S. Kuznetsov, S. Lachininsky ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY This article presents a modern inter- MODERN pretation of the concept of ‘geoeconomic UNDERSTANDING position’ as applied to one of the most im- OF ‘GEOECONOMIC portant centres of the Baltic region — the St. Petersburg agglomeration. The coastal POSITION’ location of the agglomeration and close AND THE SAINT connections with the Leningrad region make it possible to consider the Saint Pe- PETERSBURG tersburg coastal region (Baltic Area) as a 1 AGGLOMERATION whole. The article sets out not only to ver- ify, confirm, and explain the features of the geoeconomic position of the coastal region, but also to describe the contiguous geoeco- * S. Kuznetsov nomic space. The position of the St. Pe- ** tersburg coastal region is of crucial im- S.Lachininskii portance for ensuring a steady growth of regional economy, the propagation of in- dustrialization impulses, and moderniza- tion in the heart of Russian North-western macroregion. At the same time, the specific features of the region’s geoeconomic posi- tion magnify the ‘inherited’ ad acquired ef- fects of focal industrialization and space polarization, which creates additional pre- requisites for the inversion of the Russian economic space — ‘Russia of the physical space’ and ‘the economic space of Russia’. The study uses traditional methodology of economic geography (the territorial, clus- ter, and spatial approaches) and the geoe- conomic approach developed by the au- thors. The article also addresses recent findings in regional economy and spatial studies. It is aimed at the development of the geoeconomic paradigm in the frame- work of social geography and that of spa- * Institute of Regional Economy, Russian Academy of Sciences tial science. An analysis of the geoeco- 38 Serpukhovskaya Str., nomic position and the developing spatial Saint Petersburg 190013, Russia relations can be of interest for researchers of geographic clusters, agglomerations, ** Saint Petersburg State University and such cross-border forms of coopera- 7—9 Universitetskaya nab., Saint Petersburg 199034, Russia tion, as growth triangles, for example. Submitted on December 17, 2013 doi: Key words: spatial development, geoeco- nomic situation, polarization of economic 10.5922/2079-8555-2014-1-7 space, St. Petersburg coastal region, coastal © Kuznetsov S., Lachininskii S., 2014 location, inversion Baltic region. 2014. № 1 (19). P. 79—92. 79 Economic geography In the late 20th — the beginning of the 21st centuries, the economic and geographical space of modern Russia underwent radical internal and ex- ternal transformations and inversions, which is characteristic of many other macroregions and states, namely, Canada, China, the USA, Brazil, Australia, the EU, and India, to say nothing of smaller regions. We assume that space necessary for effective economic activity is de- termined by the nature and territorial division of labour. Today, space is not only a passive form of production development, it also affects the de- velopment of economy and the types of economic activity of people re- siding on certain territories. The regional shift towards world economic relations is an additional factor behind a decrease in interregional trade, which transforms the nature of territorial division of labour. As a result, space is being “compressed” within a country. The smaller the space re- quired for economic activity is, the slower is the country’s economic de- velopment. On the other hand, economic relations pull territories that “sail under foreign flags” into the economic space of the country. There- fore, there is a need to study the geographical tradition of a ‘game of scale’, where the scale is determined by the research objective, namely, consecutive synthesis, generalisation, and unification of territories, ana- lytical division and disaggregation [1]. The internal transformations relate, first of all, to the active integra- tion of individual regions into the world’s globalised space. To a degree, it can be explained by the geoeconomic factor, which became the driving force behind the new architecture of the world’s globalised space. However, Russia is not like other, even largest, states: a vast territory, different models and traditions of economic management, differences in economic and geographical and geoecomomic position and availability of mineral resources — all these and other reasons shaped the Russian space dichotomy between “open Russia” and “internal Russia” or, figuratively, “Russia of territories” and “Russia of geo-economic spaces”. It is not a coincidence that even the ideologist of “shock therapy” in countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Jeffrey Sachs, argues: “The effectiveness of a policy variable may depend on the physical geography of the country. For example, trade liberalization is likely to have greater growth-pro- moting effects on coastal rather than landlocked economics. Geography may also play a key role in affecting policy choices of different econo- mies” [2, р. 659]. Of course, this thesis transforms when it is applied to Russia. In the case of coastal and border regions of European Russia, geography plays a key role in choosing development models for different economic space systems. In the Soviet Union, the notion of geographic position was in the fo- cus of geographers’ special attention. According to Yu. G. Saushkin, “…the theory of economic and geographical position assumed a new sig- nificance as a theory of interactions within a spatial (geographic) system [3, p. 230]. I. M. Mayergoyz, V. V. Pokshishevsky, V. S. Varlamov, O. A. Konstantinov, G. M. Lappo, M. D. Sharygin, E. E. Leizerovich, 80 S. Kuznetsov, S. Lachininskii V. A. Kolosov, G. M. Fedorov, etc. are among prominent economic geog- raphers who focused on the category of geographic position. P. M. Polyan and A. I. Treyvish emphasised [4] that the essence of geo- graphical position is external spatial relations crucial for the object. They also permeate the territorial structure as one of the models of geospace. Geographical position is a bridge from smaller to larger objects. In this context, special attention should be paid to I. M. Mayergoyz’s observation on scale differences of geographical objects: “when studying a big city, one should study it in the context of the whole country and even the whole world” [4]. Nevertheless, the scope of international economic ties of Soviet regions, the involvement of the Soviet economy into international division of labour are not comparable to what we observe today. Thus, Soviet re- searchers focused, first of all, on studying the geographical position of ob- jects within the country. It was next to impossible to put this observation into practice. As to economics, there was virtually a ‘wall’ between spe- cialists in regional and world economy. As to geography, there was little integral research on the interface of Soviet and international economic geography. For example, V. V. Pokshis- hevky’s work “Some questions of the economic and geographical position of Leningrad” presents an analysis of the evolution of the geographical po- sition of the city at the national scale — not a single Soviet infrastructure project was left unmentioned. However, the Saimaa Canal was not consid- ered in the study [5]. An interesting practicable idea was put forward by G. M. Lappo: ...when analysing the EGP of a certain geographical object, of great sig- nificance is the aspect of “geographical geometry”, i. e. the position relative to the nodes/foci of the social and economic space, economic lines of different types, and areas identified by different criteria and existing within certain bor- ders [6, p. 77]. This idea offers a new perspective in comparison to the classical location theory formulated by von Thünen and Weber and the ideas of Christaller and Lösch. Firstly, the role of borders change. From the economic, as well as po- litical perspective, borders partially or completely lose their barrier func- tions. Secondly the “nodes/foci” of the national economy develop and trans- form under the influence of the global economy, neighbouring countries, in- ternational infrastructure and transport corridors. Today, the economic and geographical position reflects the relation of any geographical, economic, or any other object to any other objects located beyond it. For instance, in the case of the North-western federal district, external and internal factors de- termining the EGP are of almost equal significance. S. S. Artobolevsky argues that, in Russia, “one can identify three types of growth territories that developed under the influence of globalisation, agglomeration and resource factors: large urban agglomerations; transport and resource regions; border seaport regions situated on major interna- tional trade routes” [7, p. 82]. In this respect, the Saint Petersburg coastal region, which includes Saint Petersburg and the Leningrad region, holds a 81 Economic geography unique position in Russia’s spatial system. It combines all the three types of growth territories1. One of the key characteristics of the EGP is its variability in time and space. The EGP of an object cannot be the same at different stages of devel- opment of both the object and its environment. Apparently, the EGP of Saint Petersburg and the Leningrad region un- derwent dramatic and wave-like transformations in 1913—1991 and is still changing. By 1913, the port of Saint Petersburg and the related infrastructure had fallen into decline. At the same time, the ports of Riga and Reval were rapidly developing. The reconstruction of the Leningrad port started around 1924. In the 1930s, the project of the port of Ust-Luga was developed, how- ever, it will be implemented only 80 years later. After the borders of the USSR had changed, all the RSFSR projects were discontinued and replaced by huge investment in the infrastructure of Soviet Estonia and Latvia. In 1992, it turned out that the transit and transport infrastructure of the port of Saint Petersburg was underfinanced and the city’s EGP required a further reconstruction. In 1997, the design and construction of infrastructure that would meet the needs of Russian trade commenced.