The  establishment  of  the  Russian  Federation  as  a  sovereign,  democratic,  federal  state caused a surge of interest in searching ways of transition from a formal model of federal relations of the Soviet type to a real model of such relations. The journal Federalism was created 25 years ago to provide a platform for everyone willing express their opinion on this  issue.  Discussions  on  its  pages  continue  to  this  day,  despite  the  fact  that  the  model of  national  statehood  implemented  in  the  country  is  far  from  real-federal.  However,  the fact  that  the  discussion  continues  shows  that  the  problem  of  the  development  of  federal relations and regional policy in a country with such a highly complex socio-economic and ethnocultural space is relevant. In this introduction to the readers, the author do not set the task of a detailed presentation of the position on current problems and prospects of Russian federalism. The aim is to show that regional economies require operational management, which cannot always be carried out from the Center. And therefore, the limitation of the powers of the authorities and administrations of the constituent entities of the Federation in this area accompanied by the impossibility of effective control over what is happening from the Center, inevitably makes large business a key figure in this management. This, given the preservation of the “wild” nature of the domestic market, may become an obstacle to strengthening the unity of the country’s economic space.

The state Arctic policy of Russia has no analogues in terms of the variety of tasks and the scale of risks of their implementation – from natural and climatic to foreign policy. Its most important subject was the consistent combination of new state and corporate solutions with the re-development of the «Soviet heritage». Today, this “heritage” accounts for more than 80% of the currently used national wealth of the Arctic. It was created in fundamentally different socio-political and socio-economic conditions, and now to maintain it at least in the same state and restructure it requires financial, material, technical and human resources that are not comparable with those necessary for similar purposes in the territories located to the south. The implementation of a unified state policy in the Arctic zone is complicated by the fact that it consists of a unique conglomeration of territories of four constituent entities of the Russian Federation and 28 municipalities of different types, located on the territory of other regions of the Russian Federation. All of them are relatively independent, have their own regulations, strategies for their development, etc. In 2008–2019, the state Arctic policy of Russia was documented in successive Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation and government decisions on the Arctic development program. However, in 2020 they were radically revised, including in the direction of taking into account the growing foreign policy threats.  The  conclusion  is  justified  that  only  the  strengthening  of  political  and  economic sovereignty  on  the  basis  of  stable  economic  growth  of  the  entire  country  can  ensure  the stability and minimize the risks of the functioning of this most important part of our state.

The  amendments  and  additions  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Russian  Federation  of  1993, approved by popular vote, should be considered as the significant advance in the development of the legal foundations of the Russian state, including a wide range of issues, related to the Russian model of federalism and its implementation in the practice of state and municipal administration. These changes can hardly be regarded as one of the stages of the federal reform, especially since the final goals of this reform were not clearly stated earlier and even now remain very uncertain. Nevertheless, as it’s shown in the article, some of these changes can have a significant impact on the nature and mechanism of functioning of the Russian federal state, in particular, on the activities of state and municipal government bodies. The article suggests that constitutional changes and additions in 2020 can significantly strengthen the  democratic  and  social  nature  of  the  state.  At  the  same  time,  it’s  argued  that  these changes should not be given the status of “finiteness”. It is obvious that the federal reform in the country, no matter how it is regarded, has not exhausted its potential, which in the foreseeable future may give an impetus to the further development of the legal foundations of Russian federalism, including the sphere of its constitutional regulation.

2020 was marked by major landmark events. First of all, there is the political crisis in the United  States  related  to  the  presidential  elections.  Secondly,  there  is  the  UK’s  secession from the EU. Finally, there is the unexpected return to power of left-wing forces in some Latin American countries. This forces us to return to the foundations and conclusions of the theory of public choice – a tool that allowed us to analyze and predict the political and economic behavior of modern electoral democracies.The paper states that the erosion of the middle class leads to the dominance of minorities and their priorities. The position of the median voter is losing its former significance. As a result, the political duopoly becomes unstable, in contrast to the model of political pluralism (oligopoly). The desire of middle-income countries with a high degree of social differentiation to  adopt  a  bipartisan  system  in  the  hope  that  this  will  ensure  political  stability  must  be mistaken. In contrary to what was said, the construct of American federalism, which many scholars  consider  archaic,  effectively  defends  horizontal  democracy  and  discourages  the imposition of values by aggressive minority coalitions. The use of one or another modification of the «electoral colleges» in the presidential and parliamentary elections would strengthen the federal principles of horizontal democracy in Russia. The article presents an analysis of two main approaches to the analysis of corruption – as «opportunistic behavior of an agent in the principal-agent model», and as «status rent». Criticism of the latter approach reveals the view of Russia as an «institutional mutant». Authors who interpret corruption as «status rent» tend to ignore the rent-seeking behavior of actors in rich countries. The article substantiates the idea of transferring to Russia the American legislation regulating the  behavior  of  lobbyists,  the  contribution  of  funds  to  the  electoral  funds  of  parties  and politicians. Such a transplant will dramatically reduce the volume of domestic corruption, while at the same time making the «electoral machines» much more transparent.

In the last decade, the system of inter-budgetary relations has undergone some changes, which  were  mainly  of  a  partial  nature.  The  result  is  an  established  model  with  a significant  and  non-decreasing  number  of  subsidized  regions,  a  high  level  of  income concentration, and subfederal budgets that differ significantly in the degree of income base diversification. At the same time, if half of the regions have an insufficient level of economic development to finance the necessary expenditures (relative to GRP), then for the other half this level is quite sufficient within the GRP potential, but the current tax system and the procedure for distributing tax revenues do not allow this, which requires replacing tax revenues with federal transfers. This model does not generate intention in supporting economic growth and economic activity in the regions and deprives them of incentives for development. The way out of this situation may be to take into account the formed macro-trends (changes in the place of the hydrocarbon economy, the place in the value chains, etc.) in the formation of an explicitly asymmetric model of intergovernmental relations, which may allow us to use the intention in economic development at the level of the subjects of the Russian Federation.

International organizations representing the interests of energy-deficient developed countries are urging to solve the problem of global warming through the Energy Transition, which implies decarbonization of the world economy. The implementation of the Energy Transition requires annual investments of 3% of world GDP in energy efficiency, renewable energy, electric vehicles, etc. In 2020, despite the acceleration of dynamics, the volume of world investments was more than 5 times lower than required. The leaders in investments in clean energy are the technologically developed countries of Europe, the USA, Japan, as well as developing countries – China and Brazil, striving for technological independence. In order to expand its presence in the promising market for low carbon technologies, the EU pays special  attention  to  innovations  in  the  field  of  clean  energy,  financing  them  through  the Innovation Fund. To prevent Russia’s technological backwardness and reduce the carbon footprint of export products, it is advisable to envisage the possibility of state support for innovative projects in the field of clean energy from the Climate Fund.

The principles of drawing up the Federal Budget for 2021–2023, adopted in December 2020, are based on macroeconomic conditions. The probability to fulfill these conditions can’t be rated as high. In addition, these conditions ignore a number of significant threats to  the  economic  security  of  the  Russian  Federation  caused  by;  the  continuation  of  the COVID-pandemic  in  2021  and  the  increased  risk  of  similar  threats;  the  reduction  of the  trade  balance;  the  continuation  of  the  general  reduced  in  the  level  of  the  Russian population’s well-being, and by the lack of resources for investments. It is also impossible not to draw attention to the fact that within the framework of the budget concept, they set up a task to ensure the growth rate of the national economy at the level of a stagnant three  percent.  Moreover,  in  the  context  of  the  ongoing  development  of  the  pandemic, the President of the Russian Federation postpones until 2030 the achievement of many important goals that they forecast to achieve by 2024. Therefore, the trend of a long-term policy of sluggish, and in principle decaying, economic development with the minimization of inflationary processes at the level of four percent is forming. At the same time, budgeted principles generate not only the direction and dynamics of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation, but the same pace and guidelines for the development of the subjects  of  the  Russian  Federation.  But!  Today,  new  trends  in  the  development  of  a rapidly transforming post-pandemic economy require the search for new internal drivers of development, including financial ones, require a transition to a model of breakthrough economic growth at both at the federal and regional levels. The country is entering an economy that has other priorities. So, we need other rules of fiscal policy.

The marginalization of society is one of the most acute problems of modern Russia leading to a slowdown of the development of social and human capital. World practice shows that the  social  atmosphere  serves  as  a  necessary  environment  for  the  self-realization  of  the individual and the disclosure of the natural potential inherent in it. The social background sets certain standards for a person’s self-expression, promotes the conversion of his talents in the economic and cultural spheres and it is an integral part of the process of forming a  civil  society.  If  modern  education,  high-quality  medicine  or  high  culture  stimulate  the development  of  human  capital,  then  crime,  poverty  or  social  diseases,  on  the  contrary, suppress its growth. The article shows the versatility of marginalization, explains its main causes and regional specifics. A system of indicators and a methodology for evaluating this phenomenon are proposed. The author presents an attempt to link a number of statistical indicators of social exclusion with the most striking characteristics of social marginalization. On  this  basis,  a  methodology  for  assessing  the  marginalization  of  regional  societies  is developed, the heterogeneity and regional specifics of this phenomenon are shown and the main factors of geographical, economic, cultural and institutional origin that cause reduced or increased values of marginalization are identified.

American and European federalism served as a real model in the construction of the domestic state system for a long time. It is difficult to deny that these were indeed the best known examples  of  the  organization  of  the  administration  of  geographically  complex  states.  But the  coronavirus  pandemic  has  escalated  old  socio-political  and  economic  contradictions. The regionalization become one of the trends in the development of the state in the era of coronavirus. It means that role of regions and municipalities become disproportionately sharp. As a result decentralization and even separatism have grown. Similar problems can lead to the undermining not only of the economy, but also of territorial and even political integrity in most countries. The situation of tension between the center and the regions concerned not only sufficiently well-established Federal state such as the US, but the so-called “regional states” – Great Britain, Italy, Spain, and even interstate associations represented by the European  Union.  Obviously,  the  well-studied  models  of  federalism  of  Western  countries can no longer be a reference point for Russia and other countries. We need own models of state-territorial structure.

The socio-economic heterogeneity of spatial development is reflected in modern agglomeration processes, reflecting, first of all, the concentration and localization of innovative activity of elements of innovation systems of the national, regional and transregional levels associated with the reproduction process of the innovation economy. In the United States of America, a  country  that  occupies  a  leading  position,  both  in  terms  of  innovative  development  and the  process  of  urbanization,  there  is  undoubtedly  a  close  relationship  and  interaction  of innovatively active elements and economic agents with the structures that form the country’s metropolitan areas. Within the framework of this interaction, carried out under the influence of agglomeration effects in the space of post-industrial agglomerations of the United States, the urban-oriented development of the national innovation system is actively carried out, which  is  empirically  confirmed  in  the  framework  of  the  study.  The  revealed  correlation and indicative relationship between the noted phenomena made it possible to substantiate a number of specific features of the American metropolitan areas as geospatial conglomerates of innovative activity at the transregional level.

In the context of the economic crisis of 2020, triggered by the global pandemic, regional budgets faced a pronounced drop in tax revenues. The regions, whose economy is based on the extractive sector and metallurgy were most seriously affected. The drop in corporate income tax receipts in some regions was critical. At the same time, due to the implemented measures to support employment and income of the population, the personal income tax receipts have even increased. The most important element of supporting regional budget revenues was a significant increase in federal transfers. In fact, all categories of intergovernmental transfers (grants, subsidies, subventions, and other transfers) were used to support regional budgets. At the same time, the most financially prosperous subjects of the Russian Federation solved the problems that arose mainly at the expense of their own reserves. The result was the ability of the regions to increase spending in the most important areas (health, social policy). Nevertheless, it was not possible to avoid a pronounced increase in budget deficits of the subjects the Russian Federation and an increase in the volume of state sub-federal debt.