№ 1, 2015
On the example of the Russian-Chinese border areas L.Blyakher and K.Grigorichev analyze transformations within the structure of the “image of the border” and the “image of the other” when translating these images into spaces that are far enough from the zone of contact between the two countries. The article shows how the Russian-Chinese border areas gradually grow into each other converging at the level of behavioral matrices and social networks, bringing to life such phenomena as “Russian China” and “Chinese Russia”. At the same time for the inhabitants of the Russian regions situated far from the border areas it is these border areas that serve as an “authentic” China, and depending on the special characteristics of the region that “reflects” this “China” its image acquires novel, sometimes unexpected features.
№ 1, 2013
In the article the author attempts to determine contours of a new system of relations between two levels of power institutions in the rural district, as well as between these institutions and local community under the conditions of non-institutionalized space of Irkutsk suburbs. The author focuses on the changes in the position of administrations of rural districts (first level) and municipal district (second level) as well as in the character of their interaction with the growing suburb community that reflect the specificity of the social space emerging at the intersection of urban and rural worlds. The research paper empirical base consists of the complex of semi-structured interviews gathered in the suburbs of Irkutsk agglomeration in 2009–2012.
№ 4, 2011
On the basis of the analysis of the situation in the Post-Soviet Siberia and Far East the authors show that inconsistencies in the migrant policies conducted at different levels are in no small measure caused by the fact that these levels target at distinct public fears and social interests. They conclude that de facto the migrant policy conducted at regions is not anywhere near the federal one or the more or less consolidated regional system of migration regulating measures. Almost each actor implements his own “migration policy” that is constructed according to his own private interests. As a result, there is a “sum” of weakly interconnected “migration policies” that only nominally fit the Procrustean bed of the federal legislation. Such situation allows for the creation of an illusion of being within the legal space while in fact pushing the corresponding activity into the sphere of informal practices.
Main Page ~ Authors ~ Grigorichev Konstantin