The book is based on multidisciplinary research cooperation between Nordic and Russian researchers. The collaboration took place in four workshops in Rovaniemi, Finland ( and ), Kirkenes, Norway (), and Apatity, Russia (). In addition, some researchers from the network participated in two international conferences “Complex Gaze at a Complex World: Challenges of Comparison in Social Research” held in St. Petersburg in and “The North and the Arctic in the new paradigm of world development; Luzin Readings -
” in Apatity. The partners in the researcher network are: the Barents Institute, University of Tromsø, Norway (Aileen A. Espiritu); the Centre for Regional Studies, University of Umeå, Sweden; the University of Technology in Luleå, Sweden (Nils-Gustav Lundgren); the University of Eastern Finland (Soili Nystén-Haarala); and the Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland (Monica Tennberg). Research professor Monica Tennberg, from the Arctic Centre, was the coordinator of the network. The Russian experts came from the Luzin Institute for Economic Studies, Kola Science Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Larissa Riabova and Vladimir Didyk), and the Centre for Independent Social Research in St. Petersburg (Maria Tysiachniouk). The researcher network was funded by Nordforsk (-). This book is the main result of the researcher network and its activities. Especially, the book presents a new generation of young researchers and their interests in studying the Barents Region and its development.
An editorial team was responsible for the reviewing and editing process. The members of the editorial team were Monica Tennberg, Larissa Riabova, Maria Tysiachniouk, Nils-Gustav Lundgren and Soili Nystén-Haarala.
references
a a L B u , h . & W i B e r g , u . (). How may institutional regionalisation promote regional development? In J.A. Dellenbrant & U. Wiberg (Eds.), Euro-Arctic curtains, pp. 77-104. Umeå: CERUM.
a a r s a e t h e r n . , r i a B o va L . & B a r e n h o L d t, J . o . (4).
Chapter . Community viability. In Arctic Human Development Report, pp.
-54. Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic Institute.
a d a M s , p. C . (). Multilayered regionalization in Northern Europe.
GeoJournal. DOI ./s--4-.
a r C t i C M a r i n e s h i p p i n g a s s e s s M e n t r e p o r t ().
Retrieved April 4, , from http://arcticportal.org/uploads/4v/
cb/4vcbFSnnKFTAB5lXZ_TQ/AMSAReport.pdf.
B r u n s ta d, B . , M a g n u s , e . , s Wa n s o n , p. , h ø n n e L a n d, g . a n d ø v e r L a n d, i . (4), Big oil playground, Russian bear reserve or European periphery? The Russian Barents Sea Region towards 2015. Delft: Eburon.
C a d M a n , L . (). How (not) to be governed: Foucault, critique and the political. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space , 5-55.
DOI:./d45.
C a s t B e r g , r . (4). Economic cooperation: Potentials and problems in Northwest Russia. In O. Tunander & O.S. Stokke (Eds.), The Barents Region:
Regional Cooperation in Arctic Europe, pp. -4. London: Sage.
d e at h , C . (). Governing Sustainable Development: Partnerships, Protests and Power at the World Summit. London: Routledge.
d e a n , M . (). Governmentality. Power and rule in modern society. London:
Sage.
d e L L e n B r a n t, J . a . & o L s s o n M . - o . (Eds.) (4). The Barents Region. Security and Economic Development in the European North. CERUM:
Umeå.
d u h a i M e , g . (). Economic and social conditions in the Arctic. In S. Glomsrød & I. Aslaksen (Eds.), The Economy of the North 2008, pp. -.
Retrieved April , , from http://www.chaireconditionautochtone.fss.
ulaval.ca/documents/pdf/ECONOR-.pdf.
e u r o p e a n C o u n C i L o n f o r e i g n r e L at i o n s (). Trade liberalisation with Russia. Retrieved April , , from http://www.ecfr.eu/
scorecard//russia/.
f o u C a u Lt, M . (). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon and
f o u C a u Lt, M . (). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P.
Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect. Studies in governmentality, pp. -4. With two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
h e L e n i a K , t. (). Changing Settlement Patterns across the Russian North at the Turn of the Millennium. In Russia’s Northern Regions on the edge:
Communities, industries and populations from Murmansk to Magadan. Helsinki, Finland: University of Finland Press.
K a z a n t s e va , n . & W e s t i n , L . (4). Missing Networks in
“the missing region” - The challenge of infrastructure development. In J.A.
Dellenbrant & M.-O. Olsson (Eds.), The Barents Region. Security and economic eevelopment in the European North, pp. 5-4. Umeå: CERUM.
K o L e s n i K o v, n . (). Foreign investment as an indicator of economic cooperation in the Arctic Region: Case of the Russian North. Retrieved April ,
, from http://www.nrf.is/images/stories/presentations/calotte_/
nikolai_kolesnikovforeign_investement_as_an_indicator_of_economic_
cooperation_in_the_arctic_region.pdf.
L a r n e r , W. & Wa Lt e r s , W. (). The political rationality of “new regionalism”:Toward a genealogy of the region. Theory and Society (), -4. DOI: ./A:55.
L a u s a L a , t. & va L K o n e n , L . (). Economic geography and structure of the Russian territories of the Barents Region. Rovaniemi: Arctic Centre.
L e h t i n e n , a . a . (). Mnemonic North: Multilayered geographies of the Barents Region. In F. Möller & S. Pehkonen (Eds.), Encountering the North: Cultural geography, international relations and Northern landscapes, pp. -5.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
n i J K a M p, p. & r o d e n B u r g , C . (). Mainports and gateways in Europe: A comparative contrast analysis for the Nordic area. Retrieved April , , from http://www.geo.ut.ee/nbc/paper/nijkamp_rodenburg.htm.
n i e L s e n , t. (). Border crossing exercises. In A. Staalesen (Ed.), Talking Barents. People, borders and regional cooperation, pp. 4-. Kirkenes: International Barents Secretariat.
n y g a a r d, v. (). Foreign trade in the Barents Region. Experienced by Russian companies in the Murmansk region. NIBR report . Oslo: NIBR.
M e g at r e n d s (). Stockholm: Nordregio.
p e t t e r s e n , o . (). The vision that became reality. The Barents regional cooperation 1993-2003. Kirkenes: The Barents Secretariat.
r a u ta J o K i , t. (). Barents business cooperation. In S. Katila, M.
Kulmala & L. Päiviö (Eds.), Murmansk. New Possibilities in the Barents Region, pp.
-. Helsinki: STETE.
r e i d, J . (). The debased and politically disastrous subject of resilience.
Development dialogue 5, -.
r i a B o va L . (). Community viability and well-being in the circumpolar North. In L. Heininen & C. Southscott (Eds.), Globalization and the Circumpolar North. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Press.
s a C h s , W. (). The development dictionary. A guide to knowledge as power.
London: Zed Books.
s i u r u a i n e n , e , (). Barentsin alueen uusiutuvat rakenteet. Suomalaisten yritysten toimintamahdollisuuksista Luoteis-Venäjällä. Retrieved April , , from http://www.tem.fi/files//Barents_web.pdf.
s tat i s t i C s f i n L a n d & g o s K o M s tat o f r u s s i a ().
The Arctic Treasure. Facts and figures on the undiscovered Barents Region. Helsinki:
Statistics Finland.
s v e n s s o n , B . (). Politics and business in the Barents Region. Stockholm:
Fritzes.
t u n a n d e r , o . & s t o K K e , o . s . (Eds.) (4). The Barents Region:
Regional Cooperation in Arctic Europe. London: Sage.
W i B e r g , u . (). From visions to sustainable practices. In O. Pettersen (Ed.), The vision that became reality. The regional Barents cooperation 1993-2003.
Kirkenes: Barents Secretariat.
W i B e r g , u . (). Outlook on the Barents cooperation. Retrieved April
, , from http://www.bbsr.bund.de/cln_/nn_4/BBSR/EN/
Publications/IzR//Downloads/DL__Wiberg,templateId=raw,property=
publicationFile.pdf/DL_Wiberg.pdf.
Wo r L d C o M M i s s i o n o n e n v i r o n M e n t a n d d e v e L o p M e n t
(). Our common future. Retrieved April , , from http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm.
part i
Rationalities of governing
c h a p t e r Larissa Riabova
state poLiCy in the russian north, its soCiaL outCoMes and the Barents Cooperation
introduction
Russia is, and has been for centuries, the largest northern country in the world in terms of the area of her northern lands. These huge areas have demanded special approaches, and the Russian state, during its history, has applied more or less specific policies in relation to its northern territories. These policies shifted from exploration and colonization in the th-th centuries to conquering the North during the early Soviet period and intensive industrialization later in the Soviet era, and then to depressing policies in the post-Soviet period of the s and subjection of the North to standard federal policies in the s. Nowadays, we are witnessing a trend of re-asserting Russian national interests in this vast region and the shaping of a new model of northern policy; one of the major factors influencing the process is a growing global interest in the North and the Arctic, due largely to rich hydrocarbon resources, aqueous biological resources, and other forms of strategic raw materials in these territories.
The latter shifts in Russia’s policy concerning her northern regions that took place after the s occurred against the background of major systemic changes in the country. These changes have often been described by political economists as a transition from totalitarian socialism with a paternalistic model of relations between state and society to a liberal one entailing reduced state intervention in the economy and public services, and then in the s to neoliberal solutions in some spheres, though this process in Russia has been surrounded by controversy (Rasell , ) and obviously is not a clear-cut case. In terms of political economy, I consider it appropriate to understand the transformations of Russia’s northern policy in post-Soviet times as a transition from socialist state paternalism to a mixed model with liberal and neoliberal features (Granberg and Riabova , -; Rasell , ). This article does not go deeply into the theoretical aspects of the processes which are the
theme of the paper, but it is important to keep these considerations in mind as a navigational tool to follow through the paper.
In a geopolitical context, the domestic northern policy of the Russian state has a significant effect on international activities in the North and the Arctic, including Barents Euro-Arctic region cooperation, which is often considered to be one of the most successful international political interactions in the Circumpolar North involving Russia. The role of Russia on the global Northern and Arctic stage is not minor; moreover, some analysts believe that today Russia and energy produced in the Russian North are the central factors shaping the geopolitical picture of the Arctic (Geopolitics in the High North
, ). In this respect, understanding the content of Russia’s current policy towards her northern and arctic territories, as well as the direction of potential changes, is important for setting political, economic, environmental and social priorities for the international agenda in the Circumpolar North, including the Barents cooperation, in both the short and long terms.
This article deals with the transformations of the Russian Federation’s state policy towards its northern territories, the latest developments, possible implications for the Barents Euro-Arctic region cooperation, and the need for change. The paper will not deal with hydrocarbon mega-projects or the Northern Sea Route shipping plans of the Russian state. Various aspects of the state’s northern policy through different periods are analyzed, but the primary focus is on the social outcomes of these policies for the people who live and work in the Russian North. This approach gives an important people-oriented perspective on northern policy transformations in Russia, as well as on the repercussions for the Barents Region cooperation, in which the human dimension is one of the prioritized areas. This approach suggests that the success of any regional policy should not be measured merely by the growth of economic activity, nor only by the amount of resources extracted on the territory of the region or the trade in other market goods meant to serve the needs of the rest of the country. Social outcomes, the development of the human potential of the territory which is under the state policy, are measures of success that provide better balance, justice and sustainability, and they form the core idea and point of departure for this paper.
In the first part of the paper, to establish the context, I examine the transformations of the state’s northern policy in the socialist era and in post-Soviet times. In the second part, the current Russian policy towards her
northern regions is analyzed, and, as in the previous part, it is done through the prism of the effects of the policy on northern residents in terms of demographic developments, living standards and the well-being of the population. The most acute social problems for inhabitants of the Russian North are identified and their causes are indicated. In the third part of the paper the northern policy of the Russian state is discussed in relation to the Barents Euro-Arctic region cooperation. The idea that human development is the major driving force for further progress in the Barents cooperation is discussed and supported. Finally, I try to answer the question “What kind of state policy does the Russian North need today?” The shortcomings of the current northern policy of the Russian state are highlighted and criticism is presented; priorities and tasks are suggested for federal and regional authorities that would make state policy in the North more systematic, sustainable, socially oriented and promote cross-border cooperation, including the Barents cooperation.
The statistical data used in this article, unless specified otherwise, are taken from the official yearbooks of statistics of the Federal Service of State Statistics of Russia (Rosstat) and its territorial division in the Murmansk region (Murmanskstat).
Having been a northerner for most of my life, I present opinions from the North. My northern perspective was an important factor during the writing of this paper, keeping me focused and enthusiastic throughout the process.