The structural-dynamic theory is a modern, rapidly evolving approach to the analysis of social and politico-economic processes. It is based on the idea of the interaction between three macro-social actors: the population, the elites, and the state. In an ideal state, economic growth is accompanied by the maintenance of certain proportions between the incomes of all these actors; however, in reality, such a state is rarely observed. Generally, an increase in income is accompanied by a rise in social differentiation and the “expansion” (overproduction) of the elite. Nevertheless, the number of elite socio-political positions in any society during any historical period is limited. As a result, some individuals who cannot occupy these positions, under certain conditions, transform into a counter-elite and attempt to radically change the political regime. In agrarian societies, the privileged layer of the nobility played the role of the elite and counter-elite, while in industrial societies, determining both the number of elite social positions and the number of contenders for them becomes much more complex. The study employs criteria proposed by P. Turchin and T. Piketty, examining the incomes of the upper decile – the top 1% and the top 9% (it is assumed that individuals from the top 9% are contenders who can become part of the counter-elite). The social distance metric is calculated – the number of annual incomes required to enter the top 1%. The functioning of the education system is analyzed, revealing that in the 21st century, it stops acting as a “social filter.” It is demonstrated that the greatest social distance occurs in Russia, while income differentiation in the USA is comparable to similar indicators in China. The conclusion is drawn that the indicators of social differentiation are insufficient grounds for predictions about the likelihood of revolutions, prompting the consideration of other factors identified by J. Goldstone. Social and economic indicators of Russia, China, India, USA, UK, Germany, and France are compared.

Christian modernism, as an unofficial ideological movement, is developed in response to the challenges of capitalism, which constrict significantly the social basis of institutional Christianity. With the transition of capitalism to the stage of globalization, the situation is complicated by formation within society of the irreligious worldview standard as a social dominant. At the same time, organized Christian institutions react to modernism situationally, without taking into account its systemic nature and its connection with the dynamics of capitalist socio-economic relations. The main message of the article is that Christian modernism is not an historical accident, but an objective phenomenon; its social prerequisites were formed by development of capitalism and its transition to the phase of globalization.

Fiscal rules have been used in global practice for over 30 years. Research proves their positive impact on the sustainability of budget policy. In Russia, the budget rule has gone through several stages of transformation. However, the problem of procyclicality of the fiscal policy remains. The assessments (including calculations of cyclical components of expenditures and oil and gas revenues for 2011–2024) show that the current design is not flexible enough to neutralize external shocks, since the crises of 2007–2009 and 2020 require a revision of the widespread model of fiscal rules. It is proposed to transform the fiscal rule considering the dynamics of the exchange rate, restrictions on expenditures, and the legislative consolidation of «escape clauses».

The article presents a marketing analysis of Moscow residents’ preferences in choosing alternative modes of transportation against the backdrop of increasing car ownership and growing traffic congestion. The study is based on survey data from 2021–2024 and official statistics from the Moscow Department of Transport, allowing for an assessment of the current distribution of passenger traffic between private and public transport. The survey revealed that most Muscovites do not plan to purchase a car, while some car owners are willing to limit or completely abandon private vehicle use. Key factors influencing the choice of alternative transportation include safety, cost, comfort, and travel speed, with the metro and the Moscow Central Circle (MCC) remaining the most popular options due to their reliability and speed, while taxis and the Moscow Central Diameters (MCD) are gaining popularity due to increased comfort. Two demographic groups are of particular interest for marketing efforts: young people aged 18–30, who are initially more inclined to use public transport, and middle-aged individuals (30–50), who use cars irregularly but are open to switching to alternatives. The findings demonstrate the potential for implementing urban transport strategies aimed at reducing road network congestion and highlight the importance of considering behavioral and demographic factors when developing marketing programs and infrastructure solutions.

The approval at the end of 2024 of the new Spatial Development Strategy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030 and with a forecast up to 2036, which rejected the grid of macroregions presented in the previous similar document in favor of federal districts, once again actualizes the problems of economic (socio-economic) zoning of Russia. The article substantiates the understanding of zoning as a significant Russian intellectual tradition and, for the first time in Russian literature, shows the causes and manifestations of the zoning crisis (including methodological ones) back in the late Soviet, and by no means the post-Soviet period, when this crisis only worsened. Arguments are given in favor of the need to revive national zoning in modern conditions, but with its modernization reflecting the current postindustrial nature of the economy and settlement. It is proposed to abandon the universal grid of economic regions, to switch to the multiplicity and diversity of such grids, formed to solve specific management and research tasks. It is recognized that it is possible to preserve the grid of federal districts as a base at the national level and, at the same time, identify large overlapping socio-economic and cultural macroregions (such as the Great South of Russia, the Great Urals, Siberia in its broad sense). It is argued that one of the key tasks of zoning at the present stage is its alignment with the Overall list of main settlements, the development of zoning schemes at different hierarchical levels, based primarily on the assessment of the role of main settlements in providing social services of varying complexity to the population while solving the problem of forming standards for the provision of social services.

Over the years, the authors of the article have been analyzing the features of the socio-economic development of the subjects of the Russian Federation The analysis is based on an attempt to identify the relationship between: the quality of the social environment of the subjects of the Russian Federation; economic and investment activities carried out on their territory, as well as sources of financing for the development of the social component of the economic space of the regions. The articleexamines the time period 2019-2024, covering the two most difficult crisis periods for the domestic economy. The 2020 crisis related to COVID-19 and the crisis caused by the imposition of sanctions. The time period is interesting not only because it falls out from the general logic of economic development (the impact of COVID-19 and such largescale sanctions on it is undoubtedly unique in world economic history), but also because the causes of the two crises, which are different in nature, are unprecedented. This uniqueness generates far from unambiguous and difficult to calculate consequences. Moreover, it is especially difficult to determine them at the regional level, due to the high values of differentiation of socio-economic development of the subjects of the Russian Federation.

In the context of the intensification of global crises, which directly affect economic and social processes, the problems of employment of the population come to the fore. This is confirmed by active discussions about the transformation of the labor sphere, which generate many contradictory forecasts about the future format of labor relations. Under the influence of factors such as digitalization, pandemics, external constraints and geopolitical events, there is a restructuring of supply and demand in the labor market. As a result, the traditional employment model typical of the industrial era is gradually losing its dominant role, giving way to flexible and atypical forms of labor organization. The purpose of the article is to determine the dynamics and extent of the spread of remote work at the regional level. The main limitation of the study is related to the use of data from the official population census and sample studies from the Federal State Statistics Service, which, by narrowing the range of aspects of non-standard forms of employment under consideration, allows us to get closer to understanding the scale and territorial differences in the dynamics of the phenomenon.

The regional cross-section of research into the innovative space of Russia is important for developing organizational and investment decisions for the state and business. Innovative development of regions in 2017–2023 was built in accordance with the specific characteristics of the macroeconomy of the Russian Federation, as well as the formed system of priorities of the national economy, reflected in regulatory documents, state regulations on scientific and technological issues. The analysis of the indicators of the functioning of technological and innovative systems made it possible to determine the levels of innovative development of the economies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and compile a typology based on the innovative development index. The group of leading regions included constituent entities of the Russian Federation with powerful scientific and production potential; the group of outsider regions is represented by regions that are the least developed in technological and innovative aspects.

Among the tasks that the Russian Federation needs to solve at the present stage is the formation of a system of mechanisms for the entry of new regions into its composition. One of them is the Donetsk People’s Republic. In turn, the development of such mechanisms is impossible without a thorough analysis of the socio-economic situation in the region. Otherwise, there are high risks that the limitations of the process of integrating its economy, social sphere and society into the all-Russian economic and legal space will be ignored. The article attempts to carry out such an analysis. Based on it, the author formulates some proposals for the development of the economy of the Donetsk People’s Republic.

The imperative of achieving technological sovereignty places the task of science and technology development at the forefront for Russia’s regions, with infrastructure being a key enabling factor. In recent years, various infrastructure facilities have been established across the Russian Federation’s regions, including innovative science and technology centers, world-class research and education hubs, and advanced engineering schools. However, data on these assets remain insufficiently systematized, and the boundaries of the concept “science and technology infrastructure” are not clearly defined. This article analyzes definitions of infrastructure in federal laws and strategic and programmatic documents on science and technology policy from 1991 to 2025. Four main stages in the formation of such infrastructure in Russia are identified. It is shown that the term “innovation infrastructure” predominates in both legal texts and academic publications, yet it does not fully capture the specificity of science and technology activities. To address this gap, we propose refining the concept of infrastructure in national science and technology policy by distinguishing two subsystems—scientific‐research and science‐infrastructure.