(investor) if the social effect is achieved, and increases the project risks for all participants. The feasibility of implementing longer projects in the Russian practice requires additional analysis of the pros and cons.

Another peculiarity of the Russian approach is the launch of unique projects that test various technologies and mechanisms of work in the social sphere for further scaling. This goes against the foreign (mainly Western) practice, where similar projects are commonly implemented in different locations; that is, the best practices are replicated. For example, of the 9 projects launched in Portugal in 20202021, 5 are called “Digital school MUDA” and 2 are dedicated to digital literacy in schools (Digital Literacy Schools for the Future). In Russia, for example, there is a practice of launching three projects aimed at the development of assisted living (in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Chelyabinsk Region, Khabarovsk Krai), with different project parameters and implementation features (for example, each project has unique social effects), taking into account the specifics and strategic development objectives of each territory. On the one hand, replication generates statistics on the implementation of similar projects, which allows potential investors to assess the risks of a project and decide whether they want to be involved. On the other hand, the main idea of social impact projects is the uniqueness of the practice tested, which in the future can be scaled to give a multiplier effect.

The Russian approach to SIB implementation corresponds to the model typical of Asian countries. There are a series of publications dedicated to the potential of SIB development, under the common title SIB 2.0[59]. The Russian and Asian approaches are geared toward the existing bureaucratic mechanisms in a country with high state social expenditures and focus on “greasing the mechanism” (i.e., fine-tuning) for effect when scaling best practices, rather than launching small, hard-to-scale projects that emphasize monetary benefits[60].

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS AS OF THE END OF 2022

The results achieved by social impact projects as of the end of 2022 laid the foundation for the development of the tool and the launch of new projects. We can already talk about the constituent entities of the Russian Federation growing the appetite for the implementation of social impact projects. The successful project launch practice is accumulated, cases are built based on the projects completed, and independent evaluation and scaling practices are established.

The accumulated experience, including that of VEB.RF as the operator of 10 SIPs, will make it possible to develop detailed methodological guidelines for the implementation of social impact projects. To develop the instrument and attract new investors, support measures can be elaborated to reduce the risks for investors. To introduce support measures, it is advisable to conduct a detailed analysis of the social and economic effects of the projects. Key growth points:

• availability of successfully completed projects that have been evaluated and confirmed the achievement of social effects, and are being scaled up;

• the availability of constituent entities of the Russian Federation that already have experience in launching projects and the experience of completed projects, which leads to an increase in the quality and speed of new project development in these regions;

• the development of the ESG agenda in Russia among organizations and constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which prioritizes the achievement of measurable social effects from the implementation of projects.

The practice of implementing social impact projects shows that significant financial investment and costly material and technical facilities are not always necessary to improve the quality of life for the public. Sometimes this can be done by merely introducing new technologies and mechanisms of work in the social sphere.

For the state, such projects allow testing new approaches of work in the social sphere, developed by the non-governmental players, for further scaling and an overall improvement in the quality of public services.

For commercial organizations — project investors (and organizers) — this tool makes it possible to implement their policies of social responsibility and sustainable development by addressing state social problems at the system level, and at the same time with the opportunity to return the investment and generate some profit.

Non-profit organizations can obtain an additional source of funding for their activities, to scale their technologies of work in the social sphere for further development as public services (works).

«Столица района»: соседский центр как ключ к формированию городов и сообществ

Владимир Вайнер

DOI 10.55140/2782–5817–2022–2–4–56–65

Тема соседских центров микрорайонов вот уже более 100 лет находится в фокусе внимания исследователей. В наши дни мы можем снова наблюдать возможный расцвет соседских центров. Передовые девелоперские компании вкладывают социальные инвестиции в этот элемент городской ткани. В этом материале мы отразили вопросы видения соседских центров, их роли и поиск модели развития — то, что необходимо знать, прежде чем начать строить свою «маленькую столицу» района.

Владимир Вайнер

Директор «Фабрики позитивных изменений»

ВЗГЛЯД УЧЕНЫХ

Идея и концепция соседских центров, как главного ингредиента развития жизни на территориях городов и сел в России, достаточно полно раскрыта в последние десятилетия в работах Елены Шоминой и Сергея Кузнецова, Петра Иванова, Владимира Вайнера, Свята Мурунова, а также в материалах Центров прикладной урбанистики и других экспертов и практиков, в первую очередь руководителей соседских центров, создаваемых девелоперами в новых микрорайонах городов.

В международном научном дискурсе тема соседских центров микрорайонов находится уже более 100 лет и, как пишет социолог города лаборатории «Гражданская инженерия», автор и редактор канала «Урбанизм как смысл жизни» Петр Иванов, «многие думают, что микрорайоны придумал Ле Корбюзье. Те, кто читал Глазычева, считают, что микрорайоны придумал Кларенс Перри. Но на самом деле и это не так. Микрорайоны придумал Вильям Юджин Драммонд, которого Википедия описывает как «архитектора, работавшего в провинциальном стиле»[61].

Архитектор Вильям Юджин Драммонд (William Eugene Drummond) предложил концепцию Neighbourhood Unit, где юнит понимается как «единица целого». Драммонд указывал на необходимость для современного города (при том, что основным его проектам уже более века) воссоздания социальных