198068 Saint Petersburg
Griboyedov channel embankment, 123, Room 324
t. +7 (812) 644-59-11, plus 61415
The Department was created on the basis of the Department of Politics, which was established in 2005. The main purpose of the department is to provide today’s students with professional training in the fields of political analysis and sociopolitical engineering, as well as in creating a special creative atmosphere that allows for the formation and development of a society of political experts who are capable of not only carrying out professional research, but also proposing and implementing solutions to relevant Russian and international problems.
Edited by: L. Issaev, A. Korotayev.
Cham: Springer, 2022.
Issaev L., Korotayev A., Shishkina A. et al.
Europe-Asia Studies. 2023.
Zakharov A., Issaev L.
In bk.: New Wave of Revolutions in the MENA Region. A Comparative Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2022. P. 109-135.
OxonCourts Judicial Studies Graduate Colloquium. OxonCourts Judicial Studies Graduate Colloquium. University of Oxford, 2019
In October 2021, the professor of our Department Sergei Sevastianov was published in the journal "Asian Politics and Policy" with an article on the topic "Development institutions of the Russian Far East and Asia-Pacific countries: Goals, instruments, and results in comparative perspective". As of 2020, the journal ranked in Quartile 3 in subject areas "Political Science and International Relations"; "Sociology and Political Science". The article was co-authored by Anton Kireev, an associate professor of political science at the Far Eastern Federal University. The study offers a new perspective on studying the Russian Far Eastern (RFE) development institutions (DIs), such as Advanced Development Territories (ADT) and Vladivostok Free Port (VFP), by placing them in a social and international context and comparing them with developmental models of Asia‐Pacific countries. The research methodology combined qualitative comparative‐historical and comparative‐typological analysis with the quantitative analysis of the indicators of economic development.
Russian policymakers treated DIs of Asia-Pacific countries as models to form RFE development policy instruments and to strengthen socioeconomic ties with the Asia‐Pacific region in perspective. The scholars conducted a comprehensive comparison of the newly formed Far Eastern DIs with those of China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Singapore and India based on a wide range of parameters. Based on that, the authors claim the experience of China and Vietnam to be the most useful for the RFE DIs due to the similarities of the systems in terms of strategic objectives, which are characterised by the adoption of multipurpose development policy for solving problems of the backward structure of the economy, regional inequality, and low entrepreneurial activity.
The comparison of the DIs preferential regimes of the studied countries indicates that the possibilities of increasing Far East’s DIs attractiveness by providing financial benefits have basically been exhausted. The growth rate of the accumulated FDI in the ADT and VFP in 2017–2019 indicated the relative success (compared to the DIs of the other countries) of their functioning in the medium term. However, the absolute volumes of the already accumulated and expected foreign and domestic investments in the ADT and VFP are not sufficient to overcome the macroregion’s constant lag in the main socio-economic indicators from the average Russian level.
In conjunction with the experience of China and Vietnam, the example of the RFE indicates that DIs cannot be the main means of solving such deep and complex structural problems as regional inequality. The local effects of DIs should be supported by a broader government policy to improve the investment macro-climate, and by systematic measures to align the institutional, infrastructural and price conditions for the macroregional development. In parallel, basing on the study findings, the scholars provide a recommendation to decentralise the regulation of the territorial DIs and remove administrative barriers in the macroregion in order to realise the full potential of these institutions and stimulate internationalisation of the RFE economy.