DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-4-218-245
Sustainable development of territories is one of the key goals of global and national policy. However, despite the resonance and financial assistance, many territories still lag behind and suffer from social-economic crises due to the peculiarities of both economic specialization and local communities. In Russia, depopulation has affected not only certain types of settlements and localities but also macro-territories (such as the North and the Arctic), which is determined not only by economic backwardness but also by social atomization of local communities, i.e., weak social ties at the micro level. The government makes efforts to smooth out demographic contrasts within the country, providing lagging regions with additional funding in the form of federal transfers and subsidies (policy of participatory budgeting, national projects, and various target programs to support local projects). The population of the Crimean Peninsula, except for Sevastopol, has gradually decreased due to a number of reasons: the region’s peripheral status, lagging social-economic development, proximity to the war zone, ethnic tensions, etc. However, some settlements do not lose their population and even manage to increase the number of residents. The authors consider one such settlement in different perspectives (historical prerequisites, economic specialization, features of social-economic and economic-geographical development, possibilities for accumulating social and human capital) and make a conclusion that its sustainability cannot be ensured only by additional funding for improvement projects and infrastructure construction.
Sustainable development, settlement, rural areas, human capital, social capital, Crimea.
Gusakov Timur Yu., Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Vernadskogo Prosp., 82, Moscow, 119571, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Lyudmila K. Gusakova, Independent Researcher. Novaya St., 19, Novoalekseevka village, Krasnogvardeisky district, Republic of Crimea, 297060, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-4-6-20
The article aims at identifying theoretical and practical reasons for the failure of the agricultural cooperation development in Russia. Authors suggest that rural cooperatives in Russia do not develop due to the general features of the formation of social capital in the Russian countryside, the lack of necessary institutional conditions, and the wrong idea that cooperatives based on the classical principles of cooperation can operate successfully in the contemporary economy and society. The first theoretical barrier to cooperation is that in the contemporary high-technology agriculture, hybrid structures (cooperatives) are less efficient than the hierarchical one used by agroholdings. The second theoretical barrier is the inconsistency of seven classical principles of cooperation formulated at the time of Raiffeisen (i.e. outdated) with today’s economic realities and their transformations. The third practical barrier is the rapid degradation of rural areas and the low level of trust and interaction between members of agricultural cooperatives, which is why there are no trends of the bottom-up development of cooperation. The authors conclude that a high level of social capital is the necessary condition for cooperation: at the formation stage, this level is high due to interpersonal relationships developed from the informal social interactions of its members and a high level of trust among members and between members and management, but cooperatives start to lose their social capital as they enlarge — the sense of community, trust and mutual assistance disappears, the atmosphere becomes more business-oriented.
Cooperation, agricultural cooperatives, classical principles of cooperation, agroholdings, social capital, trust, rural development, rural areas.
Renata G. Yanbykh, DSc (Economics), Institute for Agrarian Studies, National Research University Higher School of Economics. Pokrovsky Blvr., 11, Moscow, 109028, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Lerman Zvi, PhD (Finance), Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel). 76100, Israel, Rehovot, 12.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-4-41-53
The article presents international, mainly European, typologies of rural areas, focusing on the features and differences in the criteria for identifying ‘rural’ territories in the European Union. The author explains the reasons for the need for more comprehensive typologies based on the transport accessibility of the territory, trajectories of its transformation, and macro-regional characteristics. The article considers the main methodological difficulties in developing a universal typology of rural areas for all regions of the world and emphasizes differences in the indicators and their threshold values used for typologies and in the levels of administrative-territorial analysis. The author provides references that reflect the methodological foundations of contemporary national typologies and mentions scientific innovations used in such research works. Finally, the article identifies the main common features of the presented typologies, focusing on their methodological limitations.
Rural areas, international typologies, spatial differentiation, types of rural areas, assessment methods, rural-urban continuum, transition zones, identification criteria.
Ershov Alexey M., PhD Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov Moscow State University; Leninskie Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-2-64-103
Russian countryside is heterogeneous, and in the post-Soviet period, this heterogeneity has increased. Moreover, the image of the countryside in the perception of the authorities and society is far from reality, which leads to the mistakes in the assessment of its condition and prospects. Russian scholars usually study the northern countryside and ethnic republics, while the studies of the Russian steppe regions are less common. The authors consider the factors of the rural territorial differentiation under the post-Soviet transformations in one of the most homogeneous steppe regions — Tambov — at the level of municipal districts and rural settlements. The suggested typology of districts is based on the statistical indicators which reflect changes in the intensity of territorial development in the last thirty years; and the typology of settlements is based on 53 interviews and observations during the expedition to the Michurinsky, Gavrilovsky and Uvarovsky districts in the summer of 2022. The authors conclude that the natural factor still determines the intensity of transformations both directly (higher intensification of crop production in the south) and indirectly (through the settlement and transportation system). The influence of the economic-geographical position (proximity to cities) and of the institutional factor (large investors are interested in unallocated land) is also significant.
Post-soviet transformations, rural areas, Tambov Region, changing functions, typology, rural settlements.
Prusikhin Oleg E., Master’s Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov Moscow State University; Leninsky Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Krutov Oleg D., Master’s Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov Moscow State University; Leninsky Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Vorobiev Maxim I., PhD Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov Moscow State University; Leninsky Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Loktionov Kirill S., Bachelor’s Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov Moscow State University; Leninsky Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Vepritsky Alexander A., Bachelor’s Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov Moscow State University; Leninsky Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Alekseev Alexander I., DSc (Geography), Professor, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov Moscow State University; Leninsky Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-1-104-130
The article considers new functions of the coastal rural areas in southern Russia in the post-Soviet period. The authors identify regional features of the post-Soviet transformation of the coastal countryside, including the preservation of agrarian specialization and employment, growth of the rural population, new functions of rural areas, positive migration balance, etc. Based on the dynamics of the available social-economic indicators (investments in fixed assets, population, migration, etc.), the authors show the intensity of transformations at the district and settlement levels. The main social-economic actors of rural transformation are agricultural enterprises (wineries), tourism, ‘new Southerners’, port facilities, etc., which affect the main components of rural areas — land use, transport and social infrastructure, employment and local communities. At the intra-district level, the authors suggest a typology of rural settlements based on the dynamics of transformations in the post-Soviet period and prevailing functions (recreational, agro-industrial or multifunctional). In the final part of the article, based on the in-depth interviews, the authors identify the post-Soviet trajectories of rural settlements of the same kind and administrative status but with different functions and locations — Golubitskaya, Starotitrovskaya and Taman. Based on the multi-scale analysis of the local rural transformations, the authors emphasize the key role of the geographic factor in the functional typology of rural areas.
Geography of rural areas, rural areas, multifunctionality, geographical factor, investments, Temryuk district.
Imangulov Linar R., Master’s Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov Moscow State University. Leninskie Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Kuksin Yaroslav K., Bachelor’s Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov Moscow State University. Leninskie Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2022-7-1-131-145
The authors systematize the types of circumstances which explain the objective change in rural (in particular farmer) generations of new Russia. Farming is considered in the double linguistic perspective — as a general definition and as a name of agrarian economic practices in their historical evolution. The authors examine the specific form of the legislative consolidation of the concept of farming, which directly indicates its transitive social-cultural mission; analytically assess the potential of the generational approach to the study of farming; suggest some key features of the new farming world and the ways of life which the next generation of farmers would choose. The authors conclude that the existing farming ‘society’ has accumulated a potential of changes which have already passed the initial approbation and can ensure the development of various, including very promising, activity models, forms and patterns for the future.
Farming, generational approach, generation, peasant economy, farmer, rural world, rural areas, everyday life practices.
Vinogradsky Valery G., DSc (Philosophy), Leading Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp., 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Vinogradskaya Olga Ya., Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp., 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2021-6-4-164-184
The article considers European initiatives and development programs for mountainous areas, and also changes in the approaches to the development of rural areas in the international debates. The author examines the structure and tasks of the EU rural development strategies and programs, the macro-regional and state mountain policies. The author suggests a typology of the national mountain policies’ development in European countries, and provides references on the contemporary development programs for mountainous areas focusing on the main factors of rural transformation. The article also presents a list of projects in mountainous rural areas of the EU by country.
Rural areas, mountainous areas, development programs, strategies, European experience, Europe, mountain policy, rural policy, transformation, sustainable development, rural revitalization.
Ershov Alexey M., Master’s Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Moscow State University, 119991, Moscow, Leninskie Gory, 1.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2021-6-4-136-163
Based on the results of field studies, the authors consider the post-Soviet transformations of the territorial organization of suburban rural areas in the depressed Far Eastern region (Birofeld and Valdheim rural administrations of the Birobidzhan district in the Jewish Autonomous Region). Transformations of rural areas are considered as determined by multidirectional factors divided into “external” (general) and “internal” (local). The article describes an impact on the countryside of such “external” factors as urbanization, changes in the specialization of agriculture and in the administrative-territorial and municipal structure, optimization of social services, changes in rural infrastructure and external institutional conditions for development. When considering the “internal” (local) factors of transformations, the authors identify differences in the social structure of migrants from Birobidzhan to the suburban countryside. The changes in the structure of the rural population by spheres of employment and prevailing sources of income are presented as a result of the combination of factors. Some changes in the lifestyle of the rural population are described. Based on the assessment of the impact of different factors on the depopulation, the authors suggest some management measures. The authors conclude that the Birobidzhan district is a rare Russian example of the agricultural suburban territory in relation to the regional center, of the countryside with a reducing number of functions.
Rural areas, depopulation, suburban areas, transformation factors, ruralurban migration, rural employment, rural society, rural settlement, Jewish Autonomous Region, Birobidzhan, subsidiary plots, marginalization.
Chuchkalov Alexander S., Master’s Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Lomonosov Moscow State University. 119991, Moscow, Leninskie Gory, 1.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Mishchuk Svetlana N., PhD (Economics), Senior Researcher, Institute for Demographic Research, Federal Centre for Theoretical and Applied Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 119333, Moscow, Fotieva St., 6, bldg. 1; Senior Researcher, Institute for Complex Analysis of Regional Problems, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 679016, Birobidzhan, Sholem Aleichem St., 4.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Grelya Nataliya K., Master’s Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Lomonosov Moscow State University. 119991, Moscow, Leninskie Gory, 1.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2021-6-2-99-120
For centuries, people have been moving from place to place for a variety of reasons, which created both permanent and temporary population of the entire habitable space. Due to these migrations, settlements appear and disappear —auls, villages, towns, cities, megapolises, etc. Moreover, migrations create a settlement system of a certain territory, which is gradually transforming. And since each territory has its own features of the social-economic development, the patterns of settlement systems also differ by region. The article considers the evolution of the settlement system of the Crimean Peninsula under the influence of migrations. The settlement systems are compared and analyzed based on the models of the settlement network for different years, which allows to assess the impact of migrations at different stages of the historical development. Over the past 250 years, the settlement system of the Crimean Peninsula has undergone significant changes: from small settlements with foci of animal husbandry—to the medium-sized and in some places large settlements. The author identifies the main stages in the transformation of the settlement network of the Crimean Peninsula and analyzes the development trajectories of some types of settlements.
Geography of rural areas, migrations, rural areas, resettlement, rural resettlement, settlement network, geo-information systems.
Gusakov Timur Yu., Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies and Center for Prospective Sociological Research, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; PhD Student, Geographical Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University. 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp., 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2021-6-1-126-153
The article is based on the presentation made on March 11, 2021 at the scientific seminar of the Chayanov Research Center and the Center for Agrarian Studies of the RANEPA. The presentation summarized publications based on the research supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 19-17-00174 “Development of the old-developed regions under the social-economic polarization and the reduction of the developed space of European Russia”). The research aimed at identifying challenges and consequences of the Russian spatial polarization for rural areas at different levels – from regional to local – on the example of Central Russia (including the Moscow Region and its neighboring regions). The author considers features of rural areas in Central Russia, describes trends of their development and consequences of the longterm rural depopulation which was especially strong around the Moscow Region. The author focuses on different types of migration (interregional, intraregional and international) and their reasons; identifies centers of the contemporary population concentration; describes the transformation of agriculture in these regions, its organizational and spatial changes, the main trends in the decline and revival of agricultural production and its impact on rural settlement; proves that the polarization of rural areas affects all levels – regions, municipal districts and settlements. The article is based on the integrated approach that considers rural areas in their interaction with cities: the influence of urban investments on the development of rural areas, the increasing concentration of the rural population in the suburbs, the role of summer residents in the redevelopment of rural areas and in the preservation of rural settlements. Finally, the author assesses the consequences of the authorities’ decisions for rural areas.
Old-developed regions, cities, rural areas, agriculture, population migration, land use, summer residents.
Nefedova Tatyana G., DSc (Geography), Chief Researcher, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences. 119017, Moscow, Staromonetny per., 29.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.