Affiliation:
1. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography, 1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russia, E-mail: cccp271994@mail.ru
2. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography, 1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russia, Moscow State Pedagogical University, Faculty of Geography, 16, Kibalchicha str., Moscow, 129626, Russia, E-mail: ethnogeo@mail.ru
Abstract
The aim of this study is to assess the risks of the spatial disintegration of Argentina, the determination of its dynamics (from 2006 to 2022) and the driving forces. According to the methodology used, spatial disintegration is manifested in the violation and destruction of system-forming relations between administrative-territorial units of the 1st order and is funded by a set of factors. The authors distinguish seven factors of spatial disintegration: historical, socio-economic, domestic, ethnocultural, transport, military-strategic and foreign policy, which make it possible to identify the risks of the country’s disintegration as a whole and to distinguish individual, most “implant” regions. The analysis showed that from 2006 to the present for Argentina, the risk of spatial disintegration increased slightly, but remains relatively low compare other previously studied Latin American countries (Mexico, Venezuela, Chile, Bolivia). The leading triggers of the spatial disintegration of Argentina were domestic political and socio-economic factors. The provinces with the greatest combination of risks were identified: Salta, Entre Rios, Tierra del Fuego, Neuquén, Corrientes, Formosa, Rio Negro, Misiones, which can be divided into “old” and “new disintegrators”, according to the dynamics of the number and quality of factors. The territorial drawing of the distribution of disintegration risks over the past 16 years has undergone changes: their increase for the northern and north-eastern border provinces, as well as the polarization of Patagonia, consisting in weakening the risks of the province of Chubut and Santa Cruz and their strengthening in Rio Negro. It is noted that on the basis of existing developments in neighboring countries, it makes sense to expand the space of the methodology and explore the border heterogeneous regions in Argentina and Chile.
Reference30 articles.
1. Alekseeva T., Goreslavsky S. Military-technical cooperation of Russia with the countries of Latin America. Potential for development and risk factors. Latin America, 2020. No. 9. P. 24–46 (in Russian). DOI: 10.31857/S0044748X0010598-6.
2. Alperovich M.S., Slezkin L.Yu. History of Latin America (from ancient times to the beginning of the twentieth century). Textbook for students of universities. 2nd ed. Moscow: Higher school, 1991. 286 p. (in Russian).
3. Behrend J., Bianchi M. Economic structure and sub-national policy in Argentina. SciELO journals, 2017 Dataset. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.5720998.v1.
4. Buchanan A. Secession. The right to secession, human rights and the territorial integrity of the state. Moscow: Rudomino, 2001. 240 p (in Russian).
5. Cao H., Vaca J. El fracaso de la descentralización Argentina (The failure of Argentine decentralization). Andamios, 2007 V. 4 (7). P. 249–267 (in Spain).