Suchergebnisse

The article is based on a broad treatment of modernization as a development based on innovations and unlimited by the New Age. The historical experience of the country has been studied from two aspects: modernization of society in space and modernization of the socioeconomic space itself. The article considers waves of expansions and contractions (in a word, pulsation) of this space, the ratio of modernization and westernization, the features of a giant country with catch-up development, historical pendulums of innovations and reforms, as well as the perception of the Russian space in the context of modernization. As a result, an attempt was made to derive some cognitive lessons of history in this context, but not instructive, not panacean. The first lesson says that modernization is not an end in itself, but an important tool for solving problems of development, and this applies not only to Russia. The second argues that the main problems of modernizing a country stem not from its size, but the friction of space, the lack of means to overcome it, or a clear and bright perspective. The third, in essence, warns against cultural and any other determinism (reductionism) in assessing the possibilities of and barriers to innovation, as well as its rigid opposition to tradition. The fourth states the variability of the modernization space: it pulsates, with alternating periods of sprawl and shrinkage, differentiation and integration. The fifth lesson is related to regionalism as a kind of social diversity, an antonym for centralism, not a synonym for separatism: it is better to reckon with it than to fight, limiting the scope of the search for modernization options. The sixth lesson boils down to the fact that limited knowledge of spatial development requires continuation of the scientific search for its patterns. Finally, the most acute, in the author's opinion, challenges to Russia's spatial development in the 21st century are formulated, among which the inherited, nearly perpetual, and new or growing ones are identified.

This is an attempt to generalize the results presented in the series of articles and related to the evolution and the current state of the old-developed regions of Russia on the area from its western borders to the Urals inclusive. Contrary to declarations and strategies of spatial development, the existing institutions and trends promoted polarization and shrinkage of the developed space. About 60% of the country's population lives on 5% of its territory. Shrinkage is stimulated by concentration of economic activities and social benefits within the country in the direction from east to west and from north to south, as well as from the periphery of regions to large agglomerations, with few centers outside. These gradients are objectively rooted in the history and development pattern of a vast country, its natural diversity, special role of its large cities and their comparatively sparse location. However, it is far from always possible to justify the scope and impacts of growing contrasts, which are unpleasant for both "poles," condensing human activity in the centers and devastating the peripheries of the regions even at a relatively short distance from Moscow. Therefore, the article concludes with a review of possible attitudes to the processes of spatial shrinkage and the most suffering peripheries. Four policy options are being considered for such places: let the process flow, accelerate it in order to save money, slow it up through financial support for depopulating and depressed areas, and stimulate new waves of their development, for instance using the demand for second (dacha) homes.