Modernization Processes as a Factor of Construction and

Transformation of the System of Territorial Structures on the

Example of the Territory of the South of the Far East

Elena S. Kosheva

, Galina V. Petruk

and Yulia S. Lebedinskaya

Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service, 41 Gogol str., Vladivostok, Russia

Keywords: Territorial Structure, System, Modernization Processes, Reformation, Structural Adjustment, South of the Far

East, Transformation.

Abstract: The territorial structure, like any system that consists of elements that are different in their parametric and

typological characteristics that determine its integrity, is subject to change. Any intra-structural violation of

the functional activity of the elements caused by political, economic, and social processes largely determines

the nature and direction of systemic changes in the territorial structure. This paper aims to provide a

comprehensive analysis of the modernization processes of an economic, political and social nature that have

an indirect impact on the Far East South territorial structure elements transformation. Within the framework

of this goal, the following tasks are solved: the study and correlation of modernization processes occurring in

the Southern Far East territory in spatial and temporal dynamics and their impact on construction, and the

territorial structures system elements transformation. The authors applied a comprehensive approach to the

study of this process, which allows to analyze the territorial structuring elements transformation by studying

the modernization processes in the south of the region in spatial and temporal dynamics. As a result of the

study, the modernization processes occurring in the Southern part of the Far East in spatial and temporal

dynamics are analyzed; three waves of powerful modernization processes are systematized and identified, i.e.

the 1905 uprising; the 1917 revolution; the USSR collapse in 1991 and the modern Russia formation; their

differences are identified, characterized by the reform conceptual, political, economic and social features,

which caused changes in the south of the region territorial structuring system elements in the spot-temporal

continuum. The special theoretical methods conceptual application for the study of this problem makes it

possible to explain in general the territorial structures system elements transformation patterns in the South

of the region.

1 INTRODUCTION

The nodal and linear elements form the territorial

structure basis and are an objective indicator of its

stability. Consequently, the main reason for the

emergence of systemic changes in the territorial

structure will be the reorganization. The source of

such transformations is the economic growth of the

national economy branches, which are the object of

producing decisions taken by political authorities in

the field of the economy of the Southern region of the

Far East. This means that the economic change policy

main subjects are political and economic institutions.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6720-4401

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1025-3605

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7573-1372

A special role in this issue is assigned to the State. It

is a leading political management institution that

determines the choice of the Primorye political and

economic development path. On this territory,

depending on the state policy direction of

modernization and reorganization (is chosen by the

government), the territorial structure nodal and linear

elements formation and development was carried out.

All system elements structural adjustments,

according to V.V. Ratieva, S. Cardina, began from the

institutional structure deformation, which was caused

by the economic and political forces activities. The

main role in this process is assigned to politics, since

336

Kosheva, E., Petruk, G. and Lebedinskaya, Y.

Modernization Processes as a Factor of Construction and Transformation of the System of Territorial Structures on the Example of the Territory of the South of the Far East.

DOI: 10.5220/0010668100003223

In Proceedings of the 1st International Scientiﬁc Forum on Sustainable Development of Socio-economic Systems (WFSDS 2021), pages 336-341

ISBN: 978-989-758-597-5

the choice of the modernization path, according to

A.I. Demidov, took place and began in this area,

where not only the political will to change was clearly

manifested, but also the modernization changes

option choice was made (Ratiyev, 2012). It is political

reform actions that trigger the economic, social, and

political development mechanisms, ensuring the

consistent implementation of reforms in these public

life areas. However, the modernization changes did

not always take place evenly. Their impact often

covered the economic and political spheres. This

situation was explained by the exceptional role of the

State in Russia. The State modernization began with

the institutional structures transformation, the state

apparatus, military and industrial power, in order to

achieve a high level of political, economic, and

technological development, especially in military-

technological terms (Koshevaya, Tushkov, 2020).

2 ANALYSIS OF

MODERNIZATION

PROCESSES IN RUSSIA AND

THEIR IMPACT ON THE

TRANSFORMATION OF THE

ELEMENTS OF THE

TERRITORIAL STRUCTURE

In Russia, the reform actions in most cases did not

concern the political sphere, except when it was

necessary. According to S.A. Lantsov, this area

"lagged far behind the changes that took place in other

spheres of public life, which caused crises" (Lantsov,

2001). This lag was explained by the fact that the

State modernization policy pursued by the

government primarily covered the economic sphere,

solving the problem of the gap in the economic

development level with advanced countries (Lantsov,

2001; Kolganov, 2012). This process was often

carried out on the basis of the internal resources usage

and was accompanied by new technologies

introduction, most of which, according to M.V. Ilyin,

V.I. Pantin, A.L. Yanov, E.Yu. Meleshkin, were

borrowed (Yanov, 1991). The political modernization

process in Russia is called endogenous-exogenous. Its

characteristic feature, according to A.A. Achkasov

and S.N. Gavrov, was the Western models and

development technologies imitation (Achkasov,

2001; Gavrov, 2004). The need to accept the Western

countries experience was largely due to the desire to

achieve an equal position with more developed

countries in a number of priority areas, i.e. military-

technological, scientific, economic, and political, the

implementation of which for a long time determined

the Russian development path, characterized as

inorganic modernization. The transformations were

not completed and had a cyclical pattern, which was

characterized by the reforms and counter-reforms

alternation. Such a model of cyclical or wave-like

development in Russia is analyzed in scientific

studies (Pantin and Lapkin; 2011; Pantin and Lapkin,

2005; Kolganov, 2012; Pain, 2008; Klyamkin, 2011).

The meaning of such development was most fully

revealed and expressed by A.L. Yadov: "Short phases

of modernization activity with long prostration

periods" (Yanov, 1991).

The modernization processes taking place in

various spheres of public life brought the systemic

changes deformations in the territorial structure. Its

restructuring was accompanied by the territorial

structure key elements development. Their economic

growth was due to the State policy, i.e. due to the

modernization of the military-technological,

economy production sector and those industries that

were directly related to the increase in the country's

defense capability (Gudkov, 2012).

Russia pursuits the inorganic modernization path

that led to some reforms incompleteness and the other

reforms subsequent introduction. (Kara-Muza, 1999).

Such development was uneven on the Russian

territory. It was explained by regional differences in

economic, socio-political, and technological

development. In this regard, the modernization multi-

level regional results in various spheres of public life

led to territorial contradictions, which largely

determined the modernization direction and pace.

Transformations in some areas of public life were

successful, while in others they ended in gradation

and destabilization, which only proved the uneven

modernization process in Russia.

3 ANALYSIS OF

MODERNIZATION

PROCESSES OF

TERRITORIAL STRUCTURING

OF THE SOUTH OF THE FAR

EAST

Complex and incomplete reform processes were

called the modernization "revolutions" because these

processes were forced. In total, there were three

waves of powerful revolutionary modernization in

Russia, i.e. the uprising in 1905; the revolution in

Modernization Processes as a Factor of Construction and Transformation of the System of Territorial Structures on the Example of the

Territory of the South of the Far East

337

1917; the collapse of the USSR in 1991 and the

modern Russia formation. It perfectly demonstrates

the modernization changes impact on the construction

and transformation of the territorial structures system

in the South of the Far East.

A rather difficult economic and social situation

developed in Russia at the beginning of the XX

century. It was caused by the economic crisis of 1900-

1904 beginning and the Russian-Japanese war of

1904-1905, which was the reason for the launch of the

first wave of a revolutionary nature modernization. It

dates 1905-1907 and is characterized by the

beginning of social, economic and political

upheavals. A powerful impulse to its development,

according to A. Kolganov, was the extraordinary

circumstances, i.e. the gap in economic development

with advanced countries, the military defeats, the

increase in geopolitical threats (Kolganov, 2012). The

military failures and the production sectors tension

related to the country defense capability became the

direct reason for the modernization. In this regard, the

Russian government has attempted to implement the

industrial modernization and the agrarian reform. The

industrial reforms implementation provided a

significant industrial recovery, with the highest

growth rates in metallurgy, mechanical engineering

and mining. Such a leap of industries contributed to

the systemic changes beginning within the territorial

structure nodal elements. Their development was

accompanied by the territorial structure entire

integrity reorganization. At the same time, the change

in the areal elements partially took place. It was

carried out through the transport lines and settlements

construction, since there was an unresolved land

issue. Consequently, the industry growth did not

contribute to the agrarian question resolution. All

attempts taken by S.Yu. Witte were doomed to failure

within the autocratic political system framework.

In general, the first wave of modernization in the

period from 1900 to 1906 took place unevenly, it was

affected only by the economic sphere and industries

related to the country defense capability. In the South

of the Far East, the industrial production development

contributed to the beginning of systemic changes in

the territorial structure nodal elements, the functional

activity of which was disrupted by еру political

actions of a mass nature, i.e. the political unrest,

demonstrations. During the period of their operation,

the territorial structure did not develop, its functional

activity was insignificant, factories worked

intermittently, the infrastructure traffic was minimal,

which allowed the author to conclude that the system

was stagnating.

Extraordinary circumstances in 1917 were the

reason for the development of the modernization

shocks during the second wave in Russia, according

to A. Kolganov (Kolganov, 2012). According to A.

Averin, its characteristic feature is the halfway

modernization undertaken by the government. And

these measures were not enough to realize the

necessary transformations in the war and socio-

economic and political crises conditions (Averin,

2012). Many researchers associate the events of 1917

with the modernization crisis, the forms and

dynamics of their implementation were caused by

protracted military difficulties, which were a

powerful impulse for military-technological

transformations in the economy branches sphere.

This kind of halfway modernization was

accompanied by the production reorganization in a

military manner, actions of this nature led to the

reduction of consumer-oriented direction, which

contributed to the beginning of the economic (food)

crisis (1915-1916), which had significantly worsened

by 1917. A. Stolypin attempted to correct the

situation by reforming the agrarian, administrative

system. In the face of the authorities unwillingness to

give up the autocracy foundations these attempts were

useless. Thus, the revolutionary movement led to the

downtime of many industrial and agricultural

industries (Alimov and Zhokhov, 1979), ensuring the

frame structure degradation. By this time, it was a

stable structure consisting of the territorial structure

nodal elements: Blagoveshchensk, Khabarovsk,

Ussuriysk, Vladivostok, which performed the

structure forming and organizing functions in relation

to the adjacent territory, and the territorial structure

geostrategic linear elements connecting them: the

Amur and Ussuriysk highways. The weak but stable

support framework created by the government in the

South of the Far East did not last long. Its destruction,

as the author believes, began with the territorial

structure nodal elements. Their functional activity

was disrupted by the widespread re-equipment of

production sectors in a military manner, which

provoked a food crisis. The nodal elements stagnation

contributed to the beginning of the systemic changes

process in the linear and areal elements of the

territorial structure. It was accompanied by a decrease

in their functional activity. All these systemic

changes in the territorial structure had a significant

impact on the frame structure restructuring in the

South of the region. Weak, but stable, it underwent a

strong change during the civil war, which, according

to G.M. Lappo, could affect the end of the autocratic

political system and the empire collapse (Lappo,

2009).

WFSDS 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC FORUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

338

In general, the second wave of modernization took

place unevenly in Russia. It was united with the first

wave by the fact that it, like the previous one, was

aimed at transforming only the economic and priority

industries spheres. Such a trend was the cause of

systemic changes in the territorial structure nodal

elements and the territory structuredness as a whole.

The system did not develop, but functioned in a

stagnant mode.

The further modernization process took place

already in Soviet Russia, where the government

clearly defined the main modernization areas,

covering only those areas of activity that are closely

related to the industrial, high-tech industries and

military technologies development. One direction of

reforms, in the absence of political changes, led to an

economic crisis. The authorities unsuccessful

attempts to overcome the crisis by partially reforming

the political system led to the fall of the economy

redistributive system and, as a result, to a political

crisis (Shaptalov, 2003; Baranov, Lyubashits,

Mamychev, Kuchina, Shestopal, 2017). These

extraordinary circumstances were the reason for the

beginning of the new modernization wave of a

revolutionary nature, according to A. Kolganov

(Kolganov, 2012). The prerequisites for its

development were the governmental narrowly

targeted modernization efforts:

1. the war communism policy (1917-1920);

2. the new economic policy (1921-1927);

3. the policy of forced industrialization and

collectivization (Stalin's Great Turning Point and

terror) (1920-1932);

4. the governmental and socio-political

development of the "Thaw" era (1950-1960).

5. the socio-economic policy of the "Stagnation"

era (1965-1984);

6. Perestroika (1985-1991):

 the collapsed planned economic and political

systems dismantling; the formation of new

relations in the socio-economic and political

spheres (1993-1998);

 the restoration of Russian statehood and

country economic recovery (1998-2008);

 the integration policy in the Asia-Pacific

region (2008-2012) (Bogaturov, 2004;

Mosyakov, 2003).

These transformations are characterized by the

incompleteness and regular changeability, due to the

specific features of Soviet Russia, the internal and

external circumstances that determined the

modernization conditions, pace and dynamics in the

country.

The ongoing transformations accompanied the

territorial structure nodal elements development.

Among them there was an evolutionary growth

caused by an increase in the number of functions

performed. Their formation was associated with the

linear elements construction and improvement. The

full-scale development of the territorial structure

supporting elements, especially the proto-nodes

unlimited formation, contributed to the territorial

structure areal elements formation, the evolutionary

growth of which was associated with the huge

territorial spaces involvement in the economic

activity. Thus, on the basis of the territorial structure

elements widespread development, the process of

systemic changes in the territorial structure was

carried out, and the extensive frame structure

formation in the South of the region was ensured.

The implementation of the State modernization

policy (the Decree of the Government of the Russian

Federation No. 1661. 2008, Decree of the

Government dated March 19, 2002, the Decree of the

Government of the Russian Federation 1661-p.) from

2008 to 2012 on infrastructure and transport

development, the formation of cross-border

cooperation with the countries of the Asia-Pacific

region contributed to the active development and the

geopolitical significance territorial structure linear

elements creation in the East-West, North-South

direction. Their growth was accompanied by the

region frame structure expansion beyond the Russian

State border, to the foreign territory.

In total, the modernization carried out by the

government from 1998 to 2012 did not completely

solve the economic and political problems, the

Russian economy still remained dependent on raw

materials. Its rise from 2000 to 2008 was the result of

the energy exports price policy. According to E.A.

Pain, it is possible to overcome the dependence on

raw materials if the majority of products in Russia

will be from the intelligent manufacturing, i.e. on the

basis of resource-substituting and information

technologies (Pain, 2008). According to V.L.

Inozemtsev (Inozemtsev, 2000), these technologies

should become the basis for Russia's transition from

a raw material economy to the post-industrial

economy development.

In general, the third wave of modernization took

place unevenly in Russia. It was consolidated with the

first and second waves by the fact that it, like the

previous ones, was aimed at transforming the

economic sphere only and those industries that were

directly related to the country defense capability. The

economic growth of industrial military-technological,

high-tech industries from 1920 to 1985, on the one

Modernization Processes as a Factor of Construction and Transformation of the System of Territorial Structures on the Example of the

Territory of the South of the Far East

339

hand, contributed to the beginning of systemic

changes in the territorial structure due to the territorial

structure nodal elements reorganization and the

proto-nodes unlimited formation. Their widespread

appearance not only contributed to the broadwise

South of the Far East frame structure development,

but also significantly "weighed it down". On the other

hand, the industry intensive development, especially

the mining enterprises growth, led Russia to the path

of resource-intensive development, which ended in an

economic crisis. The State transformative attempts to

withdraw from this crisis from 1985 to 1991 resulted

in the administrative-command and political systems

collapse, and the collapse of the State.

At the same time, the third wave of modernization

has significant differences, which were most clearly

manifested in Russia from 2008 to 2012. The

following are among them:

- oil and gas industries development, instead of

defense industries;

- the role of the structure-forming function in the

territorial structure formation was assumed by the

territorial structure linear elements. Here, the

construction was the impulse for the nodal elements

creation. This territorial space organization model is

called linear-nuclear, in which the territorial

structuring source is not the proto-nodes, but the

transport lines.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The three waves of revolutionary modernizations in

Russia analysis has shown that the extraordinary

circumstances serve as a powerful impulse for

modernization, according to A. Kolganov (Kolganov,

2012). Each new wave of modernization in Russia

was associated with the need to reduce the gap in the

development level with advanced countries, to

increase the State defense capability, especially in the

period of military defeats and the growing

geopolitical threat elimination. This narrowly

targeted orientation of modernizations gave a certain

degree of incompleteness and fragmentation,

characterized by an alternation of reforms and

counter-reforms, which is due to the specific Russian

features, its external and internal circumstances,

which largely determine the modernization pace and

dynamics.

In the unidirectional, incomplete modernization

implementation by the State, which has a narrow

target orientation, in the territorial structuring

development in the South of the Far East, a natural

trend is clearly traced. It is characterized by the

dependence of the territorial system development on

the State policy modernization cycles. At the same

time, the territorial structure nodal elements have a

pulsating dynamics, while the system itself has a

stagnant development. Their pulsation is manifested

on the basis of the industries development, and the

unlimited, ubiquitous appearance of proto-nodes,

which sufficiently weigh down and expand the frame

structure in breadth on Southern territory of the

region.

In general, the modernization processes

contribute to both the territorial structure elements

evolutionary growth, their development, stagnation,

degradation, and the formation of a branched, weak,

but sufficiently stable frame structure. It is the

territorial structures system elements transformation

that most clearly demonstrates the process of

modernization changes in the South of the Far East.

REFERENCES

Achkasov, A.A. (2001). Rossiya kak razrushayushcheyesya

traditsionnoye obshchestvo. Polis, 3: 84.

Alimov, Yu.P., Zhokhov, V.P. (1979). Analiz effektivnosti

razmeshcheniya proizvoditel'nykh sil Sibiri i Dal'nego

Vostoka. Moskva. Finansy, pp. 36; 38; 39; 53.

Averin, A. (2012). Sushchnost' i zadachi modernizatsii.

URL: http://www.lawinrussia/ru/modernizatsiya-

rossii-uroki-istorii-i-sovremennye-zadachi

Baranov, P., Lyubashits, V., Mamychev, A., Kuchina, Y.,

Shestopal, S. (2017). Dynamics of governmental

organization of the society: Evolutionary state-legal

forms and modern development trends. Man in India,

97: 543-550.

Bogaturov, A. (2004). Rossiyskiy dal'niy Vostok v novykh

geoprostranstvennykh izmereniyakh Vostochnoy

Yevrazii. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnyye

otnosheni, 10: 93.

Gavrov, S.N. (2004). Modernizatsiya vo imya imperii.

Sotsiokul'turnyye aspekty modernizatsionnykh

protsessov v Rossii, 38 – 72. URL:

http://lit.lib.ru/g/gawrow_s_n/indexdate.shtml

Gudkov, L.D. (2012). Osobennosti modernizatsii v Rossii

i kharakter russkoy etnonatsional'noy identichnosti.

URL:

http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/konfer/konfer

_025.html

Inozemtsev, V.L. (2000). Predely «dogonyayushchego»

razvitiya. Moskva. Nauka, pp. 66,71-76.

Kara-Muza, A. (1999). Kak vozmozhna Rossiya? Moskva,

P. 41.

Klyamkin, I. (2011). Problemy modernizatsii v Rossii.

URL:

http://www.invur.ru/index.php?page=news&id=28931

Kolganov, A. (2012). Tri modernizatsii v Rossii i nashe

vremya. URL: http://www.zlev.ru/69_64.htm

Koshevaya, E.S, Tushkov, A.A. (2020). Conceptual

approaches to territorial structuring studies of a region.

WFSDS 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC FORUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

340

Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 139: 159-

168.

Lantsov, S.A. (2001). Rossiyskiy istoricheskiy opyt v svete

kontseptsiy politicheskoy modernizatsii. Polis,3: 93 –

101.

Lappo, G.M. (2009). Territorial'naya struktura Rossii v

nachale XXI veka. URL:

geo.1september/ru/2002/33/4.htm

Mosyakov, D. (2003). Rossiya – ATR: khoroshiye

otnosheniya s dostoynymi partnerami. Nekotoryye

aspekty Rossiyskoy politiki v Aziatsko-

Tikhookeanskom regione. Aziya i Afrika segodnya, 10:

14.

Pain, E.A. (2008). Istoricheskiy «beg po krugu».

Obshchestvennyye nauki i sovremennost', 4: 5 – 20.

Pantin, V.I., Lapkin V.V. (2005). Ritmy mezhdunarodnogo

razvitiya kak faktor politicheskoy modernizatsii Rossii.

Polis, 3: 57.

Pantin, V.I., Lapkin, V.V. (2011). Volny politicheskoy

modernizatsii v istorii Rossii. URL:

http://ss.xsp.ru/st/003/

Pravitel'stvennoye postanovleniye ot 19 marta 2002 № 169

«Ekonomicheskoye i sotsial'noye razvitiye Dal'nego

Vostoka i Zabaykal'ya na 1996 - 2005 i do 2010 goda».

Rasporyazheniye Pravitel'stva RF 1661-r. Ob utverzhdenii

Kontseptsii federal'noy tselevoy programmy

«Ekonomicheskoye i sotsial'noye razvitiye korennykh

malochislennykh narodov Severa, Sibiri i Dal'nego

Vostoka do 2015 goda». URL:

http://docs.cntd.ru/document/902073548

Rasporyazheniye pravitel'stva RF № 1661. 2008. URL:

http://www.ebiblioteka.ru/browse/doc/13013219

Ratiyev, V.V. (2012). Institutsionalizatsiya i osobennosti

funktsionirovaniya informatsionnykh protsessov v

rossiyskom obshchestve. Avtoreferat. URL:

http://dibase.ru/article/26072010_ratievvv/2

Shaptalov, B.N. (2003). Rossiya v poiskakh effektivnosti.

Moskva. Nauka, pp. 241-242.

Yanov, A.L. (1991). Odisseya russkoy avtokratii.

Perspektiva, 3: 78.

Modernization Processes as a Factor of Construction and Transformation of the System of Territorial Structures on the Example of the

Territory of the South of the Far East

341