Административная реформа и реформа государственной службы в России – вопросы реализации и координации
This chapter presents papers by the participants of the working group “Local Governance and Local Democracy”. Oxana Chernenko, Ass. Prof. of HSE, and Susan Guerra, Municipality of Oslo, Unit for Sustainability, were the academic supervisors of this group, Chuck Hirt, Council of Europe, expert, head of Citizens Network.
The group worked on the following research problems. According to the
European Charter of Local Self-Government (1985), “Local self-government denotes the right and the ability of local authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of the local population”. To what extent does practice of municipal governance in the Russian Federation give us justification of this phenomenon?
Almost everywhere in theRussian Federation municipal management is not based on local self-government. The process of transferring management functions to local communities level is not developing but rather declining. The signs of interaction of local self-governance with municipal management can only be seen in rural settlements and towns. They are weak in city settlements, despite of the favorable local environment, and are not shown in any way at the municipal areas level where bodies of municipal management associate themselves with the government, and this
aspiration is supported by the regional level of the state government(power). The institute of local authorities institute is different by nature, which causes constantly arising problems with the explanation, and furthermore, with prediction local selfgovernance trends. Absence of a developed methodology does not allow to provide standard consistent recommendations about the structure of municipal authority. The
object of research is still “too young” (despite the deep tradition of self-governance in Russia, not only in rural communities, but also in towns) and still very much dependent on the local social and administrative features, as well as on the territorial and spatial features of the country.
The aim of this project was to study and analyze models of self -governance at the level of local communities through cross-country comparison (especially from a legal perspective) and to see how the European experience can be implemented in Russia.
These issues are discussed in the participants’ papers, including “Reputationbased governance and making states ‘legible’ to their citizens” by Lucio Picci, “Improving the quality of municipal service: cases on administrative reforms in the UK and Sweden” by Julia Minaeva, and “Local Governance in Scandinavian countries: is there a Common Model?” by Svetlana Tokunova.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The results of cross-cultural research of implicit theories of innovativeness among students and teachers, representatives of three ethnocultural groups: Russians, the people of the North Caucasus (Chechens and Ingushs) and Tuvinians (N=804) are presented. Intergroup differences in implicit theories of innovativeness are revealed: the ‘individual’ theories of innovativeness prevail among Russians and among the students, the ‘social’ theories of innovativeness are more expressed among respondents from the North Caucasus, Tuva and among the teachers. Using the structural equations modeling the universal model of values impact on implicit theories of innovativeness and attitudes towards innovations is constructed. Values of the Openness to changes and individual theories of innovativeness promote the positive relation to innovations. Results of research have shown that implicit theories of innovativeness differ in different cultures, and values make different impact on the attitudes towards innovations and innovative experience in different cultures.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.