Macro-regions in the Russian system of territorial administration: problems and prospects

Lavrikova Yuliya Georgievna ORCID: 0000-0002-6419-2561 Doctor of Economics Chief Researcher; Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation 49 Leningradsky Ave., Moscow, 125468, Russia lavrikova.ug@uiec.ru

Suvorova Arina Valer'evna ORCID: 0000-0003-4050-2083 PhD in Economics Senior Researcher; Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation 49 Leningradsky Ave., Moscow, 125468, Russia, - suvorova.av@uiec.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

Macroregions are an element of spatial development policy implemented in the Russian Federation that deserves the closest attention: based on the provisions of a number of strategic planning documents (first of all, the Spatial Development Strategy approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 207-r dated 02/13/2019), it is the allocation of macroregions that is the basis for "strengthening interregional cooperation and coordination of socio-economic development of subjects The Russian Federation", which are part of them, however, as shown by a number of studies conducted by members of the scientific team ^{[1, 2]}, since the integration of regions into territorial complexes (both macroregions and federal districts, which are identical in composition to macroregions or their aggregates), the level of connectivity between them is significantly hasn't changed. This makes us think about the role that macro-regions play (or should play) in the system of territorial administration, as well as about the possibilities that contribute to the most effective implementation of the functions assigned to them.

Theoretical aspects of zoning

The allocation of macroregions in the country's space is the result of the process of zoning – "dividing the territory into qualitatively peculiar and/or internally connected parts" ^[3] – one of the methods of spatial analysis, the use of which allows not only to solve some research tasks (for example, related to identifying the scale of the intra-system diversity of the studied territorial complex), but also to justify the effectiveness the application of certain management decisions, differentiated depending on the specifics of the socio-economic situation that has developed within the boundaries of various zones and areas. The process of zoning always begins with determining the purpose of its implementation – it may be dictated by the need to streamline information about economic, demographic, political or other processes; to create objects of influence from authorities implementing regional policy; in competent segmentation of local markets, etc. It is the chosen target setting that determines the type of zoning (which, in turn the queue "sets" the need to address certain parameters of the development of territorial units, defines a list of indicators that should be analyzed for the correct allocation of territorial aggregates – districts).

In the scientific literature, there are many types (types) of zoning, each of which allows you to achieve your own results and is based on taking into account a number of different characteristics, the choice of which is determined by the criteria of zoning. Thus, a team of authors led by T. A. Balina, revealing the theoretical and methodological aspects of zoning carried out in the interests of territorial administration of the subject of the Russian Federation, identifies economic, agro-natural, ecological-economic, socio-ecological, tourist, transport and logistics zoning, as well as zoning according to population density and types of settlement, zoning according to the peculiarities of rural settlement ^[4]. V. E. Shuvalov, discussing the current state and directions of development of zoning in socio-economic geography, designates integral zoning (integral economic, natural-economic, ecological-economic, cultural-geographical, recreational-geographical) and sectoral zoning (natural resource, agricultural, industrial-geographical, transport-geographical, sectoral socio-geographical) ^[5]. Some researchers also name administrative-territorial zoning among the types. For example, A.V. Dubrovsky considers administrative-territorial, economic, ecological, physical-geographical to be the main types of zoning ^[6]. At the same time, it is not entirely correct to put administrative-territorial zoning (more often, instead of this formulation, the term "administrative-territorial division" borrowed from political and legal sciences is used) on a par with other previously designated types: it is distinguished on the basis of goal-setting (its expected result is the reform of the administrative-territorial structure), whereas other types of zoning differ from each other in the specifics of those characteristics (climatic, economic, social, demographic, etc.) that should be taken into account when dividing the territory into separate parts.

It should also be noted that in modern scientific research, a lot of attention is paid to various aspects of zoning: as Baklanov rightly notes, the importance of "taking into account the objective processes of complex formation and district formation and conducting a new multilevel economic zoning of Russia on this basis" increases in the context of "restoring multilevel strategic planning, changing the geopolitical conditions of the country's development and the need to achieve industrial and technological sovereignty" ^[7].

Domestic zoning practice: from Soviet policy to the allocation of Federal districts

The domestic practice of zoning has a significant history – close attention to the issues of the territorial structure of the country began to be paid back in the XVIII century. ^[8]; at the same time, in the context of the need to propose a conceptual approach to the development of macro-regions as spatial structures of an economic type, consideration of the experience of the USSR is of particular interest. In 1920, the first attempt at zoning of the Soviet Union was made, related to the optimization of the country's energy sector. In the future, the target setting for allocating separate large territorial units in the state space expanded somewhat – zoning was designed to accelerate the development of productive forces, increase the economic efficiency of production, for this purpose the allocated area was to become a single industrial complex – integral, but not with a closed economy ^[9] (the economic systems of the allocated areas were based on the activities of local territorial production complexes, industrial hubs and centers). Over time, the zoning system (and, as a result, the grid of districts) of the country underwent changes due to scientific and technological progress and the transformation of strategic orientations of the USSR, however, the basis of economic zoning and the administrative-territorial division carried out on its basis has always been a set of signs and conditions - economic, national, natural, historical, etc.

An analysis of the Soviet practice of zoning (as well as the deeply elaborated theory underlying it, based on the works of N.N. Baransky ^[10], N.N. Kolosovsky ^[11], Yu.G. Saushkin ^[12], P.M. Alampiev ^[13] and other prominent economic geographers) allows us to conclude that its The success is due to close attention to the elaboration of three closely related components: the target setting, zoning criteria, mechanisms that affect the features of processes carried out both within and between the formed areas (Fig. 1). Thus, the goal that zoning was supposed to contribute to was to optimize the space of economic activity the creation of conditions for the formation of sustainable production chains between economic entities – elements of an integrated territorial system (district). This predetermined the choice of zoning criteria, which are not limited only to economic factors, but are based primarily on those conditions that determine the high efficiency of interaction of industries combined with each other through their inclusion in the district complex. At the same time, the division of the country into separate parts (supported by administrative and territorial changes or not involving their implementation) cannot contribute to the development of partnership between representatives of the allocated territorial complexes (which should be the basic consequence of the zoning process, anticipating further positive effects): it is necessary to implement a system of approaches, mechanisms and tools to ensure the creation of conditions stimulating and simplifying this partnership. In the realities of the Soviet Union, the basis of such a system was a planned economy, which sets the accents of intersectoral and interterritorial interaction, forming and optimizing a system of resource flows of various types, as well as five-year plans ("five-year plans"), through which the selected transformation vectors were preserved in the long term.

Source: compiled by the authors

Figure 1 – The triad of components of the success of the zoning policy

It is obvious that the practice of zoning, developed in Soviet times, cannot be "embedded" in today's conditions, however, the approach itself, which assumes the division of the country's territory into sufficiently large elements, has not lost its relevance in the XXI century. This may be evidenced, in particular, by the creation of federal districts in 2000, designed, in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 849 "On the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Federal District", to contribute "to ensuring the implementation by the President of the Russian Federation of his constitutional powers, to increase the effectiveness of the activities of federal government bodies and to improve the control system over by executing their decisions." Thus, the purpose of their appearance is connected with the need to strengthen the vertical of power, simplify control over the activities of regional authorities carried out from a single center, and create additional opportunities for coordination between meso-level power structures. And although some researchers ^[14] note the potential contribution of the formation of federal districts to the socio-economic development of their constituent regions, it is obvious that their exclusively administrative functionality determines a very limited set of opportunities that can be implemented through mechanisms correlating with the purpose of creating federal districts. Indeed, an analysis of the practice of functioning of federal districts demonstrates that there are no significant contradictions in terms of the "purpose – mechanisms" combination of the previously designated triad of components of the success of the zoning policy: the created institute of presidential plenipotentiaries in federal districts allows the federal authorities to be somewhat "unloaded" due to such functions imputed to it as collecting information on the development of the constituent entities the composition of the district of regions, control and coordination of certain aspects of the activities of their government structures. Zoning criteria do not play a significant role in setting goals of this type: the similarity of historical, economic, social, and demographic characteristics can be ignored. Obviously, when determining the composition and boundaries of federal districts, significant attention was not paid to the similarity factor of potential components of the macroregion: the grid of districts in some cases differs quite seriously from the structure of economic regions, which underwent only minor changes compared with the results of zoning of the Soviet period and was formed taking into account a whole set of characteristics that were inherent (and partially preserved its importance in the early 2000s) to Russian regions (availability of natural resources, degree of infrastructure development, availability of labor potential, etc.). Thus, in the case of federal districts, the triad of components of the success of the zoning policy is somewhat transformed: one of its elements does not play a significant role in the process of achieving the goal (Fig. 2), which is largely due to its formulation.

Source: compiled by the authors

Figure 2 – The triad of components of the success of the zoning policy (in the context of the formation of federal districts)

Modern approach to the allocation of macroregions: limitations and deficits

Returning to the issues related to the place of the macro-regions allocated in the SPD in the spatial and socio-economic development of the country and the reasons for the problems that prevent them from becoming one of the key elements of state regional policy, attention should also be paid to each component of the triad of success of the zoning policy.

As noted earlier, the task of allocating macroregions, in accordance with the Spatial Development Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2025 (SPD), is to strengthen ties and strengthen coordination between the regions that make up them. Unfortunately, there are no explanations about the nature of the relationships in question in the document, whereas this should justify the approach to choosing zoning criteria and tools for influencing territorial units at different levels (both regional and macroregional). Strengthening the interrelationships between the subjects – elements of the macroregion lies at the heart of the very practice of zoning, implemented in the interests of territorial administration, and cannot be the goal of this process, rather, it can be called a way to achieve the goal. If, on the other hand, we consider as a target the "reduction of the level of interregional differentiation in the socio-economic development of the subjects of the Russian Federation and the reduction of intraregional socio-economic differences", which is also mentioned in the SPR in the context of the formation of macro-regions, the benchmark of the expected changes becomes even more unclear.

Thus, the Spatial Development Strategy, while missing the goal of zoning, does not allow for a deep study of the criteria and mechanisms that form the basis of zoning. Of course, it is possible to consider the relationship between territories in the broadest sense, trying to link together the building of a single economic complex uniting several regions, the integration of their efforts to solve heterogeneous problems inherent in several participants in the territorial system, the formation of high-tech industries based on individual entities that involve the surrounding territories in their field of activity, etc. However, such a spread of goals and objectives devalues the very idea of forming a relatively stable (having unchanged in the long term) structures: for each large-scale target installation, it seems logical to determine its own composition of participants, its own macro-region.

The next part of the triad – criteria for the allocation of macro–regions proposed within the framework of the SPR - also raises a number of questions. According to the provisions of the document, the main principles of the allocation of macroregions are "the neighboring position of the subjects of the Russian Federation, similar climatic and socio-economic conditions for life and economic activity, the presence within the macroregion of sustainable passenger transportation from the subjects of the Russian Federation to large urban agglomerations and the largest urban agglomerations, the presence (or the need to create) large interregional facilities branches of the social sphere of federal significance that contribute to improving the accessibility and quality of services to the population living within the macroregion, significant potential for interregional cooperation in the framework of the implementation of promising economic specializations of the subjects of the Russian Federation and the completion of value chains within macroregions, including for the implementation of large interregional investment projects, the availability (need to create) transport, energy, information and telecommunication infrastructure, ensuring the strengthening of economic connectivity of the subjects of the Russian Federation included in the macroregion, as well as access to international markets and (or) transport corridors "West- East" and "North -South", and within which the coordination of socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation can be carried out". At the same time, the correspondence of the composition of the resulting associations to the borders of the federal districts, in the allocation of which, as noted earlier, the principle of socio-economic similarity of the combined elements did not play a significant role, calls into question the completeness of compliance with all the specified criteria. Studies by a number of authors also indicate a low degree of potential for interaction between regions that are parts of the formed macro-regions. For example, V.I. Blanutsa ^[15], analyzing the composition of promising economic specializations of regions united in a single macro-regional complex, notes the low degree of their correspondence to each other, and the team of Far Eastern researchers led by P.A. Minakir ^[16] draws attention to the weakly pronounced homogeneity of the economic landscape of the formed macro-regions. This means that with a formally integrated approach to defining zoning criteria, a number of important factors have fallen out of the attention of the developers of the SPR.

The mechanisms, the implementation of which could contribute to strengthening ties and strengthening coordination between regions, declared in the Spatial Development Strategy, are also difficult to call well-developed. The document itself speaks very sparingly about the methods and tools for implementing the set goals and objectives: in the relevant section of the JWP, there are only references to the plan for its implementation. The Plan itself, approved at the end of December 2019, is a list of measures (consists of 100 items and also contains information about the expected results, the timing of the proposed actions, and the performers responsible for their implementation), rather conditionally grouped into 5 blocks, the logic of which does not correlate with any of the sections of the Spatial Development Strategy. The planned steps mostly involve institutional changes, and are often focused on the development of new documents (including strategic planning documents) – laws, strategies, plans, and methodological recommendations. The only item on this list related to the development of macroregions (with the exception of measures affecting the transformation of individual macroregions – the Far East and North Caucasus) refers specifically to this type of action: it involves the "development of strategies for the socio-economic development of macroregions" and "action plans for their implementation", taking into account the directions and benchmarks of transformations envisaged as The Spatial Development Strategy and other strategic planning documents of the Russian Federation. It can be assumed that specific actions related to the activation of partnerships between the regions were supposed to be provided for in these strategies and plans, but it is not possible to assess the potential of their application: despite the fact that the deadline for the implementation of this event was scheduled for October 2020. so far, no such document has been developed. Moreover, even in the Strategy of Socio-economic Development of the Siberian Federal District until 2035, which appeared in 2023 (highly critically evaluated by the expert community ^[17]), there is no "macro-regional" aspect: no attention is paid to the prospects and tools for the transformation of the South Siberian and Angara-Yenisei macro-regions that make up this district. It should be noted that the violation of the deadlines for the implementation of the measures fixed in the Plan for the implementation of the SPR is characteristic not only for actions related to the development of connectivity of territories that belong to one macroregion, but the absence to date of at least some results ensuring the improvement of the tools of interterritorial interaction in relation to the selected macroregions excludes the possibility of obtaining positive effects from the conducted zoning.

Thus, each element of the triad "goal – criteria – mechanisms" of the emergence of macroregions can be subjected to quite serious criticism (it is not clear what kind of functionality the macroregions should have assumed, how justified is the proposed version of the composition of each of them, how the entry of a subject of the Russian Federation into a particular macroregion should have affected its development), which, of course, affects the specifics of those processes that characterize their development. To illustrate this thesis, it makes sense to turn to the analysis of trends in changes in interterritorial imbalances inherent in macroregions.

The transformation of the values of the Tail index ^[18] (which is mainly used to assess economic inequality in society, but also allows us to assess the degree of uneven distribution of objects in space ^{[19, 20]}) indicates an increase in the scale of interterritorial fragmentation in almost all macroregions since the approval of the SPR (a large index value means a higher level inhomogeneities) (Table 1).

Table 1

The values of the Tail index

* Green indicates periods characterized by a decrease (compared to last year) in the uneven distribution of the elements under consideration in the macroregion space, peach – periods characterized by their increase or retention at the previous level.

Calculated by:

Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators // Federal State Statistics Service. URL: https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/210/document/13204

The level of centralization of the assets under consideration (population and value added produced in the region) in the macroregion also in most cases shows an upward trend, as evidenced by an increase in the values of the Hall-Tideman index ^[21], which, representing a rank concentration index, is widely used in the framework of territorial analysis ^[22] (Table 2).

Table 2

Hall-Tydman index values

* Green indicates periods characterized by a decrease (compared to last year) in the concentration of the elements in question in the macroregion space, peach – periods characterized by their increase or retention at the previous level.

Calculated by:

Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators // Federal State Statistics Service. URL: https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/210/document/13204

A certain reduction in the level of interregional differentiation, which is emphasized in the part of the SPR devoted to macroregions, during the implementation of the document can be recorded only in relation to 4 out of 12 territorial complexes (Fig. 3), while it cannot be called significant. The results obtained correlate with the conclusions made by a number of researchers ^{[23, 24]} analyzing the scale of heterogeneity of the socio-economic space of macroregions: they show a high level of inequality both within the analyzed territorial complexes and between them.

Calculated by:

Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators // Federal State Statistics Service. URL: https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/210/document/13204

Figure 3 – Changes in the Theil and Hall-Tideman indices (2018-2022)

An analysis of the main aspects and results of the spatial development policy pursued in the country suggests that it was decided to abandon the idea of using macroregions to achieve benchmarks for the transformation of the space organization system: the activities planned in the interests of "launching" such a structure as macroregions were not implemented, alternative tools for turning them into an effective element of such a policy were not proposed.

At the same time, zoning (combining territorial units, subjects of the Russian Federation, located close to each other and having similar characteristics / problems / tasks, into complexes – macro-regions) seems to be a very promising component of territorial management. However, in order for the emerging macro-regions to generate positive effects, and the results of their appearance to contribute to the achievement of the set strategic goals, it is necessary to transform the conceptual approach to the development of such territorial complexes, an important part of which should be a serious theoretical and methodological study of the foundations that determine the logic of their functioning.

Prospects for the application of zoning policy in Russian practice

The use of a project approach to the creation of macroregions, involving consideration of the complexes being formed as temporary associations, the rules (and specifics) of which are subordinated to the achievement of a specific (but at the same time large-scale) goal, seems promising (although not devoid of some disadvantages and limitations). This means abandoning the rigid fixation of macroregions within specified boundaries and transforming them from an element that has its place in a hierarchically structured system (country – federal district – macroregion – region) into a flexible network superstructure (supra-regional level) capable of quickly rebuilding (including by changing the set of elements included in it) in the interests of maximizing the effectiveness of its functioning. This approach also allows for the possibility of simultaneous formation of several "macro-regional grids" (for example, formed in order to implement promising economic specializations and increase the degree of accessibility of social benefits to the population) and the possibility of simultaneous entry of one region into more than one macroregion (for example, when the purpose of allocating macroregions is the implementation of large interregional investment projects).

Obviously, if such an approach to the formation and development of macro-regions is adopted, the management system of their functioning will require changes: it should be interdepartmental in nature, which implies an increase in the frequency and quality of interactions between government structures responsible for various aspects of socio-economic transformations with each other. This means that while the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation retains key functions related to the development of macro–regions as elements of the Russian space, such as the development of legal regulation in the field of territorial planning, the creation and implementation of various mechanisms for supporting territories, etc., to the implementation of specific large-scale interregional projects (the implementation of which is the reason for the unification of the subjects of the Russian Federation It is necessary to involve relevant ministries and departments implementing state policy in the area that this project is aimed at transforming (for example, a project aimed at improving food security requires the involvement of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation). Their activities involve the coordination and control of activities that ensure the achievement of the goals set within the framework of the project.

Another condition for the successful implementation of the project approach to the development of macroregions is the competent structuring of the parameters, measures and actions underlying it, in particular, it is necessary to clearly understand the role and place of each subject of the Russian Federation in the process of achieving the goal for which the macroregions were allocated.

The functionality of macroregions (in their current variation), as noted earlier, is not obvious, and the proposed conceptual approach, on the contrary, provides for its clear fixation: a macroregion (in the contours of the project approach) is a platform for the implementation of a large project (it can be investment, social, technological, etc.), the boundaries of which, like the specifics of the processes taking place in them are determined by a specific and understandable target.

The logic of organizing a grid of macro-regions (quite stable, based on taking into account the specifics of the allocation of productive forces, economic ties between territorial units), which proved itself well in Soviet times in the realities of a planned economy, in modern conditions cannot be used with the same efficiency as before. This is due to a number of reasons, and first of all, the high dynamics of changes in the system of intersubjective (including interterritorial) relations (currently, characterized by a significant level of turbulence and uncertainty in economic development, it is only increasing), as well as the transformation of the interaction space itself (the role of virtual connections is increasing, the importance of digital technologies is increasing, which brings new accents on the importance of the localization factor of production). All this variety of conditions determines the success of the development of network structures (flexible, dynamic) that work well precisely within the framework of the project approach (in this context, macroregions can be considered on the one hand as a space for the formation and development of networks, network interactions, on the other hand, as a high-level network structure).

However, regardless of whether the proposed project approach is chosen or the traditional option is implemented, providing for the formation of a single fixed grid of macroregions, it is important to take into account a number of conceptual provisions that ensure the success of the implemented zoning policy.

Thus, each of the elements of the previously designated triad deserves the closest attention (which must be coordinated with each other).

Activities for the formation and development of macroregions should be subordinated to a specific goal (it sets the functionality of the created interregional complexes): in its absence, it is impossible to correctly identify those criteria that allow you to select the list of the most suitable territories for integration, and develop mechanisms that condition the effective implementation of the processes initiated by this integration, which devalues the very idea of forming macroregions by turning them into useless structures, while at the same time taking over part of the resources available to the state. The goal should not be too broad: as noted earlier, in this case, it will be too difficult to propose the optimal version of the "macro-regional grid" (due to the many parameters and characteristics that need to be taken into account), and the set of steps and tools formed in the interests of achieving it will most likely be too generalized. At the same time, the goals should be quite ambitious and ambitious: the implementation of the zoning policy and the development of macroregions is a very costly process (both in terms of the required time and the required management resources).

The list of parameters and indicators that must be taken into account to identify the composition and boundaries of macro-regions should be comprehensive and based not only on an assessment of the current state of the subjects of the Russian Federation, but also on priorities and risks of their development. This involves both referring to strategic planning documents developed at the regional level, and taking into account the needs and interests of subjects localized in their space (we are talking not only about authorities at different levels who may be interested in strengthening interaction with representatives of neighboring territories, but also about large business structures or public associations, having a significant impact on the development of regional socio-economic systems). Unlike zoning, carried out in the interests of optimizing the management system, when the qualitative elaboration of criteria for the allocation of macroregions can be neglected (as discussed in the analysis of the features and results of the emergence of federal districts), the formation of macroregions as spatial structures of an economic type (their creation was provided for by the Spatial Development Strategy of the Russian Federation) requires a serious justification for the selection of the most appropriate parameters and indicators, which makes it advisable to actively include representatives of the expert community in the processes of determining the composition and boundaries of such integration systems (as noted earlier, the Russian scientific school of zoning has a rich history and a significant number of developments that can be successfully applied in practice). Although the list of parameters and indicators (as well as their thresholds, criteria for selecting territories for inclusion in macroregions, etc., assessed on their basis) cannot be standardized and needs to be revised every time there is a need to transform the macroregional system (for example, due to the emergence of a new goal of uniting the subjects of the Russian Federation, changes in the conditions of functioning of economic entities some criteria of zoning (the sectoral structure of the economy, the development guidelines established in the region, etc.) require special attention due to the influence they have on the prospects for the formation of stable inter-territorial relations.

Mechanisms that ensure the achievement of goals, the implementation of which is conditioned by the emerging macro-regions, should first of all create additional opportunities for cooperation between participants in macro-regional education, increase the degree of coordination of their actions, expand the range of ways of their communication. This means that such mechanisms should be integrated into the already existing system of tools for inter-territorial interaction, expanding and supplementing them, taking into account the targets set by the logic of the formation of the macroregion. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about the development of a standardized set of mechanisms accompanying the development of macroregions – the transformation of the expected result, which should lead to increased connectivity of the macroregional socio-economic space, entails a change in the most appropriate tools and measures (which, however, does not negate the possibility of resorting to some universal, applicable in various conditions, measures For example, the formation of open databases containing information about the features and prospects of the development of the subjects of the Russian Federation and their constituent municipalities, which may be of interest to regions interested in finding the most suitable partner for the implementation of their own projects or solving existing problems).

It should also be noted that the development of a set of mechanisms capable of having a significant impact on interterritorial relations within the boundaries of the macroregion is impossible without clearly fixing the subjects of managerial activity, assigning them all the necessary powers and defining the boundaries of their responsibility, while creating new institutions (for example, specialized ministries or associations, including representatives of subjects integrated within the macroregion Of the Russian Federation) is not mandatory. This means that the absence of another level in the structure of authorities implementing spatial development policy (macro-regional, operating in parallel with the offices of the plenipotentiary representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in federal districts) does not indicate the "uncontrollability" of the macro-regions being formed: the functions of regulating the processes taking place in their space can be implemented by federal executive authorities (in coordination with the executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation that are part of the macroregion).

Conclusion

Summing up the research, it should be concluded that macroregions currently represent a somewhat underestimated element of spatial development policy: the functionality of the macroregions proposed in the Spatial Development Strategy of the Russian Federation is not clear, which does not allow us to propose correct criteria for determining their boundaries, to develop adequate mechanisms for turning them into points of economic growth. This conclusion is consistent with the assessment of the modern approach to the allocation of macroregions, which is reflected in a significant number of studies: a review of 160 publications published in domestic publications for the period 2015-2020 on the SPR showed that the zoning option indicated in the document represents one of the most criticized plots of the strategy by scientists ^[25].

In the current rapidly changing conditions, macroregions can take on the role of sites for the implementation of large projects, act as a space for network interactions (which implies the rejection of rigid fixation of macroregions within specified boundaries, their transformation into a flexible supra-regional superstructure capable of dynamically responding to changes, adapting to new conditions).