Opportunities and Constraints of Authoritarian Modernisation: Russian Policy Reforms in the 2000s

Abstract

The essay explores why some socioeconomic reforms are successful and others are not and why and how the political regime and its institutions affect policy outcomes and the implementation of a 'narrow' programme of authoritarian modernisation, characterised by the achievement of socioeconomic growth without full-scale democratisation. It reconsiders the Russian experience of policy reforms in the 2000s as a case of authoritarian modernisation in the context of post-Communist policy changes where less than half of the proposals have been implemented, and only a few have been successful. The essay attempts to explain the factors and mechanisms of the successes and failures of policy reforms, focusing on the one hand, on the impact of electoral authoritarianism and the poor quality of the state on opportunities and constraints for policy changes, and, on the other hand, on the institutional factors which affect the vertical and horizontal fragmentation of the Russian government and the efficiency or inefficiency of its policies.

Public sector corruption and perceived government performance in transition

“…The outcomes of decentralization reforms among post‐Communist countries, however, are rather diverse, with several countries in the sample re‐centralizing back some of the administrative and service functions (Martinez‐Vasquez & McNab, 2000; Shah, 2004). Nevertheless, research shows evidence of significant fragmentation of governance in transition countries toward local levels anchored around major metropolitan areas or regions (Gel'man & Starodubtsev, 2016; Gorzelak, Bachtler, & Smętkowski, 2010; Koželj & Mariotti, 2016; Lankina, 2009).…”

Why do nondemocratic regimes promote e‐participation? The case of Moscow's active citizen online voting platform

“…According to this typology, Russia is classified as an electoral autocracy (Cassani & Tomini, 2018; Gel'man & Starodubtsev, 2016; Lührmann et al, 2018). While holding regular multiparty elections, several criteria to qualify for an electoral democracy are consistently violated.…”

Global deinstitutionalisation policy in the post-Soviet space: A comparison of child-welfare reforms in Russia and Kazakhstan

“…With increasing awareness domestically of the inhumanities of institutional care in the country (as well as increasing pressure globally), the Russian government finally acknowledged the necessity of reforming the system. It now had the political will, a precondition for any successful reform in a top-down led political system (Gel'man and Starodubtsev, 2016). Expertise in DI policy reforms came from Russian child-welfare NGOs, developed in the international collaboration that was still possible in the 1990s, while later the government took tight grasp on NGOs, especially those with foreign funding and working in the field of human rights (Bogdanova et al, 2018).…”