RUSSIA’S ARCTIC STRATEGIES OF 2014 AND 2021: IS CONTINUITY POSSIBLE AMID SHIFTING PRIORITIES? (PART 2)

Original article

Download article 

Natalia А. Roslyakova1, Alexander D. Volkov2, Evgeniy A. Kanevsky3, Kirill K. Boyarsky4, Anastasiia D. Kozlova5

1, 2, 5V. A. Trapeznikov Institute of Control Sciences RAS, Moscow, Russia

3, 4Institute for Regional Economic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg, Russia

1na@roslyakova24.ru, ORCID 0000-0002-7511-2141

2kov8vol@gmail.com, ORCID 0000-0003-0451-8483

3eak300@mail.ru, ORCID 0000-0002-1498-4632

4boyarin9@yandex.ru, ORCID 0000-0002-0306-8276

5stasia.kozlova@gmail.com, ORCID 0009-0002-1770-4787

 

Abstract. This article examines the evolution of strategic development documents for the Russian Arctic, focusing on the alignment between policy objectives, planned activities, and anticipated outcomes. The relevance of this research stems from the necessity to ensure balance, continuity, and comprehensiveness in regulatory impacts within the framework of strategic management for this macroregion. The primary aim is to assess the coherence among values, strategic initiatives, and projected socio-economic effects across two distinct periods of document adoption, thereby analyzing their dynamic progression. The analysis is based on documents adopted during two document adoption waves: the first (2008–2014) and the second (2020–2021). Methodologically, the study employs semantic and content analysis techniques utilizing the  Discant (Vega) system, the SemSin parser, the Stalker utility, and Python. To quantify semantic divergence, measures such as the Bray-Curtis index and cosine similarity were applied. The texts were structured to reveal changes in semantic content related to expected policy effects over time. Additionally, internal consistency within each period was evaluated by examining the coherence among the following three categories: “values,” “initiatives,” and “effects.” The findings indicate that major transformations in these documents are associated with an increased emphasis on general organizational effects, a shift toward project management and investment attraction within the economic sphere, heightened importance of social effects and labor market considerations, and a focus on safety in emergencies. Notably, the analysis reveals that values and effects, as well as values and initiatives, exhibit extremely low levels of coherence. The “measures–effects” pair demonstrates the highest degree of coherence. The results suggest that values—fundamental system-forming categories within strategic documents—tend to be disconnected from the system of meanings constructed in these texts. The novelty of this research lies in its contribution to scientific understanding of strategic goal-setting processes in managing Arctic development through advanced content analysis techniques applied to policy documents. In terms of its practical application, the research improves analytical frameworks for refining approaches to developing strategic planning documents, ultimately supporting greater coherence in public policy for the Russian Arctic.

Keywords: Russian Arctic, strategic planning, policy documents, strategic goals, content analysis, semantics, coherence,  cosine similarity

Acknowledgments: This research was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, project number 24-78-10166  “Digital Transformation Modeling for Spatial Development Management in the Russian Arctic Amid Regional Instability” (https://rscf.ru/project/24-78-10166/).

For citation: Roslyakova N. А., Volkov A. D., Kanevsky E. A., Boyarsky K. K., Kozlova A. D. Russia’s Arctic strategies of 2014  and 2021: Is continuity possible amid shifting priorities? (Part 2). Sever i rynok: formirovanie ekonomicheskogo poryadka  [The North and the Market: Forming the Economic Order], 2025, no. 2, pp. 7–21. doi:10.37614/2220-802X.2.2025.88.001.

References

  1. Lenchuk E. B., Filatov V. I. Sovershenstvovanie metodologicheskikh podkhodov k formirovaniyu sistemy strategicheskogo planirovaniya v Rossii [Improvement of methodological approaches for formation of strategic planning system in Russia]. Vestnik Instituta ekonomiki Rossiiskoi akademii nauk [The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the  Russian Academy of Sciences], 2020, no. 4, pp. 9–26. https://doi:10.24411/2073-6487-2020-10039. (In Russ.).
  2. Lenchuk E. B. Strategicheskoe planirovanie v Rossii: problemy i puti resheniya [Strategic planning in Russia: Challenges and solution]. Innovatsii [Innovations], 2020, no. 2, pp. 24–28. https://doi:10.26310/2071-3010.2020.256.2.003. (In Russ.).
  3. Belyaevskaya-Plotnik L. A., Sorokina N. Yu. Sinkhronizatsiya prioritetov sotsial’no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii i regionov v dokumentakh strategicheskogo planirovaniya [Synchronization of priorities of social and economic development of the Russian Federation and regions in strategic planning documents]. Regionalnaya ekonomika. Yug Rossii [Regional Economy. South of Russia], 2022, Vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 16–26. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/ re.volsu.2022.1.2.
  4. Minakir P. A. Rossiiskoe ekonomicheskoe prostranstvo. Strategicheskie tupiki [Russian economic space: Strategic impasses]. Ekonomika regiona [Economy of Region], 2019, no. 15 (4), pp. 967–980. https://doi.org/10.17059/2019-4-1. (In Russ.).
  5. Kuznetsova O. V. Strategiya prostranstvennogo razvitiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii: illyuziya reshenii i real’nost’ problem [Problems of elaboration of spatial development strategy of the Russian Federation]. Prostranstvennaya ekonomika [Spatial Economics], 2019, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 107–125. https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2019.4.107-125. (In Russ.).
  6. Bratchenko S. A. Nesoglasovannost’ tselei v gosudarstvennom upravlenii [Inconsistency of goals in state governance]. Vestnik Instituta ekonomiki Rossiiskoi akademii nauk [The Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 2023, no. 6, pp. 78–108. https://doi.org/10.52180/2073-6487_2023_6_78_108. (In Russ.).
  7. Klimanov V. V., Budaeva K. V., Chernyshova N. A. Promezhutochnye itogi strategicheskogo planirovaniya v regionakh Rossii [Preliminary results of strategic planning in Russian regions]. Ekonomicheskaya politika [Economic Policy], 2017, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 104–127. https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2017-5-06. (In Russ.).
  8. Blanutsa V. I. Prostranstvennoe razvitie Arkticheskoi zony Rossii: analiz dvukh strategii [Spatial development of the Russian Arctic Zone: Analysis of two strategies]. Arktika: ekologiya i ekonomika [Arctic: Ecology and Economy], 2021, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 111–121. https://doi.org/25283/2223-4594-1-111-121. (In Russ.).
  9. Volkov A. D., Roslyakova N. А., Kanevsky E. A., Boyarsky K. K. Arkticheskie strategii Rossii 2014 i 2021: vozmozhna li preemstvennost’ pri smeshchenii prioritetov? Chast’ 1 [Russia’s Arctic strategies of 2014 and 2021: Is continuity possible amid shifting priorities? (Part 1)]. Sever i rynok: formirovanie ekonomicheskogo poryadka [The North and the Market: Forming the Economic Order], 2025, no. 1, pp. 7–25. https://doi:37614/2220-802X.1.2025.87.001.
  10. Howlett M., Rayner J. Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘New Governance Arrangements’. Policy and Society, 2007, no. 26, pp. 1– https://doi: 10.1016/S1449-4035(07) 70118-2.
  11. Lenschow A., Bocquillom P., Carafa L. Understanding coherence between policy spheres. Environmental Policy and Governance, 2018, no. 28, pp. 323– https://doi:10.1002/eet.1818.
  12. Marx K. Kritika politicheskoi ekonomii. T. 1, kn. 1. Protsess proizvodstva kapitala [Capital. A critique of political economy. Vol. 1, Book 1. The process of capitalist production]. Leningrad, Gospolitizdat, 1952, 794 p. (In Russ.).
  13. Dewi D., Aytekin D., Schneider K. R., Covic N., Fanzo J., Nordhagen S., Resnick D. Defining and measuring policy coherence for food system transformation: A scoping review. Global Food Security, 2024, vol. 43, 100803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2024.100803.
  14. Debbage N., Atasoy M., Mitra C., Byahut S. Urban climate action plans in the United States: A textual content analysis and evaluation. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2024, 106095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.106095.
  15. Kruskal W. H., Wallis W. A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1952, vol. 47, Issue 260, pp. 583–
  16. Wilcoxon F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1945, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 80– https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968.
  17. Esmonde K., Jones J., Johns M., Hutler B., Faden R., Barnhill A. “Lives versus livelihoods”: Conflict and coherence between policy objectives in the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Science & Medicine, 2024, vol. 357, 117188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117188.
  18. Kidd R., Reynolds C. Food policy coherence in local government: Who does what and why? Food Policy, 2024, 129, 102740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102740.
  19. Vidal-Hernández L., Cuevas-Jiménez A., De Yta-Castillo D., Ávila-Foucat V. S., Espejel I. Public policy instruments coherence analysis to address coastal risk in Yucatan, Mexico. Marine Policy, 2024, vol. 167, 106280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106280.
  20. Albrecht E., Belinskij A., Heikkilä E. Policy coherence for ecosystem-based management: Implementing EU water and marine policies in the Archipelago Sea. Marine Policy, 2025, vol. 171, 106427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106427.
  21. Ancapi F. B., Van den Berghe K., Van Bueren E. Circular city policy coherence in Greater London. Cities, 2024, vol. 155, 105423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105423.
  22. Blanutsa V. I. Geograficheskaya ekspertiza strategii regional’nogo tsifrovogo razvitiya: kontury formiruyushchikhsya podkhodov [Geographical expertise of regional digital development strategies: Contours of emerging approaches]. Geografiya i prirodnye resursy [Geography and Natural Resources], 2022, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 5–11. https://doi.org/10.15372/GIPR20220401. (In Russ.).
  23. Surguladze V. Sh. Ideologicheskoe izmerenie Strategii natsional’noi bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii: sravnitel’nyi analiz dokumentov 2015 i 2021 godov [The ideological dimension of the national security strategy of the Russian Federation: A comparative analysis of the documents of 2015 and 2021]. Gumanitarnye nauki. Vestnik Finasovogo universiteta [Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University], 2022, no. 12 (1), pp. 60– https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2022-12-1-60-69. (In Russ.).
  24. Grimmer J., Stewart B. M. Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 2013, no. 21 (3), 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps028.
  25. Baden C., Pipal C., Schoonvelde M., Van der Velden M. A. C. G. Three gaps in computational text analysis methods for social sciences: A research agenda. Communication Methods and Measures, 2021, no. 16 (1), pp. 1– https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2021.2015574.
  26. Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt, 2014, 143 p. Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
  27. Boyarsky K. K., Kanevsky E. A. Nelokal’nye semanticheskie svyazi v russkoyazychnykh tekstakh [Features of non-local semantic links in Russian texts]. Nauchno-tekhnicheskii vestnik informatsionnykh tekhnologii, mekhaniki i optiki [Scientific and Technical Journal of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics], 2018, Vol. 18, no. 5, 863–869. https://doi:10.17586/2226-1494-2018-18-5-863-869. (In Russ.).
  28. Boyarsky K. K., Kanevsky E. A. Semantiko-sintaksicheskii parser SEMSIN [SEMSIN semantic and syntactic parser]. Nauchno-tekhnicheskii vestnik informatsionnykh tekhnologii, mekhaniki i optiki [Scientific and Technical Journal of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics], 2015, Vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 869–876. https://doi:10.17586/2226-1494-2015-15-5-869-876. (In Russ.).