UDC: 32.019.5
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2025-6-84


viewing

CENTER-PERIPHERY RELATIONS IN THE REGIONS OF THE RUSSIAN ARCTIC

L. S. Leontyeva
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
e-mail: lldom@mail.ru

Yu. V. Lototskaya
Charitable Autonomous Non-Commercial Organization «Soul of the Nation»; Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
e-mail: julya.vh@gmail.com

Abstract. Amid growing spatial fragmentation and the increasing complexity of interaction mechanisms between the center and the regions, the Russian Arctic becomes an important platform for analyzing contemporary models of public administration. The purpose of this article is to identify the institutional limitations of the centralized governance model under the conditions of the Russian Arctic. The study examines the transformations of center-periphery relations within a space characterized by severe logistical, climatic, and social fragmentation. Based on the application of analytical methods – comparative analysis and case studies – four stable regimes of managerial configuration are identified: hierarchical, contractual, hybrid, and episodic. The selected research objects include Chukotka, the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). The analysis reveals the potential of these regions to be considered as a space of institutional experimentation and as a model for the future transformation of Russian federalism in overcoming spatial fragmentation and adopting regionally oriented administrative decisions. The scientific novelty of this work lies in the integration of institutional and regional approaches to the analysis of governance practices under conditions of extreme asymmetry. For the first time, through the typologization of center-periphery interaction regimes, it is demonstrated how institutional constraints shape unique hybrid governance configurations in the Arctic. The practical significance of the research is associated with the possibility of applying the findings in the adjustment of federal strategies for the development of the Arctic zone, as well as in the design of instruments for adaptive regional governance. The results may be useful for public authorities involved in the implementation of state Arctic policy, as well as for scholars studying the problems of federalism and spatial policy. The prospects for further research are linked to a deeper comparison between Arctic and non-Arctic remote regions, which would allow for a clearer definition of the limits of applicability of the identified models.

Key words: center-periphery relations, Russian Arctic, institutional constraints, federalism, regional governance, hybrid regimes, spatial fragmentation, adaptive governance, regional policy, public administrationes in the system of Russian federalism were formulated.

Cite as: Leontyeva, L. S., Lototskaya, Yu. V. (2025) [Center-periphery relations in the regions of the Russian Arctic]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 6, pp. 84–101. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077- 7175-2025-6-84.


References

  1. Vasilyeva, O. V., Okhlopkov, V. E. (2021) [School education of indigenous peoples of the North: between cultural preservation and educational quality]. Voprosy obrazovaniya [Journal of Education]. Vol. 4, pp. 285–310. – https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2021-4-285-310. (In Russ.).
  2. Davydov, V. N., Davydova, E. A. (2021) [Infrastructure development projects in Chukotka: resource use by residents of national villages]. Etnografiya [Journal of Ethnography]. Vol. 1 (11), pp. 25–49. – https://doi.org/10.31250/2618-8600-2021-1(11)-25-49. (In Russ.).
  3. Kayukov, V. V., Razmanova, S. V., Nesterova, O. V. (2023) [Modern approaches to managing the development of the Arctic zone]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Ekonomika [Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Economics]. Vol. 39. No. 4, pp. 578–598. – https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu05.2023.406. (In Russ.).
  4. Kozyrev, A. A., Zaretsky, A. A. (2023) [Specifics of the implementation of strategic projects in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation]. Ekonomika i upravleniye [Economics and Management]. Vol. 29. No. 12, pp. 1454–1469. – https://doi.org/10.35854/1998-1627-2023-12-1454-1469. (In Russ.).
  5. Lyscev, M. S. (2013) [Features of the development of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug in the context of the interaction of Russian political and economic elites]. Vestnik NGTU im. R.Ye. Alekseyeva. Seriya: Upravleniye v sotsial’nykh sistemakh. Kommunikativnyye tekhnologii [Bulletin of NSTU named after R.E. Alekseev. Series: Management in social systems. Communication technologies]. Vol. 1, pp. 37–44. (In Russ.).
  6. Ross, K. (2011) [The crisis of Russian federalism]. Politicheskaya nauka [Political science]. Vol. 4, pp. 71–96. (In Russ.).
  7. Sokolova, F. Kh. (2013) [Indigenous peoples of the Arctic: concept, current state of culture]. Arktika i Sever [Arctic and North]. Vol. 12, pp. 51–69. (In Russ.).
  8. Urbazaev, B. M. (2007) [The principle of differentiated management of the subjects of the Russian Federation]. Vestnik finansovoy akademii [Bulletin of the Financial Academy]. Vol. 4 (44), pp. 17–23. (In Russ.).
  9. Tsvetkov, A. Yu. (2022) [Logistics foundations for the development of Arctic tourism in Russia]. Arktika i Sever [Arctic and North]. Vol. 46, pp. 190–204. – https://doi.org/10.37482/issn2221-2698.2022.46.190. (In Russ.).
  10. Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 656 p. (In Eng.).
  11. Claval, P. (1998) An introduction to regional geography. Blackwell Publishers, 299 p. (In Eng.).
  12. Degteva, A., Nellemann, Ch. (2013) Nenets migration in the landscape: impacts of industrial development in Yamal peninsula, Russia. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice. Vol. 3. No. 15. Available at: https://pastoralismjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2041-7136-3-15 (accessed: 19.09.2025). (In Eng.).
  13. Klijn, E.-H., Koppenjan, J. (2012) Adaptive Federalism and Complex Urban Problems: Governance Arrangements in the Netherlands, Theories of Democratic Network Governance. ed. by R. A. W. Rhodes, P. t’Hart. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 185–202. (In Eng.).
  14. Kryukov, V. A., Nefedkin, V. I. (2022) Corporations in the Russian Arctic – From Dominance to Leadership. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362847283_Corporations_in_the_Russian_Arctic-From_Dominance_to_Leadership (accessed: 18.09.2025) (In Eng.).
  15. Nikulkina, I. V., et al. (2020) Resilience of Arctic communities: socio-economic aspect. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology. Vol. 9, pp. 3066–3081. – https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.373. (In Eng.).
  16. North, D. C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press. – https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678. (In Eng.).
  17. Rosenau, J. N. (2015) People Count! Networked Individuals in Global Politics. Routledge, 200 p. (In Eng.).
  18. Sahadzic, M. (2016) Federal theory on constitutional asymmetries: revisited. Queen Mary Law Journal. Vol. 7 (Special Conference Issue), pp. 135–148. (In Eng.).
  19. Volkovitskiy, A., Terekhina, A. (2023) A microregional reindeer herding landscape in Yamal: patterns and dynamics of movements. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice. Vol. 13. No. 27. Available at: https://pastoralismjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13570-023-00292-6 (accessed: 19.09.2025). (In Eng.).
  20. Wallerstein, I. (2011) The Modern World-System. Volume I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 440 p. (In Eng.).