Space as an object of state policy: the case of the spatial development strategy of the Russian Federation until 2030

At the end of 2024, the Russia’s Government approved the Spatial Development Strategy until 2030 that replaced the version of 2025. Despite the active use of the “space” concept in regulatory acts on strategic planning, the legislator does not provide a clear definition of it creating terminological uncertainty in governance practice. The authors proceed from the assumption that, for the purposes of public policy, space cannot be reduced solely to territory as a legally defined portion of the earth’s surface. The article aims to address the question of how the state defines space as an object of policy and whether the distinction between “space” and “territory” has practical political and legal significance. The authors formulate research hypothesis as follows: in Strategy-2030 the concept of “territory” is used primarily to fix   administrative-legal and geographical frameworks, whereas “space” denotes a dynamic configuration of connections, priorities, infrastructures, and coordination mechanisms The methodological framework combines the comparative legal method (an analysis of concepts of space in European law), institutional analysis, and frequency-based content analysis of strategic planning documents. The empirical part includes a frequency analysis of word forms in the text of Strategy-2030 and comparative coding of its key semantic blocks against the Spatial Development Strategy of the Russian Federation for the period until 2025. The results show that the new Strategy shifts the emphasis from the model of promising centers of economic growth and macro-regions to the model of backbone settlements, infrastructural connectivity, a digital governance platform, and monitoring of spatial priorities. On this basis, space is proposed to be understood as a two-layer category: the first layer is territory as the legal basis of sovereignty, borders, and competence; the second layer is an institutionally organized environment of interaction among subjects, objects, infrastructures, flows, and representations. The authors conclude that spatial policy requires not only the legal formalization of its instruments, but also methodological support that makes it possible to distinguish between different types of spaces and to consistently relate them to the goals, competences, and performance outcomes of public authorities in the field of spatial development at different levels. The findings may be used in the further improvement of the regulatory framework of strategic planning and in the preparation of practical recommendations for public authorities.

1. Akimova Yu.A. Public spaces as territories of development. Kontentus. 2022, N 1 (114), P. 34–41. (In Russ.)

2. Bourdieu P. Sociology of politics. In: Shmatko N.A. (ed.). Moscow: Socio-Logos, 1993, 336 p. (In Russ.)

3. Bukhvald E.M. Russian federalism and a new spatial development strategy. Problems of territory’s development. 2025, Vol. 29, N 5, P. 32–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15838/ptd.2025.5.139.2 (In Russ.)

4. Elatskov A.B. Political geospace as an object of research. III. The Space of geopolitical relations. / A.B. Elatskov // Bulletin of St. Petersburg university. Series 7. Geology. Geography. 2013, N 4, P. 152–161. – EDN PYJGJC. (In Russ.)

5. Zobova L.L. Territory and space: twins or siblings? Regional economics: theory and practice. 2008, N 33, P. 6–12. (In Russ.)

6. Kuznetsova O.V., Druzhinin A.G. Toward a new spatial development strategy for Russia. Problemy prognozirovaniia. 2024, N 4, P. 36–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47711/0868-6351-205-36-45 (In Russ.)

7. Lambach D. Space, scale, and global politics: towards a critical approach to space in international relations. Review of international studies. 2022, Vol. 48, N 2, P. 282– 300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021052100036X

8. Leontyeva L.S., Proskurnova K.Yu. Space and territory: directions of state development policy. Problemy teorii i praktiki upravleniia. 2021, N 10, P. 25–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46486/0234-4505-2021-10-24-37 (In Russ.)

9. Medvedev N.P. Legal political science as a new scientific field. Political Science Issues. 2015, N 1(17), P. 5–11. (In Russ.)

10. Medvedev N.P. On the territorial organization of power and the form of state structure. Regional and municipal governance: issues of politics, economics and law. 2017, N 1–2, P. 5–15. (In Russ.)

11. Mitrofanov S.V. Territorial approach as a model of spatial development management: opportunities and barriers in Russia. Moskovskii ekonomicheskii zhurnal. 2025, N 8, P. 239–251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55186/2413046X_2025_10_8_205 (In Russ.)

12. Okunev I.Yu. Territorial and spatial identity: new approach to the basic concepts. Comparative politics Russia. 2018, Vol. 9, N 1, P. 18–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18611/2221-3279-2018-9-1-18-25 (In Russ.)

13. Reshetnikov M.G. New spatial development strategy of Russia: main tasks and priorities. Problemy prognozirovaniia. 2025, N 4, P. 6–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47711/0868-6351-211-6-10 (In Russ.)

14. Simmons B.A., Goemans H.E. Built on borders: tensions with the institution liberalism (Thought It) left behind. International organization. 2021, Vol. 75, N 2, P. 387–410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000600

15. Turovsky R.F. Geospace and metaspace: geographical methods in political science. Metod: Moscow yearbook of works in social sciences. 2015, N 5, P. 71–89. (In Russ.)

16. Turovsky R.F., Sukhova M.S. Challenges of regional socio-economic polarization in Russia: is state policy successful? Political science (RU). 2024, N 1, P. 14–50. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2024.01.01 (In Russ.)

17.