Vol 9, No 4 (2019)

The specifics of the current socioeconomic situation and the state and prospects of development of Russian regions and municipalities are largely determined by the legal environment, which forms under the strongest influence of the “federal presence”—centralization of the federal government in a decentralized state. In fact, the legal field of Russian municipal activity is completely federal: the list of jurisdictions and powers is closed, the types of municipal formations are unified, and the organization of activities and resources for local self-government are established by federal laws. It has been suggested that the territorial fragmentation of the country’s unified legal space should be considered the most important characteristic of the sociopolitical and socioeconomic heterogeneity of the Russian space. The article critically assesses ideas about the possibility of solving the problems of Russia’s spatial development mainly by the formation of local points (zones) of growth. The concentration of features and problems of the functioning of regional and municipal systems under conditions of Russia’s specific legal field is characterized by Russia’s Arctic zone. In the context of their views on the territorial fragmentation of this field, the authors analyze software solutions for a new type of special legal regime, “development support zones” in Arctic territories.

The article addresses problems of the periphery and peripheralization of Russia’s spatial development, a significant part of which experienced negative socioeconomic development during the transition to a market economy and continues to struggle at present. Theoretical approaches of Russian and foreign authors to defining the concepts of periphery and peripheralization of space are considered. By comparative analysis and systematization, the authors have identified the six basic approaches researchers use to define the term periphery: positional, functional, problematical, generative-translational, social, and subjective. The content and features of each approach are also revealed. The authors have highlighted such basic properties of the periphery as multiform remoteness, economic degradation, social marginalization, multiscale character, migration outflow, ubiquity, relativity, and weak involvement in global economic relations. A system of indicators is proposed that characterize the periphery in accordance with the identified approaches. The spatial development of individual centers of Russia along with degradation of most of its territory significantly actualizes the question on the future of the Russian periphery and its impact on the spatial development of the country as a whole. Due to its own weak potential, the Russian periphery cannot independently attract socioeconomic development and requires strengthening of state regulation measures based on the competitive advantages of each territory.

This paper discusses Moscow’s influence on the regions surrounding Moscow oblast in terms of various parameters associated with changes in the population size of cities and rural areas, economic activity, employment, mobility of the population, land use, and dacha development. Located relatively close to Moscow and enjoying no advantages of the nearby Moscow suburbs, the regions around Moscow oblast are nonetheless strongly influenced by the capital. The historical waves of city formation around the metropolitan region and population dynamics in the 20th and 21st centuries are shown. The post-Soviet transformation strongly polarized cities depending on their size and position with respect to the Moscow region. The invariance of the suburban–peripheral organization of the countryside, which experienced a strong contraction in land use, is revealed. However, against the fields abandoned and overgrown with forest, a new industrial agriculture with a small number of employees was actively developing here in separate areas, aimed at supplying Moscow and the entire country. A small private economy has been decreasing under prolonged, intensive decline in the rural population and expansion of non-agricultural earning opportunities in the Moscow region. This territory is characterized by the most active labor commutes to Moscow and Moscow oblast, which often provide informal employment for the populations of small towns and rural areas. Competitors of the Moscow region, although weaker, are the capitals of the surrounding regions. The share of the temporary dacha population in the summer months in many areas, especially those adjacent to Moscow oblast, is higher than that of the local rural one. The polarized development of cities depending on the proximity to the Moscow metropolitan area and point-type industrialization of the rural economy, combined with the massive development of seasonal dacha recreation, is the main route for development of this large territory.

Migration of working-age people is considered in regards to intergenerational social mobility. The latter is understood as an improvement in one’s level of education, material well-being, or job position compared to the corresponding characteristics of one’s parents. Migration is a powerful social elevator: often search for a better job motivates people to move. The aim of the article is to estimate the impact of place of residence change on social dynamics. The study is based on data from the regular all-Russian sociological survey “Person, Family, Society” (PFS). To define social classes we apply stratification methodology based on three domains of criteria—wealth, socio-professional status, and subjective indicators. Among social strata the middle class is the least mobile, while the lower class demonstrates the highest territorial mobility. Most often, moving to another locality takes place due to family circumstances, and this kind of migration is the most typical for the lower class. The hypothesis about the positive impact of any migration on socioeconomic growth has not been confirmed by PFS data. However, relocations for study lead to upward intergenerational mobility in education and employment status. Migration for family reasons has an opposite effect: all else being equal, it reduces a person’s chances to surpass her/his parents in terms of wealth and level of education.

The paper analyzes the development trends of Russia’s largest urban agglomerations following the last census, in the period 2010–2018. According to the methodology, based on the functional and settlement pattern approach and the isochrons of transport accessibility of agglomeration cores, the boundaries were delimited and the population dynamics and development coefficient of Russia’s 36 largest urban agglomerations (with cores in cities or in a group (for several geographically close centers) having populations close to 500 000 people). The calculation results are presented for four delimitation variants, from minimum to maximum, the latter based on E.E. Leizerovich’s microzoning grid. For the given period, the number of urban agglomerations was not redistributed between the classes of development and the number of developed agglomerations remains low. The study reveals the trends of continued population concentration in the largest agglomerations and their cores. The case study of the Moscow metropolitan agglomeration illustrates the monocentric character of most of the largest agglomerations. A study of the higher supra-agglomeration structure—of the Central Russian Megalopolis—revealed its fragmentation and the lack of development of lower-level agglomeration formations.

A wide range of scientific studies worldwide reflects the influence of the coastal situation factor. The shift of socioeconomic activity and the settlement system to the sea and ocean coasts forms the prerequisites for changing the national innovation landscape. The paper revolves around coastal cities and agglomerations in western Russia based on how they influence innovation processes. The authors present a typology and emphasize the characteristics of the key coastal cities and agglomerations in European Russia as transformational elements of the innovation space. It is revealed that the tourist, marine, transport and logistics, trade and distribution, and industrial components control the strategic relevance of cities and urban agglomerations in European Russia in the development of Russia’s territorial social system. Their role as a transformational element of the innovation space is not quite obvious, unlike similar agglomerations in foreign countries. Innovation support institutions are just beginning to form; they have appeared in the largest agglomerations in the early 2000s, and over the past few years in remaining cities considered. Currently, it is still difficult to assess the contribution of these institutions to the formation of Russian cities as innovation drivers. The authors offer indicators that demonstrate this important city activity. Based on the scoring method, coastal cities and agglomerations in European Russia have been divided into four groups: generator cities, starting generator cities, cities with the potential to generate innovative processes, and cities with weak potential. It was found that cities launch innovative processes precisely through strategic innovations (support institutions, technological environment, and agent operators). At the same time, not only the largest cities have great opportunities, but also individual regional centers integrated into regional development programs and actively force the transition to the smart city platform.