Archive | 2021

Institutional municipal reform in Russia: actors and their strategies (on the example of «small» local government reform)

 

Abstract


One of the main democratic institutions in Russia is local selfgovernment (LSG). This institution is characterized by instability of legal regulation, which is reflected in regular changes and amendments to existing laws. The most significant transformation of the Institute of LSG was in 2003–2009, when the «big» municipal reform was carried out. In 2014, a «small» reform of the LSG was launched, which made it possible to introduce a two-level system of city administration. The new model of local government organization operates only in three cities – Chelyabinsk, Makhachkala and Samara. The purpose of the article is to understand the reasons for the transition of some cities to a new system of organization of local government. The conceptual foundations of the article are the structure-oriented approach of D. North, the «distributional» theory of institutional changes of G. Libecap, and the political and economic approach of D. Acemoglu and G. Robinson s. The research is based on the theory of reforms by J. Roland. The author concluded that limited political autonomy at the bodies and local self-government officials, the lack of mayors during the period of reforms Governor-cartridge a result of the change of the head of the region, the timing of the reform with the end of the term of powers of authorities and local selfgovernment officials, as well as the inclusion of regional authorities compensatory strategies for the urban ruling elite, are factors, which contributed to the implementation of institutional reform. It is shown that the obstacles that prevented the «small» reform of the local government act of political autonomy from consolidated municipal ruling elite, interested in preserving the status quo; the existence of an urban political machine; the lack of compensation of the urban ruling elite for losses which are due to the implementation of the reform; the discrepancy between the time of the reform by the end of the term of authorities and local self-government officials.

Volume None
Pages 207-228
DOI 10.31249/POLN/2021.02.08
Language English
Journal None

Full Text