Translated material
My Moscows
The Ministry of Regional Development advocates the creation of regions comparable in power to the Russian capital
On Tuesday, the Ministry of Regional Development hosted a conference “Regional Policy: Content and Implementation.” Not a single one of the announced high-ranking officials came to it - neither the adviser to the Russian President Andrei Illarionov, nor the Deputy Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov, nor even the relevant minister Vladimir Yakovlev. Because the authorities still do not know what policy to pursue in the regions, by what criteria to divide them and what areas to influence.In June 2005, the Ministry of Regional Development presented to the government the next “Concept of the strategy for the socio-economic development of the regions of the Russian Federation.” The government took note of it, and this is where the implementation of the concept ended for now. For six months, every week at the ministry, representatives of the constituent entities of the federation spoke about how they themselves imagined the future of their regions. 25 regions and republics managed to share their thoughts. Moreover, it turned out that not all regions have any proposals for modernizing their own lives.
All regional policy in Russia in recent years has been reduced to the formation of seven federal districts, the meaning of which is still in doubt, the abolition of direct elections of governors and the fragmented consolidation of some regions. Moreover, the logic by which regions merge is also not always clear. If the formation of the Perm Territory fully justifies the stated goals - the annexation of an economically weak region to a stronger one, then the unification of Kamchatka and the Koryak Autonomous Okrug will most likely not solve the economic problems of both.
The concept of the Ministry of Regional Development assumes priority development (state support) of regions of two types - “core”, the largest, economically developed and “growth poles”, dynamically developing, medium and small. True, so far neither the supporting regions nor the “poles” have been correlated with any specific regions.
At the conference, the rating agency "Expert RA" presented its gradation of subjects of the federation. The director of the agency's regional direction, Grigory Marchenko, said that according to this classification, the regions of the first three types - “locomotives”, “core regions” and “growth poles” - have high investment potential and significant resources for internal development, allowing them to develop sustainably without significant federal support. center. The next type - “growth points” - are regions that are small in population and economic power, characterized by low investment risk.
According to Mr. Marchenko, “problematic” regions include those regions in which the growth resource has not been used due to a poor investment climate and lack of investment. The largest group - 20 subjects - are represented by Russian regions “with uncertain prospects.” Experts classified nine regions, in particular the republics of the North Caucasus and some northern regions, as regions of “special attention.” Their prospects of moving into other categories in the coming years are doubtful.
In turn, representatives of the Ministry of Regional Development preferred to speak conceptually. The director of the department of regional socio-economic development and territorial planning of the ministry, Yuri Perelygin, responded point by point to all the complaints about the concept made over several months of its discussion. One of the complaints, he said, is the excessive paternalism of the federal state, standing above society, business and regional authorities. The director of the department regarded this reproach as “strange Bolshevism.” According to him, the reason for this is the perception by experts of liberal values as having already really taken root in Russia. Therefore, they say, any statement about the active role of the state in the economy is perceived as a return to a totalitarian state.
Another group of claims is related to an attempt to reproduce the Gosplan approach to planning in the concept. Mr. Perelygin confirmed that the authors of the concept really propose to remember the positive experience of planning in the Soviet years and not be afraid of it. Also, some critics of the concept note the lack of assessment of the political consequences of the implementation of the proposed plan. “If the Russian Federation does not create its own powerful macro-region, we will never be competitive in global competition,” objected Yuri Perelygin. And to achieve this goal, according to him, it is precisely necessary to create several centers comparable in power to Moscow.