About 75 percent of the Russians live in urban areas, and thus Russia is, without doubt, an urban country. But no one seems to notice the fact. The country is "fighting for the harvest" and extracting oil, while an "urban" economy is driven by other goals: services, finance, trade, construction … What is awaiting Russian cities in the XXI century?

The "scenarios" attempt to foresee the road development may take in the medium and long run. Obviously, real life is always more varied than any purely theoretical construction, and actual development will follow a more complicated route. However, it is the very purpose of a scenario to describe, to the extent possible, the extreme cases, while in practice one or another mix of various social and economic influences will produce an intermediate result. In the opinion of the authors, the spectrum of potential combinations ranges from a "city in a strongly centralized state" to a "city in a civil society".

In the first phase, we created conventional models for the management systems in Russian cities built with a set of concrete parameters: life style, relations between city authorities and businesses, budget management practices, and several others.

In the "statehood" model (city in a unitary state), the image of a city as a social organism is blurred, with directives from the central authorities, rather than community interests, serving as the decision-making power. In a city of "business bureaucrats", local bureaucracies act as entrepreneurs, ruling with a view toward their business interests and putting city budgets at risk by investing in for-profit projects. In a "company town" model, the fate of each particular city, the quantitative and qualitative parameters of its urbanization, and its spatial development are determined by the business interests of the corporation. In what is conventionally called a "popular" model, cities are on the road to the civil society. This model may be regarded as a transition to the most efficient urban management model. In the "city in a civil society" model, urban management mechanisms characteristic of a civil society create maximum economic efficiency and social effectiveness and affect lifestyles by stimulating socially active and responsible attitudes among the citizens.

Adding the second factor - population mobility - created the basis for depicting urban development scenarios in a spatial context. In this context, mobility is understood as a set of legal and economic opportunities for free geographic, professional, and social mobility of the population.

The first quadrant - "ideal city" - describes a city with the most attractive living environment characterized by high urban management quality and population mobility. The second quadrant represents a "dormitory" city where population mobility is driven by the economic goals of industrial corporations or "state interests", rather than economic freedom of individuals. The third quadrant represents the "raw materials" Russia, based on the Soviet era system of economic and political values. This explains poor development of democratic institutions and limited mobility of the population. This appears to be the quadrant where Russia is now, and it is thus the starting point of our scenarios. The forth quadrant - "happiness in isolation" stands for a city with high urban management quality and low population mobility, and is most unlikely under any development conditions.

The resulting scenarios present an assortment of options for traveling from the "vegetable garden" to the "ideal city": either through the "dormitory" city, or a direct break-through to the "Ideal City" through the eye of the needle at the source of the coordinates.

Scenario One: Running East, Running West, or Running in Circles. Multiple administrative barriers will for a long time remain in place, serving the interests of bureaucrats at all levels of government, and at the same time hampering opportunities for the people in terms of democratic freedoms and good-quality public services. Urban development is based on different blends of the "bureaucratic" and "statehood" models. While local bureaucracies are not interested in higher population mobility, the government regulates resettlement with administrative controls. Only two cities - Moscow and St. Petersburg - stand apart, as demonstrated by the chart below.

Scenario Two: Ad Astra Per Aspera. Stable economic grown promotes broad development of the "corporation" model, with all its strong and weak points which gradually transforms into a "civil society" model. Corporations become more responsive to public needs. The fledging democratic institutions support efficient local governance and broad public participation. With less formal obstacles to population mobility and development of mortgage lending more efficient use is made of the housing stock. The settlement system outgrows its distortions; Moscow and St. Petersburg acquire the features of a "world city", while small and medium-sized cities form a well-branched network.

Scenario Three: Our Good Luck. Under this scenario, the "bureaucratic" model gradually develops into the "civil society" model. Citizens, formerly self-distanced from the local governments discredited by the business bureaucrats, create true local governance. Higher administrative and informational transparency promotes active and responsible positions on local development, policies and activities among the public. The informational closure of city bureaucracies loses any rationale, and becomes impossible, as the city simply has to establish a dialog with the local community. A powerful impetus is created for better economic efficiency and social effectiveness of local governance. With the growing urbanization, settlement patterns are focused on several dozen large cities.