Here he and Serguey Braguinsky examine what went wrong with the Russian plan--and what is needed to put the economy back on the road to becoming a fully functioning market economy. The first section of the book presents a new interpretation of the political economy of the socialist state and the incentives and institutions that underpin it, with an emphasis on the present Russian situation. The second part deals with the political economy of "spontaneous transition" and the inefficiencies inherent in economies that lack the organizations and institutions that inhere in established Western democratic economies.
In the final section, the authors present a program of actions to put the economic transition in Russia back on track, based on their assessment of the actual current state of both the economy and the government.
Their approach is unique in emphasizing organizational evolution at the microeconomic level instead of stressing macroeconomic issues such as money and inflation that are at the heart of most arguments. This is a thoughtful and thought-provoking book and one that will be widely discussed and debated. He is the author of previous books in Russian, including Monetary Policy in Japan , and is coauthor and editor of a book in Japanese, Industrial Change in China and Russia.
He has published articles in numerous journals and is the first Russian scholar to obtain tenure in economics from a university in Japan. Grigory Yavlinsky is a Russian economist and leader of the "Yabloko" party. He is a member of the Duma and was a candidate for the presidency of Russia in Home Incentives and Institutions. They have been successful but federal policies that have negative impact on investment affect them more and more every year. Regions cannot challenge the federal centre in the political and interbudgetary relations because it can lead to dismissal of the corresponding governor.
It can be said that the higher the level of centralisation, the lower the rate of economic development and management efficiency in Russia.
It is unlikely that current politico-economic cycle while Putin stays in power will see any positive changes to this situation. The importance of trust for economic life has been a particular focus. The Edelman Trust Barometer reveals that institutional trust has declined broadly around the world. According to the Edelman Trust Barometer, the trust index i.
Moreover, according to the World Value Survey, the level of interpersonal trust in Russia is remarkably low. What is more, we are witnessing that the more people trust their social circle, the less they trust institutions. This contradicts the classical view that people who trust institutions are more likely to trust their fellow citizens Rothstein, Uslaner, So, based on this data, we suggest that there is a gap between interpersonal and generalized trust in Russia.
People who trust their group are more cautious of people outside their circle. Guzel Yusupova from Durham University examined the social movement of Russian ethnic minorities in defence of the second state languages in the context of politics of fear, paying special attention to the developments in Tatarstan. Analysis is positioned on the intersection of complexity theory in nationalism studies that explains how small actions of ordinary people could lead to a national movement and the theory of connective action from the literature on social movements which explains how digitally mediated political engagement leads to a social change.
This theoretical fusion provides a nuanced explanation of spontaneously organized resistance to the demotion of minority languages by the central government.
For a decade Russia has been building a new political order. This collection of essays offers a progress report on this effort, recording the projects for. Introduction: Institutions and. Political Change in Russia. Neil Robinson. The transformation of Russia over the last decade has involved wide- ranging.
Interviews with activists, participant observation and qualitative content analysis of social networking sites SNS reveal that despite the covert restrictions of offline social mobilization, the resistance has been transformed into the vivid online connective action, advancing grass-roots activities and inter-ethnic solidarity. This has resulted in establishing weak ties between representatives of the single ethnic group and among different ethnic groups and in making ethnic minority issues more salient in public discourse.
Connective action on SNS has led to the awareness that many people share the same political positions and has resulted in feelings of togetherness that helped to promote united actions in the restricted political space to oppose the decisions of the federal government. Elena Trubina from Ural Federal University has given a keynote on the third day.
The discursive performativity of the visions of the urban future generated by the boosters creates new and reproduces existing possibilities for profitable manipulation of the public sector.
With the Shanghai World Expo, it can be argued that while historically the World Expos were organized to foster the development of international relations, they currently increasingly serve as soft power tools Wallis and Balsamo helping to promote globally the neoauthoritarian nations. Drawing on mixed-methods fieldwork and media analysis, Elena illustrates how futuristic and positive narratives are mobilized together with nationalist tropes about modernizing countries and improving their international prestige.
This is a traditional question many architects and urban planners across the globe keep asking themselves. They are afraid of an inadequate functional profile of the proposed space by the time the construction comes to an end when public needs and values appear quite different from what they were at the conception stage of the project.
In addition to these shared issues, Russian urban managers and professionals may have an extra challenge, and it is nothing to do with being too late to the market, it is about being too early.
Most of the investments in urban public space are being made in Russia under the assumption that a renovated space may finally generate economic activity with additional revenue for urban governments. That, according to urban managers, will likely make citizens happier, or perhaps even loyal to the existing political regime. However, empirical evidence, both in Russian capitals St. Petersburg and Moscow and provincial towns, does not support such an assumption.
Before expecting public space in Russia to be functiona,l one has to make sure there is a public there, a self-organized and self-motivated group of people, that can animate urban design on a daily basis, and make out of it more than just a decoration for the organized events.
Michael Gentile , from University of Oslo, started by addressing urban scholarship in post-Soviet countries. It started labeling the countries that used to be part of the anachronistic Communist behemoth as post-Soviet, post-socialist, or similar. This talk engages with this problem. Ksenia Mokrushina ex-director of Skolkovo centre for Urban Studies, founder of CityKompas project started the discussion about the present and future of the planning profession, offering the argument that the status of urban researchers and planners in Russia remains marginal and controversial, not least due to the superficial, top-down and highly centralized urban improvement policies currently implemented by the Russian government.
The deficiencies of the spatial governance system go hand-in-hand with the failures of the system of academic and professional training and development in urban studies and planning, which is presently lacking important elements, such as a representative body, membership and recognition system, constructive and independent professional dialogue, clear career tracks, mentorship and intergenerational continuity and so forth. How the expert community in Russia acknowledges and addresses these challenges, remains an open question.