Can grassroots organisations and NGOs substitute for the State in Russia? A review of the literature and suggestions for a future research agenda

The paper investigates the relationship between civil society and the state. Using the unique lens of the state-substitution (the process whereby civil society organisations take on government roles) the paper reviews the literature and highlights three key issues: - Civil society is weak in Russia and its contribution to democracy development is limited - The Russian State has be withdrawing from its responsibilities to care for its citizens, leaving a field of opportunity for civil society organisations. - The state has subsequently began to encroach on civil society organisations mainly through the use of legislative changes and government sponsored organisations These trends have far reaching implications for civil society organisations, in particular those which take up or take over government roles and responsibilities. The literary evidence shows that the Russian state leverages its political power into the sphere of civil society similar to how it regained control over the economy in the early 2000s. This Russian variant of civil society attributes the state as a key player in all societal spheres.

Adjusting to institutional realities: the 2006 NGO law and its effects on civil society in Russia

Key findings: The paper investigates the impact that the legislative changes of 2006 had on civil society in Russia. This legislation has change the regulatory environment in which civil society actors such as Third Sector Organisations operate. Using the past development of civil society organisations as well as insights about how the institutional environment influences this article illustrates: - the undemocratic nature and motivation of the law and how it exploits the structural weaknesses of civil society - how Third Sector Organisations rationalise and translate the legislative changes into their organisational realities and how this changed or did not change their behaviour - the shift in state-civil society relations away from liberal co-existence into more hierarchical arrangements were Third Sector Organisations are subordinated to the state. These trends have far reaching implications for civil society. The empirical evidence shows that state now manages civil society to meet its own political ends. It also shows that organisations in the field welcome the more engage and directive nature of the Russian state. Why is this important? What does it mean for business or other users? Are there policy implications? The research is important as it shows how Third Sector Organisations have reacted to the legislative changes. Further it provides a basis for interpretation of the potential future development of civil society. Additional it highlights how the continuous process of democratisation in transition economies sometimes might come unstuck. In particular donor agencies will need to consider these trends when disturbing funding to Third Sector Organisations.

How transition paths differ:enterprise performance in Russia and China

We use enterprise survey data to analyse and contrast the determinants of enterprise performance in China and Russia. We find that in China, enterprise growth and efficiency is associated with rapid increases in factor inputs, and with ownership to a lesser extent, but not greatly correlated with industry-specific or institutional factors. However, in Russia, enterprise growth is not associated with improvements in factor quantity (except for labor) or quality. The main determinants of company performance are instead demand and institutional factors at a regional level. The findings are robust across a variety of specifications.

Oil and gas:a blessing for the few. Hydrocarbons and inequality within regions in Russia

Building on earlier work on regional inequality in Russia the article seeks to demonstrate that the regional oil and gas abundance is associated with high within-region inequality. It provides empirical evidence that hydrocarbons represent one of the leading determinants of an increased gap between rich and poor in the producing regions. The discussion focuses on a possible cluster of geographic, economic and political factors underlying the phenomenon.

Russia

Ruta Aidis, Julia Korosteleva and Tomasz Mickiewicz 1. Introduction to Russia Russia is the world’s largest country, a nuclear superpower with unsurpassed energy resources. It is also a country which finds itself at the crossroads of possible development paths. Market-oriented mechanisms have been introduced but Soviet era laws remain on the books. Corruption has become a way of life and freedom of the press has been gradually eliminated in the early 2000s. Within this backdrop, private entrepreneurship has emerged, albeit in a distorted way. As the heart of the Soviet empire, Russia had tremendous control of enormous amounts of natural resources and human capital. Yet, 20 years ago, in the late 1980s, it was a country where entrepreneurship was marginal, the economy was stagnant and the ruling communist hierarchy had no clear formula for solving the deepening crisis. Unfortunately the reforms characterizing Russia’s attempts at rebuilding statehood after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, first under Mikhail Gorbachev and then Boris Y’eltsin, were inconsistent and did not foster macroeconomic stabilization. However, since 2000, under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, macroeconomic stabilization as well as institutional stability has been achieved. In addition, an unprecedented increase in the price and demand for oil and gas resources has resulted in a rapid growth of Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP). Russia now has a large private sector, though not without its limitations. At first glance, ‘de jure’ regulations often seem reasonable, yet it is the selective and arbitrary manner by which they are...

Entrepreneurship in Russia

This paper presents an account of the environment faced by entrepreneurs in Russia. In section one we give a brief introduction to the country which is followed by the overview of a public policy on small and medium enterprises in the next section. The current state of SMEs and some particularities of the entrepreneurial environment are discussed in section three, whereas section four focuses on the prospects of internationalisation of Russian SMEs. In section five we draw some conclusions.

Institutions and entrepreneurship development in Russia:a comparative perspective

In this paper we use a comparative perspective to explore the ways in which institutions and networks have influenced entrepreneurial development in Russia. We utilize Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) data to study the effects of the weak institutional environment in Russia on entrepreneurship, comparing it first with all available GEM country samples and second, in more detail, with Brazil and Poland. Our results suggest that Russia's institutional environment is important in explaining its relatively low levels of entrepreneurship development, where the latter is measured in terms of both number of start-ups and of existing business owners. In addition, Russia's business environment and its consequences for the role of business networks contribute to the relative advantage of entrepreneurial insiders (those already in business) to entrepreneurial outsiders (newcomers) in terms of new business start-ups.

Oil and gas:a blessing for few hydrocarbons and within-region inequality in Russia

Building on earlier work on regional inequality in Russia (Fedorov 2002; Gaddy and Ickes 2005; Bradshaw 2006 and others) we investigate a novel line of research, i.e. to demonstrate that the regional oil and gas abundance is associated with high within-region inequality. We show empirically that hydrocarbons represent one of the leading determinants of an increased gap between rich and poor in the producing regions. We discuss a possible cluster of geographic, economic and political factors underlying the phenomenon.

Corporate governance and finance in Poland and Russia

This book provides a comparative analysis of the emerging corporate control structures in the transition economies. It details characteristics of corporate governance in the two largest transition economies: Russia and Poland. It explores what kind of ownership structures are emerging in these two countries and to what degree they are they path-dependent and conditional on the initial choice of privatisation methods - fast ownership transfer through the mass privatisation programme and loans-for-equity scheme in Russia, and a more 'organic' growth of the new private sector in Poland. It examines the directions of the subsequent, post-privatisation, secondary ownership flows in both countries and the impact of the government on corporations, implied both by the residual shareholding of the state and by its regulatory and administrative actions.