Dynamics of the urban redevelopment policy in Russia (2000s–2020s): factors of institutional stability and change

Over the past two decades, Russian urban renewal policy has evolved from fragmented and weakly demanded initiatives – such as Integrated Territorial Development (Kompleksnoe Osvoenie Territorii, KOT) and Development of Built-Up Areas (Razvitie Zastroennykh Territorii, RZT) – toward the formation of a large-scale nationwide mechanism of Integrated Territorial Development (Kompleksnoe Razvitie Territorii, KRT). This article aims to explain the logic behind the transformation of the   early programs and to identify the factors that shaped the specificity and relative success of the KRT mechanism. The theoretical framework of the study draws on historical institutionalism, the idea of the redistributive nature of institutions, and the concept of institutional layering, complemented by an analysis of actors' structural opportunities. The empirical basis of the work includes an analysis of legal and regulatory acts, secondary data, and a series of semi-structured interviews with experts and representatives of development companies. The research shows that the KRT mechanism emerged not as a result of rational design, but through a long-term evolution, institutional layering, the impact of external shocks (including the experience of the Moscow renovation program), and political struggle. It is established that the specificity of the mechanism is shaped by a profound asymmetry in the political and resource capabilities of actors. On the one hand, large developers managed to lobby for universal and favorable rules of the game at the federal level. On the other hand, the federal center ensured the implementation of its objectives through specialized development institutions (such as DOM.RF), bypassing ineffective local authorities. At the same time, citizens' influence is largely limited to reactive resistance. The conclusion emphasizes that, despite its scale, the KRT has not become a definitively stable mechanism, the multiplicity of legal interpretations and contradictory judicial practice continue to generate uncertainty, limiting the initial effectiveness of this institution.

1. Béland D., Campbell A.L., Weaver R.K. Policy feedback: How policies shape politics. Elements in public policy. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2022, 102 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108938914

2. Bengtsson B., Ruonavaara H. Introduction to the special issue: Path dependence in housing. Housing, theory and society. 2010, Vol. 27, N 3, P. 193–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14036090903326411

3. Bengtsson B., Kohl S. Incremental change in housing regimes: some theoretical propositions with empirical illustrations. Critical housing analysis. 2020, Vol. 7, N 1, P. 15–24.

4. Borushkina S., Gorodnichev A. From genplan to master plan: the changing urban plan ning paradigm in Russia. Territory, politics, governance. 2025, Vol. 13, N 4, P. 468– 487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2023.2215817

5. Cherkashina T.Yu. Personal, private, privatized: what does the property owned by Russians mean? EKO. 2023, N 11 (593), P. 110–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30680/ECO0131-7652-2023-11-110-130 (In Russ.)

6. Chmykhalo E.Yu. Integrated territorial development: legal aspects. Pravovaya politika i pravovaya zhizn’. 2021, N 2, P. 57–65. (In Russ.)

7. Cullingworth J.B. Housing and local government: in England and Wales. London: Routledge, 2021, 276 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003132912

8. Daly M., Ferragina E. Family policy in high-income countries: Five decades of development. Journal of European social policy. 2018, Vol. 28, N 3, P. 255–270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928717735060

9. Drueva A.A. Integrated territorial development: legal conditions of implementation. Vestnik Universiteta imeni O.E. Kutafina. 2022, N 12 (100), P. 82–90. (In Russ.)

10. Emmenegger P. Agency in historical institutionalism: Coalitional work in the creation, maintenance, and change of institutions. Theory and society. 2021, Vol. 50, N 4, P. 607–626.

11. Erbyagina M.V. Regulatory and legal framework for integrated urban development. Arkhitektura i dizain. 2021, N 2, P. 29–38. (In Russ.)

12. Falleti T. Infiltrating the state: the evolution of health care reforms in Brazil, 1964– 1988. In: Mahoney J., Thelen K. (eds). Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2010, P. 38–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806414.004

13. Falleti T.G., Mahoney J. The comparative sequential method. In: Mahoney J., Thelen K. (eds). Advances in comparative-historical analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2015, P. 211–239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316273104.009

14. Gel’man V. Political foundations of bad governance in post-Soviet Eurasia: towards a research agenda. East European politics. 2017, Vol. 33, N 4, P. 496–516.

15. Jacobs A. Policymaking as political constraint. In: Mahoney J., Thelen K. (eds). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cam bridge university press, 2010, P. 94–131.

16. Kan K. Creating land markets for rural revitalization: Land transfer, property rights and gentrification in China. Journal of rural studies. 2021, Vol. 81, P. 68–77.

17. Khmelnitskaya M. The policy-making process and social learning in Russia: the case of housing policy. New York; Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan in association with St Antony's College, 2015, Vol. 15, 279 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137409744

18. Khmelnitskaya M. Tools of government for Russian development: the case of housing. Russian politics. 2017, Vol. 2, N 3, P. 307–333.

19. Khmelnitskaya M., Ihalainen E. Urban governance in Russia: The case of Moscow territorial development and housing renovation. Europe-Asia studies. 2021, Vol. 73, N 6, P. 1149–1175.

20. Kirsanov A.R. Integrated territorial development: how can the new institution avoid the fate of the “old” ones (KOT, RZT, KRT and KURT)? Imushchestvennye otnosheniya v Rossiyskoy Federatsii. 2024, N 2 (269), P. 27–35. (In Russ.)

21. Kirsanov A.R. Integrated territorial development: results, problems, and prospects. Property relations in the Russian Federation. 2025, N 4 (283), P. 9–16. (In Russ.)

22. Kuz’ma I.E. Integrated and sustainable territorial development: A new investment driver or an administrative barrier? Imushchestvennye otnosheniia v Rossiiskoi Federatsii. 2016, N 12 (183), P. 53–61. (In Russ.)

23. Mahoney J., Thelen K. A theory of gradual institutional change. In: Mahoney J., Thelen K. (eds). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2010, P. 1–37.

24. Schattschneider E.E. Politics, pressures and the tariff: a study of free private enterprise in pressure politics, as shown in the 1929–1930 revision of the tariff. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935, 300 p.

25. Schattschneider E.E. Party government and employment policy. American political science review. 1945, Vol. 39, N 6, P. 1147–1157.

26. Semenov A.V., Shevtsova I.K., Bederson V.D. Urban mobilization and urban development policy: strategic interaction between local residents and developers in a conflict situation. The Journal of sociology and social anthropology. 2018, Vol. 21, N 3, P. 140–169. (In Russ.)

27. Shevtsova I.K., Bederson V.D. “The Authorities’ point of view is silence”: interaction between initiative groups and local authorities in urban planning policy. Political science (RU). 2017, N 4, P. 111–136. (In Russ.)

28. Sternik S.G. Integrated territorial development and regional economy. Studies on Russian economic development. 2023, Vol. 34, N 2, P. 161–173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700723020112 (In Russ.)

29. Streeck W., Thelen K. (eds). Beyond continuity: institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2005, 290 p.

30. Thelen K. How institutions evolve: the political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2004, 333 p.

31. Zhelnina A. Bring your own politics: life strategies and mobilization in response to urban redevelopment. Sociology. 2022, Vol. 56, N 4, P. 783–799. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385211059438

32. Zhelnina A. Private life, public action: how housing politics mobilized citizens in Moscow. Philadelphia: Temple university press, 2026, 228 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9783/9781439926154

33. Zupan D., Smirnova V., Zadorian A. Governing through stolichnaya praktika: housing renovation from Moscow to the Regions. Geoforum. 2021, Vol. 120, P. 155–164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.01.008

34.