Reviewed by: Atlas modernizatsii Rossii i ee regionov: Sotsioekonomicheskie i sotsiokul'turnye tendentsii i problemy ed. by N. I. Lapin Rimma Tangalycheva (bio) N. I. Lapin, ed. Atlas modernizatsii Rossii i ee regionov: Sotsioekonomicheskie i sotsiokul'turnye tendentsii i problemy. 360 pp. Moscow: Ves Mir, 2016. ISBN 978-5-7777-0664-5. The work reviewed here represents an attempt to gain an understanding of new tendencies in the modernization of contemporary Russia and its regions. The authors' main focus is on the processes of the primary industrial stage of development in Russia and the transition to the secondary information stage. The authors aim to show the hierarchical differentiation of Russian federal subjects and federal districts in terms of modernization and to elicit contradictory tendencies in the regions' evolution. The significance of this research lies in its implications for the modernization program outlined by Dmitrii Medvedev in 2009. According to the authors' analysis, this program never resulted in the scientific development of a modernization strategy in Russia, let alone its practical implementation and regulation. The introductory section demonstrates the theoretical and methodological basis of their research, namely the concept of modernization as a civilizational process, and outlines the sociocultural challenges that Russian modernization has to tackle. In the following seven chapters, the authors consider processes, tendencies, and issues of modernization implemented between 2000 and 2012 in seven Russian federal districts. The authors connect Russian modernization processes with global development patterns. According to their data, approximately 90 developing countries are in the industrial stage of modernization and approximately 40 developed countries are in the informational stage, which points to the existence of multiple modernization processes. In a number of countries, including Russia, both stages of modernization are being implemented at the same time, with one type prevailing over the other in different parts of the country, thus indicating uneven modernization patterns in different regions. The novelty of the book is to be found in the authors' analysis of these uneven modernization processes in different parts of Russia. As this area of research is undeveloped, the Russian academy, the authors of this volume, follow the approach developed by the Center for Modernization Studies of the Academy of Sciences of China.1 Doing so enables the use of annual modernization indices in 130 countries with populations over one million (including the Russian Federation). Analyzing these indices reveals a great imbalance between Russian regions in the primary industrial and secondary information [End Page 135] stages of modernization—one that is two-and-a-half times as large as in other countries. In reaching this conclusion, the authors analyze a number of elements of modernization, including: • Technical and technological (indicators of transition to a new technological mode, which is becoming the main source of gross domestic income [GDI] in the country and in the regions, or a new resource for competitive development among other societies and states); • Socioeconomic (the growth of GDI per capita, the change in proportions of the main economic sectors, and human rights protection, excess of educational expenses, healthcare, and pension coverage); • Sociocultural (the human dimensions of fundamental human rights associated with working conditions, the level and quality of life of the people). • Institutional and regulatory (democratization of the state and political life of society, its judicial and legal institutions, ensuring the activity of civil society, counteracting the redundancy of bureaucratic control studies, and the number of officials engaged in the creation and implementation of these procedures). According to the authors of the book, between 2000 and 2012, the quality of modernization improved in all federal districts. At the same time, they note that only the former hierarchy of modernization has been modified. On the one end, the Central Federal District, including Moscow and the greater Moscow region, is considered to be developing dynamically. On the other, the Southern and North-Caucasian Federal Districts have risen from a low state to merely below average. The Volga, Siberian, and Far Eastern FDs were higher in terms of their secondary modernization levels. Regardless, all federal districts were at the stage of secondary modernization. At the same time, the Central Federal District rose above the Northwest Federal District, while the Ural Federal District still lags behind...
Read full abstract
Oct 25, 2018
Alexander Sukhodolov + 2
Open Access
