| Annotation |
The article aims to determine the main indicators of the socio-economic and political resilience of a region during the global crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to a first approximation. The study considers the case of Kemerovo Region – Kuzbass, a division of the Siberian Federal District.
The object of the research was to study the phenomenon of resilience in the regional political process; the subject matter is the identification of indicators of social, economic and political resilience of Kemerovo Region – Kuzbass under the COVID-19 pandemic conditions. These resilience indicators have an impact not only on the stability of the region as a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, but also affect the public sentiment, which are not always positive. The main subject of the research and at the same time the source of information were the opinions of experts – political and social scientists, economists representing different areas of professional activity – business community, the media, the higher education system and non-profit organizations.
In this study, the main research method was expert interviews. Moreover, an interdisciplinary approach applied was based on the synthesis of D. Chandler’s political resilience and the social concept of alternative forms of resilience (M. Kousis, M. Paschou, M. Giovannini), as well as the model of economic resilience by R. Martin and R. Sunley. The authors note that the concept of resilience, despite its active use in foreign science, has not yet received due attention in the study of internal political processes including the problems of regional development in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
The article suggests the authors’ interpretation of the resilience concept and identifies four main indicators of resilience – economic, social, political and psychological ones. The study has found that representatives of medium and large business and the media are the respondents most satisfied with the current state of the region’s sustainability. Representatives of non-profit organizations and higher education system do not see any sustainability under the current conditions. It is concluded that further prospects for strengthening the stability of Kuzbass should be associated with the departure from the single-industry economy focused exclusively on the coal mining, and the development of civil society institutions
|
| References |
1. Gudalov N. N., Tulupov D. S. Politiya (Polity), 2018, no. 1, pp. 135–147.
2. Matveeva E. V., Goosen E. V., Alagoz A. V. Teoreticheskie i prikladnye voprosy kompleksnoy bezopasnosti: sb. st. (Theoretical and applied issues of complex security: collected articles). St. Peterburg, 2019, pp. 139–143.
3. Romanova T. A., Pavlova E. B. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya (World economy and international relations), 2019, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 102–109.
4. Boschma R. Regional Studies (Regional Studies), 2015, no. 49, pp. 733–751.
5. Bourbeau P. The Routledge handbook of international resilience (The Routledge handbook of international resilience). London; New York: Routledge, 2017, pp. 26–37.
6. Brand F. S., Jax K. Ecology and Society (Ecology and Society), 2007, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 120–123.
7. Bristow G., Healy A. Regional Studies (Regional Studies), 2014, no. 48, pp. 923–935.
8. Chandler D. Contemporary Security Policy (Contemporary Security Policy), 2020, vol. 41, pp. 195–214.
9. Cuadrado-Roura J. R., Maroto A. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society (Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society), 2016, no. 9, pp. 153–178.
10. Giovannini M. Business Ethics European Review (Business Ethics European Review), 2020, no. 4, pp. 36–48.
11. Holling C. S. Annual review of ecology and systematic (Annual review of ecology and systematic), 1973, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–23.
12. Kousis M., Paschou M. Partecipazione e Conflitto (Partecipazione e Conflitto), 2017, no. 10, pp. 136–168.
13. Martin R., Sunley P. Journal of Economic Geography (Journal of Economic Geography), 2015, no. 15, pp. 1–42.
14. Martin R., Sunley P., Gardiner B., Tyler P. Regional Studies (Regional Studies), 2016, no. 50, pp. 561–585.
15. Masik G. European Planning Studies (European Planning Studies), 2018, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1060–1077.
16. Nistotskaya M., Charron N., Lapuente V. Government and Policy (Government and Policy), 2015, no. 33, pp. 1125–1155.
17. Randalls S., Simon S. The Routledge handbook of international resilience (The Routledge handbook of international resilience). London; New York: Routledge, 2017, pp. 38–48.
18. Caro P. D., Fratesi U. The Annals of Regional Science (The Annals of Regional Science). 2018. Vol. 60. P. 235–240.
19. Cuadrado-Roura J. R., Martin R., Rodríguez-Pose A. The economic crisis in Europe: urban and regional consequences // Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2016, no. 9, pp. 3–11.
|
