XVII Апрельская международная научная конференция по проблемам развития экономики и общества: в 4 кн.
This research combines theories of civil society and local self-governance in describing citizen participation in solving neighborhood problems. Similar to neighborhood associations elsewhere, in Russia “organizations of territorial social selfgovernance” (TOS) have been formed to facilitate citizen participation in improving their communities. This research presents the first ever study of TOS across all Russian regions, drawing on a range of secondary data, lists of registered groups, and a phone survey of potential collaboration partners conducted in 2015. This paper explores the current state of these groups and their potential for collaboration with other civic organizations, government and business.
This paper takes the discussion on factor of parilamentary information opennes on the subnational level and analyzes the correspondence between politics and policy in opennes of the Russian regional parliaments.
In many Russian regions, new institutions have been created that are meant to enable the partnership between the legislative, the regional administration and civil society actors. These forms of institutionalized cooperation include permanent roundtables, consultative councils, regional or local grant competitions for social projects and the institutionalized cooperation in externally funded social projects. In addressing social problems, nonprofit organizations have often played a pioneer role and are today more and more accepted as partners of the state, while at the same time facing multiple barriers in terms of their institutional context, organizational development and participation in policy formation. Although regional and local administrations and civil society actors share many concerns about social policy issues, the level of real involvement of NGOs in policy formation in present-day Russia is often described as ineffective and insufficient. The underlying motivation of this paper is to identify the forms and degree of cooperation between governmental and non-governmental actors in addressing social problems and the participation of non-profit actors in shaping policy formation in Russia’s regions. The focus is on the sub-national level, as regional authorities bear the main responsibility for financing and implementing welfare policies. The paper thereby addresses the following question: What are the incentives, barriers and outcomes of nonprofit participation in service delivery and policy formation?
Resume of the 17th April Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development
The logic of interaction between state authorities and local self-government, in the conditions of constitutionally fixed independence of the branches of government, should be built on cooperation relations. The inter-municipal interactions of the administrations of urban and rural settlements with the regional authorities, since the two-level organization of local self-government is legislatively fixed, suggest, in addition to cooperation relations, also subordination relations. At the same time, the declared principles of openness, transparency and ethics in public administration exclude the building of interactions between authorities of different levels on informal relations.
Using the game-theoretic approach and as the basic model of interaction in a conflict situation, C. Thomas to describe the interaction between the leaders of government bodies of different levels (municipal district - settlement) and different branches (municipal - state power), we identified and described 4 possible types of one-dimensional models of interaction between authorities at different levels. The “normative” model (1) presupposes relations of cooperation as the main and leading in relations between managerial leaders. The "mobilization" model (2) presupposes relations of subordination, primarily between leaders of local and state levels. The “isolationist” model (3) implies a relationship of rivalry. The model (4) of “renunciation of authority” suggests that mutual avoidance is the basis of interactions between leaders. It was expected that the first two models of interactions, as normatively fixed relations of cooperation and subordination, would most closely correspond to the actual practice of interactions between leaders of government bodies. On the contrary, the last two models should have very limited value in management practice.
Real relationships are built on informal relationships using "forbidden" models, since interactions between managers are built primarily around the sharing of limited resources (financial, natural and administrative), which does not imply the principles of openness, transparency and ethics of public administration. In harsh conditions, the optimal interaction strategies for many grassroots leaders are submission or, on the contrary, intense rivalry, and by no means cooperation or avoiding interactions.