National urban policy in Russia and the European experience
- DOI
- 10.5922/2079-8555-2021-4-1
- Pages
- 7-20
Abstract
This article analyses the features, shortcomings, prospects, and limitations of Russia’s national urban policy (NUP) and similar initiatives abroad to formulate proposals for further development of the Russian NUP. To this end, the study examines international (particularly German) documents and publications on NUP and the Russian regulatory framework. The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn attention to the resilience of cities to crises and the development of urban green spaces. Germany’s current NUP, adopted in 2007, stands out for its complexity and congruence with regional policy. The principal NUP document in Russia is the Spatial Development Strategy. However, it overlooks some issues essential for the development of the city system: the federal authorities support only selected types of towns, such as single-industry municipalities, and the NUP is not comprehensive as it pays little attention to the economic dimension. A feeble information framework and largely powerless municipal authorities impede further development of the NUP. A transition to a comprehensive and well-designed NUP in Russia is proposed, which includes counteracting the concentration of population and economic activity in Moscow and establishing Saint Petersburg as a centre of economic growth. There is also an urgent need to understand the economic development prospects of smaller towns.
Reference
1. UN-Habitat/OECD, 2018, Global State of National Urban Policy, Nairobi, 120 p. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264290747-en.
2. OECD/UN-Habitat/UNOPS, 2021, Global State of National Urban Policy 2021: Achieving Sustainable Development Goals and Delivering Climate Action, Paris, OECD Publishing, 162 p. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/96eee083-en.
3. OECD, 2017, National Urban Policy in OECD Countries, Paris, OECD Publishing, 140 p. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264271906-en.
4. UN-Habitat, 2017, New Urban Agenda, 66 p. available at: https://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf (accessed 10.08.2021).
5. OECD, 1999, Urban Policy in Germany: Towards Sustainable Urban Development, Paris, OECD Publishing, 95 p. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264173194-en.
6. Silin, Y. P. 2005, Urban policy in Modern Russia: essence, formation, levels of implementation, Izvestiya Ural’skogo Gosudarstvennogo Ekonomicheskogo Universiteta [Proceedings of the Ural State University of Economics], no. 10. p. 94—102 (In Russ.).
7. Obedkov, A. P. 2016, Features of the formation and conduction of urban politics in Russia, Vestnik Komi Respublikanskoi Akademii Aosudarstvennoi Sluzhby i Upravleniya. Teoriya i Praktika Upravleniya [Bulletin of the Komi Republican Academy of Public Service and Management. Management theory and practice], no.16. p. 61—70 (In Russ.).
8. Popov, R. A., Puzanov, A. S., Polidi, T. D. 2018, The outline of the new state policy тowards Russian cities and urban agglomerations, EKO [ECO], no. 8, p. 7—22. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.30680/ECO0131-7652-2018-8-7-22 (In Russ.).
9. Blackman, T. 1995, Urban Policy in Practice, Routledge, 352 p.
10. Radzimski, A. 2018, Spatial Distribution of Urban Policy Funds in Germany and its Determinants, Urban Development Issues, no. 57, p. 15—26. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/udi-2018-0014.
11. Atkinson, R, Zimmermann, K. 2016, Cohesion Policy and Cities: an Ambivalent Relationship. In: Piattoni, S, Polverari, L. (eds.) Handbook on Cohesion Policy in the EU, Edward Elgar, p. 413—426.
12. EU, 2020, The Urban Dimension in the EU Cohesion Policy in Germany. EU Funding Period 2014—2020, Bonn, 72 p.
13. Zimmermann, K., Fedeli, V. (eds.) 2020, A Modern Guide to National Urban Policies in Europe, Edward Elgar, 368 p. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781839109058.
14. Sassen, S. 2000, Cities in a World Economy. Second Edition, Pine Forge Press, 201 p.
15. EC/UN-Habitat, 2016, The State of European Cities 2016: Cities leading the way to a better future, Brussels, 220 p.
16. UN-Habitat, 2016, Urbanization and Development: Emerging Features. World Cities Report 2016, Nairobi, 264 p.
17. OECD, 2020, Cities in the World: A New Perspective on Urbanisation, Paris, 171 p.
18. Gaugitsch, R. et all. 2020, Territorial Impact Assessment: the State of the Cities and Regions in the COVID-19 crisis, European Union, 71 p. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.2863/112206.
19. OECD, 2020, OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020, Paris, OECD Publishing, 166 p. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/959d5ba0-en.
20. Zhiharevich, B. S., Klimanov, V. V., Maracha, V. G. 2020, Resilience of the territory: concept, measurement, governance, Regional’nye Issledovaniya [Regional Research], no. 3, p. 4—15. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.5922/1994-5280-2020-3-1 (In Russ.).
21. Martin, R., Sunley, P. 2015, On the Notion of Regional Economic Resilience: Conceptualization and Explanation, Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 1—42. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbu015.
22. Modica, M., Reggani, A. 2014, Spatial Economic Resilience: Overview and Perspectives, Networks and Spatial Economics, vol. 14, no 2, p. 211—233. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11067-014-9261-7.
23. Capello, R., Caragliuy, A., Fratesi, U. 2015, Spatial Heterogeneity in the Costs of the Economic Crisis in Europe: are Cities Sources of Regional Resilience? Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 951—972. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbu053.
24. Dijkstra, L., Garcilazo, E., McCann, P. 2015, The Effects of the Global Financial Crisis on European Regions and Cities, Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 935—949. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbv032.
25. Florida, R., Rodríguez-Pose, A., Storper, M. 2021, Cities in a post-COVID world, Urban Studies, June, p. 1—23. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00420980211018072.
26. BBSR, 2021, Raumordnungsbericht 2021: Wettbewerbsfähigkeit stärken, Bonn, 155 S.
27. Kuznetsova, O. V. 2013, Regional’naya politika Rossii: 20 let reform i novye vozmozhnosti [Russia’s regional policy: 20 years of reforms and new opportunities], Moscow, 392 p. (In Russ.).
28. ESPON, 2021, Second Tier Cities and Territorial Development in Europe: Performance, Policies and Prospects. Scientific Report, ESPON, 803 p. available at: https://www.espon.eu/programme/projects/espon-2013/applied-research/sgptd-secondary-growth-poles-and-territorial (accessed 15.07.2021).
29. Lachininskii, S., Semenova, I. 2015, Saint Petersburg as a Global Coastal City: Positioning in the Baltic Region, Balt. Reg., no. 3, p. 47—57. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2015-3-4.
30. Fricke, C. 2020, Locating Urban Issues in German Policy-Making: Metropolitan Regions and Urban Development Policies in a Multi-scalar Context. In: Armondi, S., De Gregorio Hurtado, S. (eds.) Foregrounding Urban Agendas: The New Urban Issue in European Experiences of Policy-Making, Springer, p. 167—184.
31. Kuznetsova, O. V. 2020, Contrasts in Budgetary Opportunities of City-Regions and City-Municipalities in Russia and the Experience of Germany, Regional Research of Russia, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 522—529. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S2079970520040152.