Current issue

This article examines the spatial socioeconomic development problems that have emerged prominently in Russia in recent years. A special focus is the notion of ‘razvitie’ (development) gaining mainstream traction in the vocabulary of Russian politicians, researchers and media professionals. Authoritative scholarly opinions are cited, describing development as a process of changes in objects and phenomena without implying a positive connotation. Using the example of external regulation of anthropogenic spatial systems, it is shown that development should enhance the stability of the systems’ functioning, considering their equifinality and potential for self-organisation (self-development). A genetic connection is established between the concept of ‘spatial development’ and the global advances in economic geography. Attention is paid to the features of spatial and regional development as strategic planning objects. The article also examines the feasibility of accurately assessing the outcomes of a spatial development strategy by quantifying the achievement of its goals and targets. It is emphasised that results highlighting regional disparities and settlement patterns should be compared within groups of similar regions and macro-regions, such as northern, central and southern provinces of European Russia, Siberian territories, the Far East, the Arctic Zone and the republics of the North Caucasus. For demographic processes, comparisons should be based on specific population groups: children, youth, the working-age population, pensioners and migrants. Specific changes in productive forces distribution that align with target indicators should be verified by population assessments based on annual surveys.

This study draws on the concept of isomorphism of formal borders (those established by legislative acts), which postulates similarity in their functions performed in different combinations by borders of various statuses. The article aims to explore the isomorphism of formal borders and their impact on the economy and the quotidian practices of the population. The study employs expert interviews and personal observations from several Russian regions while analysing regional and municipal socioeconomic development strategies. On the one hand, the barrier and constitutive functions of borders help to level the socioeconomic gradient within such boundaries. On the other hand, these same functions accentuate the contrasts between neighbouring territories. The general characteristics of borders also encompass their capacity to either attract or deter specific activities and create or exacerbate the peripherality of adjacent areas. The tension between the continuity of physical and social space and the barrier function of borders shapes the population’s ‘cross-border’ practices, generating commodity flows and other interactions between neighbouring territories. This interaction, in turn, necessitates cooperation between border territories to address a range of cross-border issues. However, such collaborations exist almost exclusively at the interstate level. At the regional and municipal level, this need is either unaddressed or absent, even when acknowledged in strategic planning documents.

This article employs a comprehensive economic and geographical approach to examine the extensive European segment of Russia that extends north of the Moscow region – the area commonly known as Blizhny Sever (Near North). New challenges require an improvement of Russia’s spatial development strategy. The case of the region is used to illustrate the possibility of a multiscale approach to identifying socioeconomic contrasts within regions and describing the interdependent development of their parts. The study analyses population change trends from 1990 to 2022 alongside the territory’s migration patterns, employment trends and infrastructure development. The spatial approach is crucial in this context, owing to the natural variations within the macroregion, the suburban-peripheral contrasts and the growing role of the central cities. The study closely examines the eastern part of the macro-region, from Yaroslavl to Kirov. The compression of developed areas and the degradation of essential living conditions have been the most pronounced trends in the post-Soviet period, along with organisational and economic changes in key economic sectors. The study also explores how the impact of regional centres on surrounding areas changes with distance. It places emphasis on the shifting paradigm of agricultural land use under new institutional and economic conditions, the increasingly patchwork character of farming and the implications of the focus on animal husbandry. The work relies on analysing municipal-level statistical information and the extensive use of maps. Identifying both relatively successful and highly problematic areas within this vast macro-region can aid in devising new visions to enhance national and regional spatial development strategies.

Quantitative content analysis was employed to examine 63 strategies for the socioeconomic development of regions and municipalities within Russian Baltic territories. The aim was to assess the extent to which the ‘Baltic agenda’ – themes specific to this area – manifest themselves in the documents. Strategies developed between 2010 and 2023 and in force as of February 2024 were analysed. Indices of manifestation (IM) were calculated based on the number of mentions of 77 marker words. The formula for IM calculation includes the absolute number of mentions of words, adjusted for their significance, which was determined by their frequency of use and location within the text of the strategy. The IM was computed for three interrelated directions: Baltic, European and global. The maximum values of IM are characteristic of the strategy of the Kaliningrad region, which, in addition to objective factors, is due to the unusual voluminosity of the document. At the municipal level, the most impressive performances on this measure are seen in municipalities of the Kaliningrad region (Kaliningrad, Zelenogradsk, Gusev, Slavsk, Baltiysk and Bagrationovsk), Vyborg in the Leningrad region and Pskov. For Kaliningrad and Vyborg, two strategy versions were examined, making it possible to observe changes in the volume and focus on Baltic issues: the strategies are becoming shorter, with diminishing attention given to the Baltic agenda. A map diagram was drawn to illustrate the division of municipal strategies into five groups for each direction. Spatial differentiation is evident: the average IM value for the documents of the inner band of the Russian Baltic area is 2.7 times that for strategies of the outer band.

Amid the ongoing confrontation between Russia and the West, the processes of consolidation and divergence among political elites are crucial for understanding the mechanisms that form dividing lines. This is particularly important when examining the elites of the European Uni­on in their opposition to Russia. This article aims to develop a framework for analysing the dividing lines among EU elites in the context of relations with Russia. The analysis em­ploys a multi-tier model establishing a relationship between the ‘depth’ of a dividing line and the degree of elite disunity. The model includes two levels of analysis of dividing lines within the EU: supranational and national. The research demonstrates that, depending on the degree of interest misalignment and the availability of communication channels, elite divergence can result in segmentation, fragmentation or polarisation. Each of the tiers of divergence increa­singly reduces the likelihood of forming a common EU position on foreign policy issues. All three tendencies — segmentation, fragmentation and polarisation — are observed within the EU in relation to Russia at different levels of elite analysis. Crucial to the formation of a dividing line is the aspect of EU—Russia relations in question: the degree of distancing from the country or support for, and funding of, containment. Additional variables include factors such as the regional affiliation of the elite, their ideology and position within the power structure. Among all levels of analysis, polarisation is most evident in the efforts of supranational elites to promote ‘militant integration’, which conflicts with the interests of national elites and citizens of member states.

This paper investigates the global trend of the early 2020s, characterized by securitization of industrial strategies and the course towards technological self-sufficiency/sovereignty (the TS course) in both developed and developing countries, accompanied by geopolitical fragmentation of the world economy. We first identify typical features of the process of securitization of industrial policy in the context of its historical models’ evolution, then consider parameters of the TS course, including motives, objectives, tools, and risks, in Western nations (EU and USA) and in leading BRICS members (China, India, Brazil). It is shown that Western countries strive for product and technological independence from China while aiming for global leadership in the field of semiconductor (USA) or green (EU) technologies. Conversely, China aims for a central role in the global economy, prioritizing technological independence from the West. In India and Brazil, the TS course is shaped by structural economic challenges and the risks of growth slowdown. Against this background, we proceed to examine Russia’s TS course, analyzing its rationale, design of TS projects, as well as limitations and risks posed by sanctions. Then we highlight distinctions between Russia’s TS course and its foreign analogues, as well as reveal risks of Russia’s increasing technological dependence on China. The conclusion suggests that achieving TS, driven by security imperatives, may present a more formidable challenge than anticipated by governments across different types of countries.

Despite the widespread adoption of digital technologies and their potential to break down traditional barriers in business and communication, many Latvian residents and enterprises still lack access to digital marketing tools and the advantages they offer. This article aims to analyze inequality among residents and enterprises in the Latvian online market of digital marketing. The conceptual basis of the study is the technology acceptance model (TAM), the theory of digital divide and the resource approach based on the theory of social fields. For dynamic analysis of statistical data, the con(di)vergence of indicators of the involvement of various socio-demographic and geographical groups of Latvian residents and enterprises in the online market of digital marketing is assessed. The empirical study is based on Latvian statistics for 2013—2022 (for some indicators — 2023). The results of the study show that the development of digital marketing in Latvia is happening very quickly, but the potential for development still remains very large, since with 90 % of Latvian residents regularly (at least once a week) using the internet, more than 30 % of Latvians have not yet made a purchase or order on the internet. The development of digital marketing in Latvia reduces socio-demographic and geographical inequalities among residents and enterprises in the online market in relation to the ‘digital inequality of input’ (access to the online market), but in relation to the ‘digital inequality of output’ (returns from this access) the equalizing opportunities of digital marketing in Latvia (especially in its regions) are limited by the specifics of the functioning of the economy based on social capital. In this economy, models and theories developed for the economy based on innovation practically do not work. The novelty of this study is a comprehensive analysis of the general background and dynamics of the development of the Latvian online market of digital marketing in the context of digital inequality among residents and enterprises.

Amid ongoing globalisation, large cities are becoming increasingly attractive to migrants, resulting in a more multiethnic population composition, which underscores the growing importance of studying interethnic relations in metropolises. This work aims to explore the spatial localisation of ten ethnic groups residing in St. Petersburg: Ukrainians, Belarusians, Tatars, Jews, Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, Tajiks and Moldovans. Using the ethnic concentration coefficient, the study examines the territorial heterogeneity of settlement among the city’s largest ethnic diasporas to identify patterns in residential choice. The data on national composition are derived from all-Russian population censuses. Most national minorities are distributed rather evenly across the city, but the Jewish and Georgian communities are notably concentrated in the central district of St. Petersburg. At the same time, the migration restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic not only decreased the size of the Uzbek and Tajik diasporas, thereby normalising their gender and age distribution but also led to a more even dispersion of these ethnic groups across the city. Currently, there is no evident correlation between the spatial concentration of most ethnic groups in St. Petersburg and their level of social well-being.