IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecgeog/v91y2015i1p59-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Positionality Switch: Remapping Resource Communities in Russian Borderlands

Author

Listed:
  • Jarmo Kortelainen
  • Pertti Rannikko

Abstract

This article elaborates on the contested periphery approach and related local models. Some economic geographers argue that the peculiarities of resource peripheries cannot be understood with the help of economic theories designed in economic cores. The contested periphery approach was developed specifically for resource economies and stresses the importance of geographically variable interactions of stakeholder groups that channel broad institutional values (industrialism, regulationism, environmentalism, and aboriginalism) into peripheries. Along with local features, they create local models, and changes in relations occasionally remap the conditions for resource utilization. The contested periphery approach is based on comparisons between large territorial regions, but we argue that this does not provide sufficient tools to recognize the relationally formed heterogeneity of peripheries. Instead, this article focuses on the changing positionalities of local communities. We introduce the concept of positionality switch to highlight the ways abrupt shifts in the direction of relations alter local positionalities. Empirically, we explore two Russian forestry communities in the Finnish-Russian borderland. Cross-border trade connections and the shifting semipermeability of the boundary have greatly influenced the local model and remapped borderland communities. Reestablished timber export in the 1990s began to create a local model shaped by imported forestry technologies and work organization systems. In the 2000s, higher customs duties for wood and deteriorating transportation links cut off both the cross-border and domestic connections leaving the settlements in limbo. The article concludes by arguing that the contested periphery approach and local models should be localized and supplemented with the concepts of positionality and positionality switch as well as contextually relevant concepts because they help to better understand the particularities and specific relations of each local model.

Suggested Citation

  • Jarmo Kortelainen & Pertti Rannikko, 2015. "Positionality Switch: Remapping Resource Communities in Russian Borderlands," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 91(1), pages 59-82, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecgeog:v:91:y:2015:i:1:p:59-82
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ecge.12064
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Young & Gary Wilson, 2007. "The view from below: Local government and Putin's reforms," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(7), pages 1071-1088.
    2. Roger Hayter & Trevor J. Barnes, 2012. "Neoliberalization and Its Geographic Limits: Comparative Reflections from Forest Peripheries in the Global North," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 88(2), pages 197-221, April.
    3. Eric Sheppard, 2002. "The Spaces and Times of Globalization: Place, Scale, Networks, and Positionality," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 78(3), pages 307-330, July.
    4. Padma Desai, 2005. "Russian Retrospectives on Reforms from Yeltsin to Putin," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(1), pages 87-106, Winter.
    5. Trevor J. Barnes & Roger Hayter, 2005. "No “Greek‐Letter Writing”: Local Models of Resource Economies," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 453-470, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luis Camarero & Renato Miguel Carmo & Sofía Santos, 2020. "Condiciones ambientales y diferenciación social en los patrones de movilidad: el caso de las desigualdades de género en el Área Metropolitana de Lisboa," Revista de Estudios Regionales, Universidades Públicas de Andalucía, vol. 0(y), pages 145-172.
    2. Jim Glassman, 2018. "Geopolitical economies of development and democratization in East Asia: Themes, concepts, and geographies," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(2), pages 407-415, March.
    3. Annelies (E.B.) Zoomers, 2018. "Development at the Crossroads of Capital Flows and Migration: Leaving No One Behind?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-10, December.
    4. El-Shagi, Makram & Fidrmuc, Jarko & Yamarik, Steven, 2020. "Inequality and credit growth in Russian regions," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 550-558.
    5. Cassandra C Wang & George C S Lin & Guicai Li, 2010. "Industrial Clustering and Technological Innovation in China: New Evidence from the ICT Industry in Shenzhen," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(8), pages 1987-2010, August.
    6. Daniel Olivier & Brian Slack, 2006. "Rethinking the Port," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(8), pages 1409-1427, August.
    7. Mark Graham, 2015. "Contradictory Connectivity: Spatial Imaginaries and Technomediated Positionalities in Kenya's Outsourcing Sector," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(4), pages 867-883, April.
    8. Jinping Lin & Kangmin Wu, 2023. "Intercity asymmetrical linkages influenced by Spring Festival migration and its multivariate distance determinants: a case study of the Yangtze River Delta Region in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Eric Sheppard & Helga Leitner, 2018. "A tale of two GPEs: Decentering macro-geopolitics," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(2), pages 479-483, March.
    10. Peter Taylor & Ben Derudder & Michael Hoyler & Pengfei Ni & Frank Witlox, 2014. "City-Dyad Analyses of China’s Integration into the World City Network," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(5), pages 868-882, April.
    11. Sally Weller, 2017. "Fast Parallels? Contesting Mobile Policy Technologies," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(5), pages 821-837, September.
    12. Michiel Van Meeteren & David Bassens, 2016. "World Cities and the Uneven Geographies of Financialization: Unveiling Stratification and Hierarchy in the World City Archipelago," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 62-81, January.
    13. Klaus Mohn, 2010. "Autism in Economics? A Second Opinion," Forum for Social Economics, Springer;The Association for Social Economics, vol. 39(2), pages 191-208, July.
    14. World Bank, 2011. "Russia : Reshaping Economic Geography," World Bank Publications - Reports 13052, The World Bank Group.
    15. Suryono Herlambang & Helga Leitner & Liong Ju Tjung & Eric Sheppard & Dimitar Anguelov, 2019. "Jakarta’s great land transformation: Hybrid neoliberalisation and informality," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(4), pages 627-648, March.
    16. Maria Eugenia Giraudo & Jean Grugel, 2022. "Imaginaries of Soy and the Costs of Commodity‐led Development: Reflections from Argentina," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 53(4), pages 796-826, July.
    17. Kathrin Hörschelmann & Nadine Schäfer, 2007. "‘Berlin is Not a Foreign Country, Stupid!’—Growing up ‘Global’ in Eastern Germany," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(8), pages 1855-1872, August.
    18. Victoria Lawson, 2010. "Reshaping Economic Geography? Producing Spaces of Inclusive Development," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 86(4), pages 351-360, October.
    19. Maj Grasten & Leonard Seabrooke & Duncan Wigan, 2023. "Legal affordances in global wealth chains: How platform firms use legal and spatial scaling," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 55(4), pages 1062-1079, June.
    20. Miaoxi Zhao & Xingjian Liu & Ben Derudder & Ye Zhong & Wei Shen, 2015. "Mapping producer services networks in mainland Chinese cities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 52(16), pages 3018-3034, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ecgeog:v:91:y:2015:i:1:p:59-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/declaus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.