The reliability and validity of decisions made at the national level within the framework of indicative planning are largely determined by the accuracy of the macroeconomic forecast. The main idea of the article is to develop an approach to forecast calculations, which, for the case of inter-industry and simplified macroeconomic models, makes it possible to assess the probability of achieving target indicators (reliability of the solution), and also to turn these indicators into an object of optimization. The instrument for mitigating threats in the models under consideration is the investment resource. For example, when applied to the inter-industry balance model, the inter-industry distribution of investments in the optimal plan is constructed in such a way that in the maximum possible number of realizations of the random matrix of direct material costs, the production volumes corresponding to the program tasks (the vector of final products) are provided with capacities. 

In the modern world, mixed forms of economic development planning – where economic coordination mechanisms incorporate elements of both market self-regulation and state regulation – are increasingly common. Indicative planning, which relies heavily on state programs for socio-economic development, is one such transitional form. In the Russian Federation, the entire system of state programs is geared toward achieving national goals, and a unified plan for their attainment has been approved. To establish a management and monitoring system for this unified plan, integrate it into the public administration framework, and facilitate decision-making based on monitoring results, the Government of the Russian Federation issued Decree No. 761 on June 19, 2026. This decree approved the Regulation on the management system for the unified plan to achieve the Russian Federation’s national development goals, as well as the plan’s functional management structure. The document introduces several fundamental innovations to the domestic socio-economic development planning system – discussed in this article – including: defining the unified plan’s management structure with clearly delineated functions, powers, and responsibilities for all participants; managing the plan (formation, maintenance, updating, and monitoring) in a digital format, including through the use of artificial intelligence; establishing procedures for managing operational and strategic risks, as well as incidents and issues regarding target achievement identified during implementation; assessing the plan’s implementation effectiveness; and fostering extensive inter-agency and cross-sectoral collaboration among participants, including state corporations, development institutions, and expert or other organizations. The article concludes that this mechanism for implementing the unified plan can be viewed as an element of indicative planning for the Russian economy at both federal and regional levels. 

Asstrategic planning began to take shape in the economy of the Russian Federation, it became clear that there was a need to develop a long‑term vision for the development of Russian local self‑government and to fully extend this management practice to the municipal sector of the national economy. The article shows that attempts to address this task have been made repeatedly, including the initiative put forward by the country’s President in early 2020 to prepare new Foundations of State Policy in the Field of Local Self‑Government. It can be assumed that these Foundations, and subsequently a whole series of constitutional innovations introduced in 2020, set the task of largely redefining the strategic direction for the development of self‑government as one of the most important institutions of Russian society and the state. However, contrary to the traditions of modern Russian statehood, the President’s instruction regarding the new Foundations remained unfulfilled, and many subsequent constitutional and legislative innovations in this area have been and remain problematic. The article attempts to summarize the factors that currently clearly indicate the need to develop new Foundations or a strategy for state policy in the field of local self‑government in line with national development goals and all existing strategic planning documents. Ways to overcome the unresolved issues in the interaction between local self‑government and the state are being outlined; their persistence prevents the full realization of the positive contribution of the municipal community to the development of the economy and the social sphere of the Russian Federation. This also concerns the impact of local self‑government institutions on the main trends in the spatial development of Russia and its economy. 

The article examines changes in the legal status of the head of a municipality resulting from the adoption of Federal Law No. 33-FZ of March 20, 2025, On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government within the Unified System of Public Authority, and their implementation in the legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Particular attention is paid to the new legal construct under which the head of a municipality simultaneously holds a municipal office and a public office of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. The article considers how this construct relates to the representative nature of the head of a municipality as an elected local government official and compares it with foreign models of the functional dualism of a mayor’s status. Based on an analysis of 141 laws of all 89 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the article systematizes regional models for selecting heads of municipalities and determines their position within the structure of local government bodies. The analysis reveals a trend towards the wider use of election by representative bodies from among candidates nominated by the highest officials of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as towards the model in which the head of a municipality also heads the local administration. Particular attention is also paid to regional regulation of employment-related and social guarantees for heads of municipalities. The study demonstrates considerable variation in the scope and content of such guarantees and the absence of a uniform minimum standard. It argues for establishing a minimum set of guarantees for holders of municipal office directly in federal legislation. 

Starting in 2027, Russia will launch a reform of the regulation of foreign labor migration, which envisages a transition to a model of attracting foreign workers at the invitation of an employer and the closure of the channel for independent labor migration based on a patent. The authors examine the main provisions of the draft legislation on organized recruitment, the current regimes governing foreign nationals’ access to the Russian labor market, and examples of international experience with employer-sponsored labor migration, including its advantages and disadvantages. The paper identifies logical gaps in the proposed legislation and possible negative consequences of an accelerated transition away from the model currently in place. It concludes that, under current conditions, an abrupt change in the mechanism for attracting foreign labor could create problems in the labor market, particularly in regions and sectors that depend on foreign workers. 

The federal government has proposed a co-financing mechanism intended both to help address local problems and to strengthen the financial sustainability of municipal budgets. However, whether local authorities and communities are ready to use it remains a matter of debate. The article examines the development of co-financing for participatory budgeting projects in Russia’s regions and the legitimacy of this institution as a condition of municipal financial security. The aim of the study is to substantiate the need for legal and public prerequisites for the sustainable functioning of the co-financing institution. It shows that initial legal conditions have emerged in Russian regions for the legitimacy of local community initiatives and for establishing co-financing within the system of interbudgetary relations. Interest among regional and especially municipal authorities in financing this institution has grown, while residents’ investment activity has declined somewhat. The article argues for incentives, including an additional personal income tax investment deduction for certain categories of co-financing participants. 

Contemporary developments in regional parliamentarism in the Russian Federation are characterized by the increasing institutional complexity of legislative bodies at the regional level, accompanied by the growing federal standardization of the legal framework governing their activities. This relationship raises the issue of determining the actual scope of regional legislative autonomy and the interaction between federal and regional levels of legal regulation. The article presents a comparative legal analysis of the regulatory framework governing the activities of the Legislative Assembly of Novosibirsk Region from 1994 to 2024. By comparing different editions of the Charter and Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Assembly, the author demonstrates that the expansion of formal powers and increasing procedural complexity have been accompanied by the growing dependence of the regional legislative body on the federal center. The article introduces the concept of “incorporative regional parliamentarism” as a model in which institutional complexity develops not through an expansion of the region’s autonomous law-making capacity, but through its integration into federally established standards for the organization of public authority. Novosibirsk Region is examined as a representative case whose institutional dynamics may be reproduced in other regions without special constitutional or political status. The article formulates de lege ferenda proposals aimed at establishing a substantive definition of parliamentarism at the federal level, restoring a direct representative link between deputies and voters, reducing barriers to institutions of direct democracy, and expanding the autonomous law-making competence of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.