Обратная миграция в условиях пандемического кризиса: внегородские пространства России как ресурс адаптации
The 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic had a significant impact on migration flows in the Russian territory. The factors attracting the population to megacities have reduced their impact, giving rise to centrifugal forces which in turn has led to an increase in atypical migration processes, primarily to a massive outflow of citizens to out-of-town spaces. This process can be termed “crisis deurbanization”. The article examines the features of the current Russian Pandemic deurbanization, taking place in the specific Russian conditions of incomplete urbanization and, at the same time, the beginning of a post- urbanization stage. In March-April-May 2020 the migration for short, medium and long distances to country homes in Moscow, Vladimir, Kostroma, Vologda and Nizhny Novgorod regions had reached its climax. The so-called “second homes” of the townspeople from now on fully began to combine recreational, “quarantine-sanitary” and work functions, which allows them to be used for long-term residence also after the end of the crisis. This clearly indicates prospects for formation in the future of settlement clusters of immigrants from megacities.
How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the medium-term (2020-2021) and long-term prospects of the Russian economy? Regular surveys of professional macro-forecasters and consensus forecasts calculated on their basis allow us to talk about averaged sentiments and expectations of the expert community (in the same sense as it is used to talk about entrepreneurial or consumer sentiments and expectations). Based on surveys conducted by the HSE 'Development Center' Institute in early February and early May 2020, this Chapter analyzes how the pandemic has affected experts' outlooks of the Russian economy.
In the second half of the 2010s, the economic situation in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) deteriorated as a result of lower oil and other commodity prices, a new round of domestic political instability, continuous intra-regional conflicts, stalled economic and governance reforms and, finally, the COVID-19 pandemic. The deteriorating macroeconomic trends manifested themselves in slower growth rates (which in 2020 turned negative almost everywhere), worsening fiscal and external balances, increasing public debt and, in several cases, higher inflation. There has been no visible progress in resolving long-term structural and institutional challenges such as high unemployment, especially among youths, low female labour market participation, poor quality of education, costly and ineffective public sector activity, high military and security spending, high energy subsidies and others.
As a response to the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, many countries have imposed restrictions on fundamental constitutional rights and freedoms, including freedoms of speech and assembly. The rapid spread of the understudied virus and the rise of the emotional tension within the society compelled the state authorities to adopt prompt measures to contain the virus. Unfortunately, the situation did not allow the decision-makers either to assess the specific aims of the restrictions or to consciously select the most adequate and least restrictive measures to fight the new virus. As a result, the legal systems have been infiltrated not only by the necessary limitations, but also by excessive and ineffective restrictive measures that are not suited to contain the infection and are incompatible with the principles of a pluralistic democracy. The article scrutinizes the latter statement focusing on anti-COVID-19 measures that impose restrictions on freedoms of peaceful assembly and speech. We resort to the criteria of the lawfulness of restrictions that stem from the principle of proportionality (legitimate aim, rational connection, necessity and proportionality stricto sensu). In the chapter devoted to the freedom of assembly, the author looks at different approaches that the states take to addressing the risks that public manifestations pose to public health in times of the pandemic. The comparative study also uncovers the differences in the relative value of freedom of assembly as opposed to that of «epidemiological safety». In the chapter devoted to the new limitations of freedom of speech, the author focuses on provisions that prevent the distribution of misinformation regarding COVID-19 and measures taken against it, adopted by several states, including Russia. The proportionality analysis shows that measures to counter fake news present an example of abuse of extraordinary powers to suppress public debate and limit the citizens’ right to criticize the government. The author comes to a conclusion that a blanket ban on small-scale manifestations and the liability for distribution of false information regarding COVID-19 and measures taken to fight it are disproportionate measures that are by no means justified by the aim of protecting public health in times of the pandemic.
The article focuses on two important areas of integration of the Greater Eurasia project: the sphere of defense and security, as well as the economic and geographical dimension in the context of the export of a pandemic. The first part of the article examines in detail the defense and security dimension of Greater Eurasia, using the example of military cooperation between China and Russia as the main driver of Greater Eurasia.
Article examines the migration of urban working age middle-class citizens to rural areas. Research focuses on de-urbanization processes, mobility (both physical, from the city to rural areas, and socio-cultural), the construction of rural localities by the ex-citizens, and their interaction with local and city communities, as well as the new social realities emergence. The research is concentrated on the nonurban spaces of the Near North, where in-depth interviews were carried out during a cross-disciplinary expedition. Article is focused on moving from urban to non-urban spaces, professional activities of the settlers, and their interaction with social environment We examine the ‘production of locality’ concept, specifics of new hybrid identities, and lifestyles of those moved to rural areas. There are several trends in the process of constructing new localities. On the one hand, the locality produced by city migrants fills rural space with ‘humanistic’ meanings, opens the door to its rational use, making it attractive while forming the resource streams, strongly connected to the city. However, at the same time there is a tendency of producing of quasi-traditional ‘rurality’ and ‘theme parks’ construction, simulacrum-
Following the four thematic sections – shared security; shared prosperity; migration; civil society, culture and media – the Report focuses on a selection of crucial topics, highlighting both the challenges and the dynamics taking shape in a region that has been hard hit by the coronavirus. Here, as elsewhere in the world, the pandemic has triggered a deep economic crisis that has affected all regional economies. However, here more than elsewhere, the coronavirus has impacted on a context already marred by socio-economic vulnerabilities, inequalities and instability. Furthermore, while confrontation continues to characterise a region where conflicts remain unsolved, geopolitical shifts are bringing about a reconfiguration of the regional order with long-term implications. Against this backdrop, one of the main questions to address is how to turn the pandemic into an opportunity tofind long-term solutions that can foster stability and prosperity in the Mediterranean.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.