2024 Issue №2

On February 11, 2024, we lost an outstanding economic geographer, mentor, and leader, a person whose name is synonymous with the establishment of the scientific school of socio-economic geography in the Kaliningrad region, recognized by the entire academic community. A graduate of the Faculty of Geography of Leningrad State University, G. M. Fedorov began his career at Kaliningrad State University in 1972, ultimately dedicating nearly 52 years to the institution (now the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University). Gennady Fedorov mentored a generation of young researchers who continue his work. Dozens of PhDs, researchers and doctors of sciences consider him their teacher.

Gennady Fedorov conducted extensive scientific research and organizational work. He was the chairman of the Dissertation Board for Geographical Sciences (I. Kant BFU) and a member of the Herzen RSPU (St. Petersburg). He was part of the Council for Political Sciences (IKBFU), the inspirational force and deputy editor-in-chief of the journal “Baltic Region” (Scopus, WoS, core of RSCI, HAC), deputy chairman of the editorial board of the journal “Regional Studies” (RSCI, HAC), chief editor of the journal “Bulletin of I. Kant BFU. Series: Natural and Medical Sciences,” and a member of the Academic Council of the Russian Geographical Society (RGS). Gennady Fedorov was one of Russia’s most renowned economic geographers, authoring over 550 scientific works, including 70 monographs and textbooks, and developing the scientific concept of the geodemographic situation. He led research projects in the fields of social geography, regional economics, and geopolitics. These included grants from the Russian scientific foundations RFBR and RSF, the Russian Geographical Society, and international projects.

In this article, we, his students and followers, have taken on the difficult task of summarizing the main results of Professor G. M. Fedorov’s scientific activity. This task is challenging primarily because his work was so diverse and multifaceted that it cannot be fully captured in a single article. A different format of publication is required for such an endeavor. Here, we will outline the main issues and scientific directions he worked on and present a list of G. M. Fedorov’s most well-known works.

In the context of modern globalization processes, the volume of population involved in international educational migration is growing increasingly intensive, and its results are having a more noticeable impact on socio-political and socio-economic processes. This article examines international educational migration as a source of potential labor resources for the country’s economy and as an indicator for assessing geopolitical and geoeconomic processes. Current trends in international educational migration show that North American and European countries are the main recipients of foreign students, while the donor countries are predominantly from Asia, Africa, and partially Latin America. The demand for and popularity of Russian education in the international educational services market is growing. Under the influence of geopolitical factors and sanctions, the flows of educational immigration to Russia are transforming and reorienting by country. Central Asian countries, China, and India occupy leading positions. Using the example of the Kaliningrad region, a comparative analysis of the transformation of volumes and directions of international educational migration is conducted, and the reasons for these changes are examined. The region is characterized by the expansion and diversification of flows, as well as a decrease in foreign students from geographically close countries and a reorientation to all-Russian trends.

The center-periphery theory is one of the oldest and most frequently applied theories in spatial development. The aim of this article is to conduct a critical analysis of the center-periphery theory at the present stage, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. To achieve this objective, an analysis was conducted of Russian and foreign works by specialists from various fields who have studied the center-periphery theory. The essential features of the theory and its transformation over time in terms of theory and methodology were noted. This theory is often regarded as “having stood the test of time.” However, it is important to understand that, like any theory, it has specific applications and limitations. These can logically be identified by outlining both the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. The strengths include simplicity and logic, universality, a long history of development, an evolutionary nature, and integration with other spatial theories. The weaknesses include rigid demarcation, lack of expression in real space, the necessity for complication, polydependence in modern space, and limited predictive capability. As a result of the study, it was noted that the center-periphery theory, despite its widespread recognition and frequent application, has a limited explanatory and predictive nature. This makes it of limited utility in studying spatial development and requires a critical approach and application.

The center-periphery theory is one of the oldest and most frequently applied theories in spatial development. The aim of this article is to conduct a critical analysis of the center-periphery theory at the present stage, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. To achieve this objective, an analysis was conducted of Russian and foreign works by specialists from various fields who have studied the center-periphery theory. The essential features of the theory and its transformation over time in terms of theory and methodology were noted. This theory is often regarded as “having stood the test of time.” However, it is important to understand that, like any theory, it has specific applications and limitations. These can logically be identified by outlining both the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. The strengths include simplicity and logic, universality, a long history of development, an evolutionary nature, and integration with other spatial theories. The weaknesses include rigid demarcation, lack of expression in real space, the necessity for complication, polydependence in modern space, and limited predictive capability. As a result of the study, it was noted that the center-periphery theory, despite its widespread recognition and frequent application, has a limited explanatory and predictive nature. This makes it of limited utility in studying spatial development and requires a critical approach and application.