Arctic: ecology and economy
ISSN 2223-4594
Home Archive of journals Volume 11, No. 1, 2021 Spatial development of the Russian Arctic Zone: analysis of two strategies


JOURNAL: Volume 11, No. 1, 2021, p. 111-121

HEADING: State administration in the Arctic

AUTHORS: Blanutsa, V.I.

ORGANIZATIONS: V.B. Sochava Institute of Geography of Siberian Branch of the RAS

DOI: 10.25283/2223-4594-1-111-121

UDC: 33.021(98)

The article was received on: 12.12.2020

Keywords: Russian Arctic zone, macroregion, space development, strategic planning, promising economic specialization, center of economic growth, geostrategic territory, region, similarity measure

Bibliographic description: Blanutsa, V.I. Spatial development of the Russian Arctic Zone: analysis of two strategies. Arktika: ekologiya i ekonomika. [Arctic: Ecology and Economy], 2021, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 111-121. DOI: 10.25283/2223-4594-1-111-121. (In Russian).


The author has analyzed the “Strategy for the Spatial Development of the Russian Federation for the Period up to 2025” and “Strategy for the Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation and Ensuring National Security for the Period up to 2035”. Nine Arctic territories are considered. The author presents the goals of spatial development of the Russian Arctic Zone in the form of four research hypotheses, such as: each Arctic territory has more promising economic specializations than the average non-Arctic region; by the combination of specializations, the Arctic territories differ significantly from any non-Arctic region; the similarity between the Arctic territories is greater than between the ones and neighboring non-Arctic territories; the number of promising centers of economic growth in each Arctic territory is greater than in the average non-Arctic region. The author proposes a quantitative measure of the similarity of regions according to the combination of economic specializations. Calculations have shown that all initial hypotheses should be rejected as erroneous and alternative hypotheses should be recognized, according to which the goals of spatial development cannot be achieved as a result of the implementation of the activities listed in the two strategies. The researcher gives the distribution of prospective economic specializations in the Arctic territories and the significance of the similarity of these territories to each other. The Arctic Zone is found to be not a single economic macro-region, but is represented by four different clusters. The author notes the need for the formation of promising specializations in the digital economy. The practical significance of the study may be associated with the adjustment of existing or the development of new strategies for the economic development of the Russian Arctic Zone.

Finance info: he study was carried out at the expense of the state assignment on the topic Trends in the transformation of the socio-economic space and environmental management in Siberia in the context of the implementation of national priorities and global infrastructure projects, the topic registration number AAAA-A17-117041910166-3.3).


1. Governa F., Salone C. Territories in action, territories for action: The territorial dimension of Italian local development policies. Intern. J. of Urban and Regional Research, 2004, vol. 28, iss. 4, pp. 796—818. DOI: 10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00552.x.

2. Balza-Moreno L. F. Polycentrism, planning, and territorial development of public policies in Venezuela and Argentina. Revista Geografica Venezolana, 2017, vol. 58, iss. 2, pp. 282—305.

3. Nosek S. Territorial cohesion storylines in 2014—2020 Cohesion Policy. European Planning Studies, 2017, vol. 25, iss. 12, pp. 2157—2174. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1349079.

4. Bachtroeglez J., Fratesi U., Perucca G. The influence of the local context on the implementation and impact of EU Cohesion Policy. Regional Studies, 2020, vol. 54, iss. 1, pp. 21—34. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2018.1551615.

5. Marot N., Golobic M. Delivering a national spatial development strategy: A success story? European Planning Studies, 2018, vol. 26, iss. 6, pp. 1202—1221. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2018.1459502.

6. Cortinovis C., Haase D., Zanon B., Geneletti D. Is urban spatial development on the right track? Comparing strategies and trends in the European Union. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2019, vol. 181, pp. 22—37. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.09.007.

7. Smirnova O.O. Glavnaya gosudarstvennaya “tochka rosta” Rossii: strategiya prostranstvennogo razvitiya Rossijskoj Federacii i general’naya skhema razmeshcheniya i razvitiya proizvoditel’nyh sil SSSR. Metodologicheskie osnovy. [The main state “point of growth” of Russia: the strategy of spatial development of the Russian Federation and the general layout and development of the productive forces of the USSR. Methodological foundations]. Sovrem. proizvodit. sily, 2014, no. 3, pp. 14—21. (In Russian).

8. Minakir P. A. Nacional’naya strategiya prostranstvennogo razvitiya: dobrovol’nye zabluzhdeniya ili namerennye uproshcheniya? [National strategy of spatial development: voluntary delusions or deliberate simplifications?]. Prostranstv. ekonomika, 2016, no. 3, pp. 7—15. DOI: 10.14530/se.2016.3.007-015. (In Russian).

9. Miheeva N. N. Strategiya prostranstvennogo razvitiya: novyj etap ili povtorenie staryh oshibok. [Spatial development strategy: a new stage or repetition of old mistakes]. EKO, 2018, no. 5, pp. 158—178. (In Russian).

10. Leksin V. N. Dorogi, kotorye my ne vybiraem (o pravitel’stvennoj “Strategii prostranstvennogo razvitiya Rossijskoj Federacii na period do 2025 goda”). [Roads that we do not choose (about the government “Strategy for the spatial development of the Russian Federation for the period until 2025”)]. Ros. ekon. zhurn., 2019, no. 3, pp. 3—24. (In Russian).

11. Sorokina N. Yu. Obshchesistemnye problemy prostranstvennogo razvitiya Rossijskoj Federacii. [System-wide problems of spatial development of the Russian Federation]. Regional’naya ekonomika. Yug Rossii, 2020, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 4—15. DOI: 10.15688/re.volsu.2020.1.1. (In Russian).

12. Balandin D. A., Balandin E. D., Pytkin A. N. Prioritety prostranstvennogo razvitiya arkticheskih territorij. [Priorities of spatial development of the Arctic territories]. Ekon. otnosheniya, 2019, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1735—1746. DOI: 10.18334/eo.9.3.40926. (In Russian).

13. Pliseckij E. E., Pliseckij E. L. Osobennosti sovremennogo etapa i problemy prostranstvennogo razvitiya arkticheskih regionov Rossii. [Features of the current stage and problems of spatial development of the Arctic regions of Russia]. Upravlench. nauki, 2019, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 32—43. DOI: 10.26794/2304-022X-2019-9-4-32-43. (In Russian).

14. Borsekova K., Vanova A., Vitalisova K. Smart specialization for smart spatial development: Innovation strategies for building competitive advantages in tourism in Slovakia. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 2017, vol. 58, iss. 10, pp. 39—50. DOI:10.1016/j.seps.2016.10.004.

15. Blanutsa V. I. Social’no-ekonomicheskoe rajonirovanie v epohu bol’shih dannyh. [Socio-economic regionalization in the era of big data]. Moscow, INFRA-M, 2018, 194 p. (In Russian).

16. Karlsson C., Olsson M. The identification of functional regions: Theory, methods, and applications. Annals of Regional Science, 2006, vol. 40, iss. 1, pp. 1—18. DOI: 10.1007/s00168-005-0019-5.

17. Perroux F. Economic space: Theory and application. Quart. J. of Economics, 1950, vol. 64, iss. 1, pp. 89—104.

18. Blanutsa V. I. Klasterizaciya regionov Sibiri i Dal’nego Vostoka po perspektivnym ekonomicheskim specializaciyam. [Clustering regions of Siberia and the Far East for promising economic specializations]. Vestn. Omsk. un-ta. Ser. Ekonomika, 2020, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 80—90. DOI: 10.24147/1812-3988.2020.18(2).80-90. (In Russian).

19. Monsted M. François Perroux’s theory of “growth pole” and “development pole”: A critique. Antipode, 1974, vol. 6, iss. 2, pp. 106—113. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.1974.tb00600.x.

20. Hansen N. M. An evolution of growth-center theory and practice. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 1975, vol. 7, iss. 7, pp. 821—832.

21. Polyan P. M. Metodika vydeleniya i analiza opornogo karkasa rasseleniya. [Methods of isolation and analysis of the settlement support frame]. In-t of Geografii AN SSSR. Moscow, 1988, 283 p. (In Russian).

22. Blanutsa V. I. Regional’nye strategii minimizacii cifrovogo neravenstva mezhdu gorodami Rossii. [Regional strategies for minimizing digital inequality between cities in Russia]. Geopolitika i ekogeodinamika regionov, 2019, vol. 5, iss. 4, pp. 5—17. (In Russian).

23. Blanutsa V. I. Territorial structure of the Russian digital economy: Preliminary delimitation of smart urban agglomerations and regions. Regional Research of Russia, 2019, vol. 9, iss. 4, pp. 17—35. DOI: 10.1134/S207997051904004X.

24. Foray D. Smart specialization strategies and industrial modernization in European regions — theory and practice. Cambridge J. of Economics, 2018, vol. 42, iss. 6, pp. 1505—1520. DOI: 10.1093/cje/bey022.

25. Balland P.-A., Boschma R., Crespo J., Rigby D. L. Smart specialization policy in the European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification. Regional Studies, 2019, vol. 53, iss. 9, pp. 1252—1268. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2018.1437900.

26. Zamyatina N. Yu., Pilyasov A. N. Rossijskaya Arktika: k novomu ponimaniyu processov osvoeniya. [Russian Arctic: towards a new understanding of the development processes]. Moscow, Lenand, 2018, 400 p. (In Russian).

Download »

© 2011-2021 Arctic: ecology and economy
DOI 10.25283/2223-4594