INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL BARRIERS IN THE USE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE OBJECTS IN THE PENZA REGION

The article examines systemic constraints that impede the effective integration of the region’s religious and confessional heritage into processes of socio-economic and cultural development. The relevance of the study stems from the growing emphasis on domestic tourism as a key priority of national policy, as well as from the unique confessional diversity of the Penza Region, where Orthodoxy, Islam, Old Belief, Catholicism, and Lutheranism have coexisted for centuries. Despite the presence of 199 officially registered cultural heritage sites—predominantly of religious character—their potential remains largely underutilized, necessitating the identification and analysis of persistent institutional and financial barriers. The research is based on an interdisciplinary approach that combines methods from economic geography, sociology, religious studies, and regional economics. Primary data sources include official documents—particularly the Penza Region’s State Program “Development of Culture and Tourism in the Penza Region”—as well as the Wikimedia platform’s database on cultural heritage. The study identifies three key institutional and financial barriers. First, there is a clear prioritization of formal procedures—such as the delineation of protected zones and technical inspections—over activities aimed at restoration, functional adaptation, and promotion of heritage sites. Second, since 2023, subsidies to non-governmental organizations for the reconstruction of the historical appearance of cultural heritage sites have been entirely discontinued—a particularly critical issue for rural areas, where NGOs serve as the main initiators of monument preservation. Third, there is no coherent strategy for integrating cultural heritage into tourism products: ethno-confessional routes have not been developed, digital interpretation of sites is lacking, and religious organizations remain minimally involved. Furthermore, the analysis reveals a significant gap between the declared objectives of the state program—such as increasing tourist numbers and tourism revenues—and the actual allocation of budgetary funds, which are predominantly directed toward administrative and managerial functions rather than practical development.