Scientific Journal SPATIAL ECONOMICS - Mission-Oriented Planning and the Spatial Development Agenda

In the section	Surveys
Title of the article	Mission-Oriented Planning and the Spatial Development Agenda
Pages	151-171
Author	Larisa Victorovna Melnikova Candidate of Sciences (Economics), Associate Professor, Leading Researcher Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, SB RAS 17, Akademik Lavrentiev Av., Novosibirsk, 630090, Russian Federation This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ORCID: 0000-0001-7427-7289
Abstract	Amid intensifying technological competition and growing external risks, the pursuit of strategic autonomy leads to the implementation of mission-oriented state planning. This paper examines how the overlay of this model onto the traditional spatial equity agenda transforms regional policy, imparting an objectively selective nature to the allocation of public resources. The study identifies common features of contemporary strategic planning models in the analyzed countries: problem-oriented goal-setting, a long-term planning horizon, alignment of national, sectoral, and territorial decisions, conditional state support, and the concentration of resources on a limited number of strategic areas. It is shown that within the hierarchy of state priorities, the importance of reducing territorial disparities is declining compared to the objectives of strategic autonomy, technological leadership, and the long-term sustainability of the national economy. Grounding state planning in national missions exacerbates the risks of spatial polarization, as public resources become concentrated in areas possessing the highest technological, economic, and institutional capacity. Specifically, in the USA, new semiconductor clusters are forming within a minimal number of states; in the UK, targeted ring-fenced funds are directed primarily to leading city-regions with strong ecosystems; in the European Union, resources are being redirected from Cohesion Policy to the new European Competitiveness Fund; while in Russia, state spatial policy is being restructured through a system of core settlements (ONPs) and growth nodes within a differentiated framework that balances the viability of the periphery with support for leading economic centers during the implementation of national technological leadership projects. Ultimately, while these new planning models enhance the efficiency of achieving strategic national goals, they simultaneously increase the risks of spatial inequality
Code	332.14:338.26
JEL	R58, O21, L52
DOI	https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2026.3.151-171
Keywords	mission-oriented approach, strategic planning, regional policy, spatial equity, spatial selectivity, anchor settlements, strategic autonomy
Download	SE.2026.3.151-171.Melnikova.pdf
For citation	Melnikova L.V. Mission-Oriented Planning and the Spatial Development Agenda. Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2026, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 151–171. https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2026.3.151-171 (In Russian)
References	1. Alfaro L., Chor D. Global Supply Chains: The Looming ‘Great Reallocation’. NBER Working Paper, 2023, 31661. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31661 2. Barca F. An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A Place-Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations. Brussels: European Commission, 2009, 243 p. 3. Bolton R. ‘Place Prosperity vs People Prosperity’ Revisited: An Old Issue with a New Angle. Urban Studies, 1992, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420989220080261 4. Bryson J.M. A Strategic Planning Process for Public and Non-profit Organizations. Long Range Planning, 1988, vol. 21, issue 1, pp. 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(88)90061-1 5. Delivering the UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy: Year One. Department for Business and Trade, 2026. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uks-modern-industrial-strategy-year-one (accessed July 2026). 6. European Strategic Autonomy: Actors, Issues, Conflicts of Interests. Edited by B. Lippert, N. von Ondarza, V. Perthes. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2019, 39 p. https://doi.org/10.18449/2019RP04 7. Farrell H., Newman A.L. Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion. International Security, 2019, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 42–79. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00351 8. Feldman M., Kitson M., Larsson J.P., Tyler P., Uyarra E. Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy: Effects on Regions and Implications for Place-Based Policy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2025, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsaf032 9. Fratesi U. The Four Waves of Regional Policy: Towards an Era of Trade-Offs? Regional Studies, 2025, vol. 59, no. 1, 2436538. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2024.2436538 10. Gill I. Economic Geography Bites Back. Brookings Institution, 2019. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/economic-geography-bites-back/ (accessed May 2026). 11. Harrison J., Galland D., Tewdwr-Jones M. Whither Regional Planning? Regional Studies, 2021, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1862412 12. Horizon Europe, Budget: Factsheet. European Commission, Brussels: Publications Office of the EU, 2021, 3 p. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1f107d76-acbe-11eb-9767-01aa75ed71a1 (accessed July 2026). 13. Iammarino S., Rodriguez-Pose A., Storper M. Regional Inequality in Europe: Evidence, Theory and Policy Implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 2019, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 273–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lby021 14. Implementing the OECD Recommendation on Regional Development Policy. OECD, Paris: OECD Publishing, 2025, 11 p. 15. Kemeny T., Storper M. The Changing Shape of Spatial Income Disparities in the United States. Economic Geography, 2024, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2023.2244111 16. Lenchuk E.B. New Outlines of Russia’s Industrial Policy under Geopolitical Challenges. Ekonomicheskoe Vozrozhdenie Rossii = Economic Revival of Russia, 2026, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 111–120. https://doi.org/10.37930/1990-9780-2026-2-88-111-120 (In Russian). 17. Marco R., Llano C., Perez-Balsalobre S. Economic Complexity, Environmental Quality and Income Equality: A New Trilemma for Regions? Applied Geography, 2022, vol. 139, 102646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102646 18. Mariotti I. Firm Relocation and Regional Policy: A Focus on Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Groningen: University of Groningen, 2005, 277 p. 19. Mazzucato M. Mission-Oriented Policy: From Fixing Market to Shaping Markets and Debunking Myths About the State. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2025, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 671–677. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsaf024 20. Mazzucato M. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. National Research University Higher School of Economics. Moscow: Higher School of Economics, 2023, 360 p. (In Russian). 21. Molica F., de Renzis A., Bourdin S. From Lisbonisation to Hyper-Lisbonisation: The Long Goodbye to EU Cohesion Policy’s Original Goals. Regional Studies, 2025, vol. 59, no. 1, 2540361. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2025.2540361 22. Neumark D., Simpson H. Place-Based Policies. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Edited by G. Duranton, V. Henderson, W. Strange. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2015, vol. 5, pp. 1197–1287. 23. New Cohesion Policy 2021–2027: Inforegio Factsheet. European Commission, Brussels: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, 2021, 4 p. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/investment-policy_en (accessed July 2026). 24. Nielsen K. Indicative Planning. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Edited by S.N. Durlauf, L.E. Blume. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-58802-2_775 25. OECD Regional Outlook 2023: The Longstanding Geography of Inequalities. OECD, Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023, 161 p. 26. OECD Regions at a Glance 2009. OECD, Paris: OECD Publishing, 2009, 194 p. 27. Olsen J.P. Change and Continuity: An Institutional Approach to Institutions of Democratic Government. European Political Science Review, 2009, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773909000022 28. Plan for Change. The Labour Party, 2026. Available at: https://labour.org.uk/plan-for-change/ (accessed July 2026). 29. Polterovich V.M. The Evolution of the Mechanism of Social Development: An Attempt at a Four-Factor Analysis. Voprosy Ekonomiki [Economic Issues], 2026, no. 4, pp. 5–26. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2026-4-5-26 (In Russian). 30. Rodriguez-Pose A. The Revenge of the Places That Don’t Matter (and What to Do About It). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2018, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024 31. Rodriguez-Pose A., Bartalucci F. A Union under Siege, or a Union Besieging Itself? The EU’s New Budget and the Future of European Integration. Global Challenges & Regional Science, 2026, vol. 7, 100037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gcrs.2026.100037 32. Roses J.R., Wolf N. The Economic Development of Europe’s Regions: A Quantitative History since 1900. New York; London: Routledge, 2019, 47 p. (Routledge Explorations in Economic History). 33. Smas L., Schmitt P. Positioning Regional Planning Across Europe. Regional Studies, 2021, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 778–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1782879 34. Sustainable Global Supply Chains in Times of Geopolitical Crises. Annual Report 2023. Research Network Sustainable Global Supply Chains, Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), 2023, 142 p. 35. The CHIPS Program Office Vision for Success: Two Years Later. U.S. Department of Commerce, NIST, 2025, 9 p. Available at: https://www.nist.gov/document/chips-america-vision-success-two-year-report (accessed July 2026). 36. The Distribution of Industry in Great Britain and its Relation to Manpower Problems. International Labour Review, 1947, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 67–75. Available at: ilo.org (accessed July 2026). 37. The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy. Department for Business and Trade, 2025, CP 1451. Available at: https://service.gov.uk (accessed July 2026). 38. Vision for Success: Commercial Fabrication Facilities. CHIPS Incentives Program. U.S. Department of Commerce, NIST, 2023. Available at: https://www.nist.gov/chips/vision-success-commercial-fabrication-facilities (accessed July 2026). 39. Waltz K.N. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979, 251 p. 40. Winnick L. Place Prosperity vs People Prosperity: Welfare Considerations in the Geographical Redistribution of Economic Activity. Essays in Urban Land Economics, Los Angeles, CA: Real Estate Research Program, UCLA, 1966, pp. 273–283. 41. World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography. World Bank, Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009, 383 p. Available at: worldbank.org (accessed June 2026).
Financing	The work was carried out as part of the research plan of the Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IEIE SB RAS), under Project FWZF-2024-0001 ‘Expert-Analytical, Organizational, and Methodological Components of the System for Indicative Planning of Scientific-Technological and Balanced Spatial Development of Russia in the Implementation of Large Investment Projects’
Submitted	24.07.2026
Approved after reviewing	21.08.2026
Accepted for publication	28.08.2026
Available online	30.09.2026