The Redistribution of Property Rights, Corporate Governance and Company Restructuring after Privatisation"

The project covered the main issues of privatisation, corporate governance and company restructuring after privatisation in Hungary and in the Russian Republic, together with a summary of the broader picture of company-level changes in Central and Eastern Europe, discussing the issues of micro-financial restructuring in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. The two countries selected as the focus of research can be regarded as the two most widely differing cases of the economic transformation in Central and Eastern Europe. Hungary began its transition very early in 1989, while Russia was very late in doing so. Hungary first implemented a series of institutional and systemic reforms before stabilising its public finances, while Russia has struggled with financial stabilisation for years without great success. Company restructuring and the introduction of new forms of governance only began in Russia in the mid-1990s. Hungary opted for "traditional" western methods of privatisation and invited a large amount of foreign direct investment (FDI) while in Russia the bulk of state-owned property was privatised either by free distribution or by a strange blend of ESOP-MBO schemes. FDI in Russia remained modest because of the high risk and uncertainty surrounding economic transactions there. Hungary was a forerunner in privatising public utilities, while Russia has moved cautiously in this area. The group's studies show that the Hungarian economy is now over the "transformation recession" and its economic success is largely due to its successful privatisation and to the dominant participation of foreign investors in company take-overs and in the restructuring process. The study of Russia provides a comprehensive account of the main factors in the so-far modest results in Russian privatisation and economic transformation.

The Position of Russian Provinical Officialdom in the Middle of the 19th Century: Law and Life

The study considered the discrepancy between the official status and real position of Russian provincial officialdom in the middle of the 19th century. The law was not entirely coherent in all aspects of the officials' life and activity, with ordinary deviations from the law being adopted in practice and accepted, albeit not openly, by the public and sometimes even by the authorities. The main law determining the rights and duties of governors was never followed to the letter and in reality governors' activities were determined by the common (unwritten) law existing in the governmental sphere. The volume and nature of the governors' rights depended on a range of factors, with specific regional features and the governor's personal qualities having a particular significance. The standard of living of government clerks was much higher than their official salary would permit and Matkhanova studied the most widespread cases of abuse, identifying those positions in the administration which offered the most opportunities for such abuses. At the start of the period and on the eve of the reforms public opinion towards the bribery of officials underwent a change. From the late 1850s onwards, there appeared among provincial officials a group of young well-educated clerks with liberal ideas and a new system of moral values which did not allow them to accept bribes or infringe the law in any way. There was also a non-official hierarchy side by side with the legally existing one. A significant role in governing the region, and one which has been underestimated by historians, was played by the head of the governor's office, but the reforms of the 1860s contributed to changing this state of affairs.