This text is translated into Russian by google automatic human level neural machine.
EastRussia is not responsible for any mistakes in the translated text. Sorry for the inconvinience.
Please refer to the text in Russian as a source.
Disputes about TOPs: Do we lose the idea?
Rostislav TurovskyDoctor of Political Sciences, Professor of HSE, Scientific Editor East Russia
The procedure for placing TORs in the Far East remains unclear. For example, will there be TOPs in each constituent entity of the Federation, which regions manage to get not one, but several TOPs? It is unclear where the TOPs are likely to be located. The bill contains only a mention that the TOP cannot be closer than 50 km from a million-plus city, but this requirement is meaningless, since there are no such cities in the Far East and are not expected. This requirement can only be regarded as a hint that TORs are intended for the development of peripheries, not centers, i.e. can be created in medium-sized cities such as Komsomolsk-on-Amur, in the "open field", around new deposits of minerals, etc.
It is important that, without an answer and due analysis, the question remains as to why the institute of the SEZ did not take place in the Far East, although when it was created, officials said that this macro-region was a priority. But the reality is that in the Far East only two SEZs were created - the port in the Khabarovsk region in Sovetskaya Gavan and the tourist and recreational in the Primorsky region on the Russian island, and neither earned, attracted residents.
Full text: http://eastrussia.ru/region/5/2345/