International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 7, Issue 3 (March 2020), Pages: 64-74

----------------------------------------------

 Original research Paper

 Title: Political and economic autonomy of local self-government as a factor of social infrastructure development in Russia

 Author(s): Frolova V. Elena 1, *, Rogach V. Olga 1, Ryabova M. Tatyana 1, Morozov Yu. Vladimir 2

 Affiliation(s):

 1Faculty of Management, Russian State Social University, Moscow, Russia
 2Department of Management and Law, Russian State University of Tourism and Services Studies, Čerkizovo, Russia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8958-4561

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2020.03.008

 Abstract:

The purposes of this article are problem analysis of social infrastructure in Russia; investigation of conditions and factors in governmental and local administration, which define development parameters of it; case study about the adequacy of high centralized governmental power when solving problems of social infrastructure. In this article, there is a proposed development strategy of social infrastructure, expert interview (local authorities of Russia), and local people interview. As a result of the investigation, today’s development level of social infrastructure in Russia rated by local authorities and local people is very low. Development limitations of social infrastructure in modern Russia are due to, first of all, problems of institutional imbalances: Narrowing autonomy of local self-administration because of the absence of effective resource support to its activity, deformation within relationships between regional and federal authorities, uncertainty specifics of municipal property, a crisis of public confidence in government. Points for practitioners: Social infrastructure defines the level and quality of population lives, which is why development strategy is considered as one of the important factors and has a high priority in governmental and municipal politics in democratic countries, analysis of those specific problems, reflects undoubted interest for scientists and practitioners. Comparative analysis of administrative practices, a study of Russian experience helps to form activity directions of governmental and local authorities in a more effective way to assist the development of social infrastructure. 

 © 2020 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Local self-administration, Russia, Social infrastructure

 Article History: Received 19 September 2019, Received in revised form 28 December 2019, Accepted 1 January 2020

 Acknowledgment:

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 Citation:

 Elena FV, Olga RV, and Tatyana RM et al. (2020). Political and economic autonomy of local self-government as a factor of social infrastructure development in Russia. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 7(3): 64-74

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

 No Table

----------------------------------------------

 References (27) 

  1. Aiello F, Iona A, and Leonida L (2012). Regional infrastructure and firm investment: Theory and empirical evidence for Italy. Empirical Economics, 42(3): 835-862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-010-0445-9   [Google Scholar]
  2. Bajar S and Rajeev M (2016). Contribution of infrastructure to output growth in India. Emerging Economy Studies, 2(2): 240-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/2394901516661093   [Google Scholar]
  3. Bond J (2016). Infrastructure in Africa. Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, 8(3): 309-333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974910116677788   [Google Scholar]
  4. Bowman A and Kearney R (2007). Local leadership and governance, state and local government. 7th Edition, Houghton, Boston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Chigwata TC and de Visser J (2018). Local government in the 2013 constitution of Zimbabwe: Defining the boundaries of local autonomy. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 10(1): 165-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-017-0063-0   [Google Scholar]
  6. Chong-Min P (2003). Quality of local government and democratic citizenship. Social Indicators Research, 62(1): 291-319. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022605519674   [Google Scholar]
  7. Crane D (2008). California's infrastructure deficit. Public Works Management and Policy, 12(3): 476-478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X07312015   [Google Scholar]
  8. Dowall DE and Ried R (2009). Improving California's infrastructure services: The California infrastructure initiative. Public Works Management and Policy, 13(3): 184-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X08329801   [Google Scholar]
  9. Frolova EV (2014). Social infrastructure of contemporary Russian municipal bodies: Issues and prospects for modernization. Sociological Studies, 12(12): 51-58.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Frolova EV (2016). Interaction of the population and local government: Problems and new opportunities. Sociological Studies, 4(4): 59-64.   [Google Scholar]
  11. Frolova EV and Rogach OGV (2017). Municipal-private partnership in education: Infrastructural aspect. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 10(1): 145-160. https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2017.1.49.8   [Google Scholar]
  12. Garvin MJ and Bosso D (2008). Assessing the effectiveness of infrastructure public: Private partnership programs and projects. Public Works Management and Policy, 13(2): 162-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X08323845   [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodman D, French PE, and Battaglio RP (2015). Determinants of local government workforce planning. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(2): 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013486179   [Google Scholar]
  14. Holcombe RG and Stroup MD (1996). The role of federal funding on the demand for state and local government spending. Atlantic Economic Journal, 24(2): 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299003   [Google Scholar]
  15. Irvin RA and Stansbury J (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1): 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x   [Google Scholar]
  16. Khongsatjaviwat D and Routray JK (2015). Local government for rural development in Thailand. International Journal of Rural Management, 11(1): 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973005215569383   [Google Scholar]
  17. Liu W, Holst J, and Yu Z (2014). Thresholds of landscape change: A new tool to manage green infrastructure and social–economic development. Landscape Ecology, 29(4): 729-743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0007-1   [Google Scholar]
  18. Matraeva LV and Vasiutina ES (2017). Sustainable Russian economic growth: Prospects and systemic challenges? Social Policy and Sociology, 16: 29-40. https://doi.org/10.17922/2071-3665-2017-16-3-29-40   [Google Scholar]
  19. Mohammadi SH, Norazizan S, and Nikkhah HA (2018). Conflicting perceptions on participation between citizens and members of local government. Quality and Quantity, 52(4): 1761-1778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0565-9   [Google Scholar] PMid:29937584 PMCid:PMC5993841
  20. Oswald M, Li Q, McNeil S, and Trimbath S (2011). Measuring infrastructure performance: Development of a national infrastructure index. Public Works Management and Policy, 16(4): 373-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X11410071   [Google Scholar]
  21. Oulasvirta L and Turala M (2009). Financial autonomy and consistency of central government policy towards local governments. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(2): 311-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852309104178   [Google Scholar]
  22. Pagano MA and Perry D (2008). Financing infrastructure in the 21st century city. Public Works Management and Policy, 13(1): 22-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X08321015   [Google Scholar]
  23. Ridley G (2011). National security as a corporate social responsibility: Critical infrastructure resilience. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(1): 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0845-6   [Google Scholar]
  24. Roberts N (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 34(4): 315-353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004269288   [Google Scholar]
  25. Yang K (2006). Trust and citizen involvement decisions: Trust in citizens, trust in institutions, and propensity to trust. Administration and Society, 38(5): 573-595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399706292095   [Google Scholar]
  26. Young C and Kaczmarek S (2000). Local government, local economic development and quality of life in Poland. GeoJournal, 50(2-3): 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007197330116   [Google Scholar]
  27. Zimmerman R (2009). Making infrastructure competitive in an urban world. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 626(1): 226-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716209344842   [Google Scholar]