodological, subject, and organizational continuity: “Fundamental Problems of Spatial Development of the Russian Federation: Interdisciplinary Synthesis” (2009–2011); “The Role of Space in Russia’s Modernization: Natural and Socioeconomic Potential” (2012–2014); “Russia’s Spatial Development in the 21st Century: Nature, Society, and Their Interaction” (2015–2017); “Spatial Restructuring of Russia Taking into Account Geopolitical, Socioeconomic and Geoecological Challenges” (2018–2019).

OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND CONTENT OF THE BASIC RESEARCH

The main objective of the first program (2009–2011) was to obtain a holistic systemic understanding of space as a synthetic category based on the integration of various elements of particular theories and concepts of space. In the course of the study, the productivity of organizing interdisciplinary scientific research by several dozen institutes representing various departments of the Russian Academy of Sciences and regions of the country was proved.

The successful experience of the first program1 confirmed that studying the spatial base of Russia’s development is one of the fundamental scientific problems that require constant research attention. It is necessary to form reliable systemic ideas about Russia’s spatial potential, the possibilities and options for its use in the interests of current and future generations of Russian citizens, in accordance with the global challenges and strategic development goals of a country that has taken a course towards modernization and an innovation type of development. The conducted historical analysis of Russian modernizations shows that they face two threats related to the spatial factor: first, “dissolution,” inhibition, decrease in efficiency, and as a result, loss of modernization efforts in the vast expanses of the country and, second, too great a spatial concentration, in fact, overmobilization of these efforts, leading to polarization of the previously developed space. Complementing and reinforcing social stratification, tension, and disintegration trends in society, concentration can also negate the positive effects of modernization. To avoid these extremes, Russia’s modernization strategies and plans need to include a carefully thought-out spatial component. The territorial organization of society should be adequate to the objective conditions of the country and urgent problems facing it. This, in turn, requires more profound knowledge about the natural and social space, about the corridor of opportunities they provide, and about their evolution and interaction.

It is necessary to take into account the specifics of the latest stage of Russia’s development in the context of formation of a postindustrial society, globalization, and, at the same time, the global crisis, as well as the need to change the mechanisms of this development. It has long been known that each stage and type of development of society and production requires its own specific space. Obviously, the raw material model is associated with some zones and regions of Russia, and the innovation-technological model with others. The problem lies in their correlation and interaction at each stage of transition from one model to another, in the choice of appropriate alternatives, addresses for investment, the creation of new infrastructure links, and accommodating places with infrastructure and services to attract new personnel. At well, modernization cannot ignore objective trends in the evolution of spatial structures of natural resources, the economy, settlements, and living conditions of people, including trends assessed as negative. Modernization requires investment. Modernization is impossible without an administrative mechanism adequate to the new conditions and objectives of social development. The absence of institutions (in a broad sense) corresponding to the complexity of the problems facing the country deprives it of the opportunity to realize innovation impulses.

These considerations about the relationship between spatial factors and modernization formed the basis of the research concept of the second program (2012–2014). Its projects were grouped into eight thematic areas, which corresponded to priority groups of scientific problems to be solved. The first direction—conceptual and theoretical—was based on a number of working hypotheses on the wave patterns of the evolution of the developed space and innovations space, the levels of territorial organization of society, the relation of centers and peripheries, centralism and federalism, regional diagnostics and politics as a systemic regulator of spatial development in different phases of economic development and political cycles. The three following directions were aimed at unlocking the potential of the components of Russia’s internal space: key natural resources and conditions and the economic and social spaces. The fifth direction involved a detailed study of Russia’s macroregions. The sixth direction was specially dedicated to the Southern macroregion as one of the most problematic. The seventh direction expanded the scope of the study by analyzing the development of Russia in the world and, in particular, the Eurasian space. The eighth direction was devoted to the problem of creating an institutional and legal environment for spatial development.

The third program (2015–2017) was implemented within the following research areas: (1) rational use, conservation, and increase of the natural potential of the Russian space; (2) transformation of the spatial organization of society as a whole and in the context of its individual subsystems—socioeconomic, state-political, administrative-territorial; (3) provision of the Russian space with infrastructure (energy, transport, information); (4) spatial disproportions of socioeconomic development and consolidation of socioeconomic space; (5) change in spatial development models, new development of large spatial parts of the country (the Arctic, the Far East); (6) Russia in the changing global geoeconomic and political space, and interstate integration on the Eurasian continent; (7) institutions and state regulation tools of spatial interaction processes between nature and society; (8) geoinformation support for space research and presentation of the results.

The main scientific results of nine years of research were as follows. First, the theoretical foundations of the approach to studying space were developed. Second, the systemic viewpoint on space in all its component diversity has become stronger. Third, the composition and roles of the key components of space were identified for solving problems of modernizing the country. Fourth, the main features, including regional, are identified and these components are categorized.

These achievements have made it possible to pose a new task: a systemic study of restructuring the spatial organization of the life of Russian society at the stage of its cardinal changes, taking into account external and internal challenges. The main components of the spatial reorganization of the country’s life should be: (1) new organization of the settlement pattern and sociocultural life; (2) new spatial distribution of productive forces, including the rational use of natural resources; (3) new organization of the power space (federalism and local self-government).

RESULTS

From these positions, the fourth program was launched in 2018. Its most significant results, together with the results of the second and third programs, are published in the collective monograph “Challenges and Policy of Russia’s Spatial Development in the 21st Century” (2020)2. This thematic issue of the journal includes ten articles that reveal the most important aspects and topical problems of the spatial development of modern Russia.

The issue is opened by A.I. Treivish’s article “Historical Experience of the Modernization of Russian Society and Space.” The author analyzes the modernization of society in space and modernization of the socioeconomic space itself. The article discusses waves of expansions and shrinkage (pulsations) of space, the ratio of modernization and westernization, the peculiarities of a giant country with catch-up development, historical pendulums of innovations and reforms; an attempt was made to derive the conditional cognitive lessons of history in this context, and the most acute challenges to the spatial development of Russia in the 21st century were formulated.

Two articles are devoted to the natural resource space. V.I. Danilov-Danilyan, N.N. Klyuev, and V.M. Kotlyakov (“Russia in the Global Natural and Ecological Space”) consider the evolution of the role of natural–geographical factors in the spatial organization of society, give a geoecological description of Russia’s natural resource complex in a global context, and assess the country’s environmental well-being based on intercountry comparisons for a wide range of parameters. Two of these authors, V.I. Danilov-Danilyan and N.N. Klyuev, detail the topic in “Russia’s Natural Resources’ Sphere: Development Trends and Desirable Strategies,” noting that current changes in the natural resource complex do not meet sustainable development criteria. An inventory of implemented investment projects revealed exceptionally high territorial differentiation of industrial construction with overconcentration in the Moscow region, as well as in the Northwest, with no signs of greening.

Two articles put Russia in an international sociopolitical and political–economic context. V.A. Kolosov (“Modern Russian Borderlands: Problems of Study and Some Conclusions”), based on the concept of bordering, comparatively analyzes the demographic and socioeconomic dynamics of border regions of Russian and neighboring countries, as well as the nature, mechanisms, and institutions of cross-border cooperation. Exploring relations with neighboring countries, the author notes that Russia’s political discourse throughout the entire post-Soviet period was focused on balance between the conditional Western and Eastern (Eurasian) vector, but it has undergone fundamental changes.

In the article “International Transport Corridors in the Context of Developing Russia’s Transit Potential” L.B. Vardomsky considers the volume of transit and balance of transit services as a reflection of the features of Russia’s geoeconomic position. The author emphasizes that in the context of aggravated geopolitical contradictions, the issues of export of transit services recede into the background compared to the task of creating a new logistics for Russian foreign trade.

The economic space is also considered in two articles. N.N. Mikheeva (“Spatial Structure and Directions of Modernization of the Russian Economy”) analyzes trends in the spatial distribution of the population, employment, and production, revealing long-term trends in spatial shifts. The contribution of regional factors and shifts in the spatial structure to the growth of labor productivity in the Russian economy as a whole is assessed. The author’s conclusion is extremely relevant: for regions, the strategy of diversification of employment and structure of production leads to stable growth, and a significant breakthrough due to concentration of resources in the most competitive areas simultaneously carries risks.

A.N. Pilyasov and R.V. Goncharov in the article “Location of Productive Forces in Russia in an Innovation Economy,” based on world experience and Russian realities of the last three decades, summarize new patterns, consisting in the rise in importance of urban agglomerations, economic clusters, and grassroots (small) economic districts in the form of localized areas of increased economic concentration. The peculiar nature of Russia’s center–periphery relationship is revealed: about half the country’s territory has no clear center nearby, forcing Moscow to play this role.

Two articles address social issues. T.G. Nefedova and O.B. Glezer (“Transformation of Russia’s Sociogeographical Space”) analyze how the peculiarities of the sociogeographical space affect the development of cities and rural areas, emphasizing that even processes of transformation of this space—differentiation, concentration, polarization, shrinkage, and fragmentation, which are caused by objective factors—are intensified as a result of centralized administration. At the same time, excessive manifestation of these processes weakens the potential for development of territories of various size and leads to growth of the internal and external periphery.

In the article “Regional Differentiation of Human Potential in Russia,” L.A. Migranova and M.S. Toksanbaeva devote much attention to methods for assessing the quality of human potential by regions, including in the dynamics. At the interregional level, using the characteristics of the demographic situation, health, education, and sociocultural behavior, the adequacy of the human potential of federal subjects to the problems of modernization was assessed, with the conclusion that in most regions, the readiness level is low or medium.

The special issue is capped by A.N. Shvetsov’s article “State Participation in Transformation of Russia’s Socioeconomic Space.” The author concludes that although state participation in solving numerous accumulated problems and accumulating new problems is significantly changing, its traditionally strong importance for Russia persists. The state acts simultaneously as a driving force of spatial transformations, a regulator, investor, sponsor, and beneficiary of these processes, but it is also a hostage to its own dominance, facing the main risks.

We consider it particularly necessary to draw readers’ attention to the fact that the articles in this issue were prepared in 2020 based on the results of studies conducted in 2009–2019. Therefore, the authors could not have taken into account how the considered subject matter would be impacted by the latest events related to the two global crises that erupted suddenly: the COVID-19 pandemic and aggravation of the military–political situation with Ukraine in 2022, the outcome of which is uncertain. Without a doubt, the authors’ assessments of the current situations and forecasts of their development, made on the very eve of these events, will require fine-tuning over time, but undoubtedly, most of the conclusions regarding the prerequisites, meaning, content, and consequences of the spatial development of modern Russia, taken in a broad historical context, will retain their research value and practical significance.

We hope that this thematic issue, which offers the selected fruits of many years of academic research by Russian specialists, will foster mutual understanding and international scientific collaboration.

FUNDING

The study was carried out in accordance with Fundamental Research Programs of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences and under the state task of the Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences AAAA-A19-119022190170-1 (FMGE-2019-0008).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.