Beyond Neoliberalisation: Russian State, Developmental Regimes, and Cities

Two main narratives have shaped interpretations of change in the post-Soviet space. The first, a narrative of rupture, emphasizes the collapse of the Soviet system and a radical transition to a neoliberal market economy. The second, a narrative of continuity, contends that, despite economic and political transformations, key features such as political authoritarianism, weak institutions, and popular disengagement have persisted throughout Russia’s history. These seemingly opposing narratives complicate analytical approaches to Russia’s case. How should the atypical case of Russia be approached theoretically and analytically? What does the evidence suggest?

Rather than presupposing the neoliberal hegemony or falling into the trap of historical determinism, there is a need for a more nuanced approach. There is a need for keener analytical attention to diverse (and divergent) transition paths and related urban outcomes. This presentation aims to critically evaluate claims within the neoliberalisation literature, specifically concerning post-socialist countries and their cities. Contrary to the narratives of market expansionism, the case of Russia indicates the persistent centrality of the state. Since 1991, Russia has undergone distinct phases of political and economic development, of which only the initial phase could be described as neoliberal market reforms. After a temporal withdrawal of the state during the early 1990s, the state has reemerged as the key player during the phase of authoritarian state capitalism. The current phase is characterised by autocratic rule and a state-dominated economy. To illustrate the spatially variegated expression of these phases, the article identifies three types of urbanism, termed: i) market-led, ii) state-led, and iii) militarised. Each type of urbanism can be attributed to tangible developmental regimes, state/market configurations, and institutional arrangements.