?
Динамика государственной политики обновления городской среды в России (2000–2020-е гг.): факторы институциональной изменчивости и стабильности
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.