Том 6, № 4 (2016)

The influence of geoeconomic factors in the spatial pattern of St. Petersburg’s coastal area is analyzed in this paper on a global level taking into account the integration of St. Petersburg and its surroundings into global value-added chains and transportation and logistic schemes; on a macroregional level taking into account the development of the leading port and industrial complexes in the Baltic Sea and the expansion of pipeline projects; an on a local level taking into account the emergence of cross-border clusters, etc. With allowance for the spatial parameters, the boundaries of St. Petersburg’s coastal area are determined; they include the city of St. Petersburg, as well as some municipal districts of Leningrad, Novgorod, and Pskov oblasts, and the Republic of Karelia, in total 37 administrative units with a population of about 7.5 mln people and an area of 110500 km². A typology is proposed, and geoeconomic elements (transport hubs, complexes, areas) are determined taking into account their spatial configuration, location, and scale of activity. Our case of St. Petersburg’s coastal area describes and analyzes the geoeconomic elements located in the seaside (up to 50 km) and coastal zone (from 50 to 200 km). A particular focus is elements carrying the main geoeconomic burden—seaports. Emerging geoeconomic elements are determined: contact border areas with Finland, Latvia, and Estonia. At the same time, the absence of joint industrial clusters is noted. St. Petersburg’s development prospects as a global city and its impact on the economy of the studied coastal area are shown. The results of the study are visualized with one of the geoinformational products.

The migration balance of urban municipal areas (hereinafter, okrugs–Russ.) and municipal districts in Russia in 2012–2014 is analyzed from the standpoint of its impact on the concentration and deconcentration of the population. The paper reviews the distribution of urban okrugs and municipal districts by population density and the current ratio of sparsely and densely populated areas across the country. Calculations show that the conditions in Russia today contribute to concentration of the population and, hence, the polarization of space between densely populated major cities and deserted poorly developed areas. Unlike in many European countries and the United States, where concentration and deconcentration processes have been alternating for decades, concentration of the population is an ongoing process in Russia. Two directions of migration are analyzed: (1) from the intraregional periphery to regional centers: the farther from the center, the more intense the outflow; (2) from low-populated municipalities to densely populated territorial units, primarily, large cities. The contributions of individual migration flows (intraregional, interregional, and international) to the concentration and deconcentration of the population are evaluated.

The article assesses the dynamics of migration effectiveness by Russian regions over a long time period. Russian and foreign studies have found that people with migration experience change their place of residence more easily compared with those who have never moved. Migrants are divided into two main types, namely, newcomers and long-time residents who have lived in a migration destination for a long time, and a transitional type from newcomers to long-time residents. Moscow, St. Petersburg, and their oblasts are subjects where migrants adapt the best. For a long time, in most Far Eastern and Siberian subjects (except for the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug), the large number of arriving migrants were compensated by large number of migrants who departed a region. The collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent socioeconomic crisis have shown that population outflow occurs primarily in regions with the highest share of new settlers. Attempts to force the development of areas with harsh natural conditions and low adaptation by the population led to a massive return migration. Ensuring the adaptation of new settlers and their transition to long-time residents, rather than a high number of arrivals, is important for regional migration policy. Adaptation largely depends on the level of socioeconomic development of regions and particular localities.

The relationship of stratification of shopping types, development of certain types of retail facilities, and major macro trends in the spatial organization of the tertiary sector of the city economy is described by with a case of St. Petersburg, one of the leaders and innovators in Russian retail. Shopping periodization from 1989 to 2016 is proposed based on the author’s multiyear field surveys and interviews as well as the above criteria. Six periods are distinguished. The features of the latest, modern stage are described in particular detail taking into account consumer stratification by income groups. The data also argue in a more general discussion about the completion or continuation of social transformation in the post-Soviet metropolis. The data on the different stages and regularities in the development of the spatial organization of retail trade for this innovative leader give grounds to make forecasts for other major cities of Russia.

Research of state borders has long discussed a contradiction typical of many countries, between growth in cross-border flows under the influence of globalization and regional integration processes and the persistent, sometimes intensifying, barrier function of borders. Barrier functions, along with contact functions, are the main ones of any border. This article considers their relations in regard to intensifying contrasts in the political–legal, economic, and cultural space between post-Soviet countries. The dynamics and factors of cross-border interactions are studied together with the barrier function dynamics hindering or fostering contacts between contiguous territories. A point system is developed for assessing the main indices of the border function to reveal areas in Russian borderlands with different intensities of interaction and dynamics of cross-border flows for 2010–2014. A comparative study of interactions with contiguous regions in different Russian border areas has revealed a contradictory character of the dependence of cross-border flows on the barrier functions of borders. It has shown that state (national), regional, and municipal levels of interactions in the cross-border area are governed by various factors. At the national level, the barrier function to a large degree is determined by the visa regime and its application; at the regional and local levels, by the character of the settlement pattern and border infrastructure, including the density of checkpoints, their status, and regime. The result of the study is a typology of Russian border areas based on their contact/barrier function indices and their influence on the everyday life of the population.

Significant changes have taken place in the spatial structure of the Russian economy since the launch of market reforms. The paper studies its peculiarities in 1999–2013 in terms of formal (recorded by statistics in current prices) and real changes in the spatial structure of the economy. The relevant performance is calculated from real GRP indices, changes in the number of employed in the economy, and the dynamics in electric energy consumption. It is concluded that real changes in the spatial structure of the economy are much less significant than those recorded in statistics. This can be attributed to the fact that the region whose economic results have been recorded does not always coincide with the region where goods are actually produced and transported. Another aspect of the problem is demonstrated: a very high interregional differentiation in the indicators of per capita GRP. The main reason for this differentiation stems from the huge disparities in the indicators of value added per employee according to types of economic activity. Some of these comparable indicators have only been used in Russian statistics since 2005. Labor productivity indicators for different types of activities differ by more than an order of magnitude. Lists of leaders (mining, financial activity, and wholesale trade) and outliers (agriculture, education, and healthcare) do not change with time. For the most part, these differences cannot be removed; because of this and the almost complete resistant to changes characterizing the current specialization of regions, no significant changes in the existing regional differences can be expected in the long run in terms of per capita production.

The paper considers Russia’s main agricultural resources based on the well-known political economic labor–land–capital triad. The study concerns problems of employment in agriculture against a background of intensified spatial polarization of the countryside and analyzes the territorial redistribution of the population from the countryside to cities both in search of permanent residence and temporary work, as well as the consequences of previous crises and the transition from a labor-consuming to a labor-saving model of agricultural development. The author reveals features of agricultural land use, territorial differences in the areal sizes of abandoned lands, and the possibilities of its return in use. Structural reforms in agriculture related to multiform expansion, the appearance of farm enterprises, and the arrival of big business in agriculture are considered in detail. The investment priorities in the agroindustrial complex that have led to spatial shifts in agricultural production are revealed, and examples of agroholdings are presented. The paper concludes with the problem of food security in connection with sanctions and import substitution, with its division into security for the state and for the population, the latter in relation to worsening of the economic situation.

This article analyzes the differences between Russian regions in the role of chain retailing in retail turnover and identifies various factors of these differences (remoteness from the European Russia, low transport availability, the nature of foreign economic relations with neighboring countries, the complexity of the social and political situation, low income, peculiarities of administrative division, and natural climatic conditions seem significant). The main characteristic features of the largest chain companies are examined, including their geographic origins. The distinguishing features of the Far East are identified, which is a lack of interest in the region from the largest retail chains together with a relatively high level of development of regional chains. In relation to foreign businesses, it is shown that their role among the leading Russian retailers is relatively insignificant and will decrease. However, foreign companies continue to be important in the development of relatively new trade formats in Russia. It is concluded that foreign retailers will not contribute to the decrease in municipal differentiation in the development of chain retailing due to the lack of interest in the neighborhood store format.