![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article presents the results of a comprehensive study conducted by the ZIRCON Research Group in four frontier regions of Russia (Crimea, Primorsky Krai, and Kaliningrad and Murmansk oblasts) and two non-frontier control regions (Kostroma Oblast and Chuvashia).Footnote1 The research methods included collection of data on the current situation in the regions and a series of focus group discussions that included representatives of small and medium-sized businesses, civil society, and the expert community. The sample included 5,000 adults (over the age of 18) in these regions.
The study focused on the following components: the rootedness of the population (whether people are potentially ready to move to another region); territorial identity; perception of the region of residence and its population; perception of the characteristics of the inhabitants of the region; the level of trust and the propensity for solidarity; the level of openness; the presence/absence of a “defense consciousness”; views on prospects for the development of the region and its “mission”; the perception of the region as “special” in comparison to other regions of the Russian Federation; the level of political loyalty of the population; the perception of and attitude toward the “federal center”; the attitude toward the expansion of the powers of the region.
English translation © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, from the Russian text © 2018 “Politiia.” “Regiony ’Rubezha’: Territorial’naia identichnost’ i vospriiatie ’osobosti,’” Politiia, 2018, no. 2(89), pp. 102-136.
Igor V. Zadorin is the head of ZIRCON Research Group and a senior researcher at the Center for Comprehensive Social Studies, Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Translated by Lucy Gunderson. Translation reprinted from Russian Politics and Law, vol. 56, nos. 3-6. DOI: 10.1080/10611940.2019.1784631.
The study’s ultimate goal was to identify the link between the territorial identity of the population of the participating regions and their peoples’ perceptions of the prospects for the development of the region, including its relations with the federal center and other constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
Acknowledgments
This article is based on an analytical report summarizing the results of the “Russian Frontier: Civic Identity on the Country’s Edges” study, which was completed by the autonomous non-commercial organization Zadorin Sociological Workshop (ZIRCON Research Group) using special financing allocated by the non-commercial foundation Institute of Socioeconomic and Political Research. The author thanks ZIRCON staff members O.A. Gurkina, A.P. Khomiakova, and L.V. Shubina, who helped prepare the analytical report used in this article.
Notes
English translation © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, from the Russian text © 2018 “Politiia.” “Regiony ’Rubezha’: Territorial’naia identichnost’ i vospriiatie ’osobosti,’” Politiia, 2018, no. 2(89), pp. 102-136.
Igor V. Zadorin is the head of ZIRCON Research Group and a senior researcher at the Center for Comprehensive Social Studies, Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Translated by Lucy Gunderson. Translation reprinted from Russian Politics and Law, vol. 56, nos. 3-6. DOI: 10.1080/10611940.2019.1784631.
1. Editor’s Note: The author’s inclusion of Crimea in Russia does not reflect the editorial policy of Russian Politics & Law or the views of its editors or publishers; in fact, it directly contradicts the view of the journal’s editor-in-chief. In keeping with the journal’s mission to bring English-language readers an unadulterated and unvarnished view of current analysis and debates within Russia, however, we have left the treatment of Crimea as presented in the original article, and we rely on the understanding of our readers.
2. [Numbering differs from the original Russian version] The term “frontier” used in this article and the study it is based on differs from the classical term introduced by Frederick Turner. The authors of this study focused more on the aspect of “being on a border” than on the aspect of “settlement.” In this they were guided by the comments of Turner himself, who noted that “Russia requires its own construct for interpreting the development of its frontiers” (Billington Citation1973, p. 459).
3. The authors understand that it is somewhat conventional to join two areas like Sevastopol and the Republic of Crimea that differ so greatly in identity of the population into one unit but found that this was acceptable for the purposes of this study.
4. It is possible that in Crimea, the percentage of “outsiders” is actually higher than the survey showed. This is because the sampling included a slightly lower share of Crimean Tartars than the census—Crimean Tatars refused to participate in interviews more frequently than other groups and many of them were not born in the region.
5. In the following tables, the indicators that are significantly higher than the average indicators are given in bold font, while the statistics that are significantly lower than the average indicators are given in italics.
6. See RIA Ranking (2016).
7. According to an expert in the region, “Feelings about migration are caused by the implementation of market reforms, which made it difficult for companies in the north to keep and forced them to shut down. This is why mainly young people seeking professional fulfillment are determined to migrate.”
8. From 1990 to 2015, this region’s population contracted by one-third, from 1,164,000 to 762,000.
9. Here and below in this paragraph, data on Russia as a whole are cited from the results of the Eurasia Monitor survey conducted in April 2016 (http://eurasiamonitor.org/grazhdanskaia_i_tierritorialnaia_idientichnost).
10. We should note that the indicators for territorial identity in the regions in our study generally correspond to the indicators recorded in our 2011 study “The State of Russian Federalism, Prospects for Its Development in the Mass Consciousness, and Expert Assessments” (see Zadorin and Zaitsev 2011). However, a comparison with the regions used in that project (Tatarstan, Ivanovo Oblast, and Perm and Krasnodar krais) shows a drop in the share of local identity and an increase in national identity.
11. See, for example, Zadorin et al. (Citation2015).
12. Listed in order of decreasing mentions.
13. This option was selected by less than 10 percent of participants in the three other frontier regions.
14. Editor’s Note: “Government” here refers to the Cabinet of Ministers, chaired by the Prime Minister.
15. See RIA Ranking (2016).
16. Members of the business and expert communities in Kaliningrad stated a similar opinion.