Nonuniform Development of Municipalities
The paper is focused on uneven development of municipalities in Russia. A feasible method of assessing inequality of local development within regions is suggested and applied to four Russian regions. The analysis shows that in the late 1990s constant increase in inequality was observed, based on constructed municipal development/welfare indicators. Economic growth in that period had an uneven impact and did not create additional development opportunities for weak and economically stagnated municipalities.
Fiscal federalism and regional performance in Russia
Sound regional policies are essential for balanced and sustained economic growth. The interaction of federal and regional policies with cross-regional structural differences affects human and physical capital formation, the business climate, private investment, market depth, and competition. This paper summarizes the main elements of Russia’s fiscal federalism, describes the channels through which it operates, and assesses the effectiveness of regional transfers in reducing regional disparities. The results suggest that federal transfers to regions contributed to reducing disparities arising from heterogeneous regional tax bases and fiscal revenues. This allowed regions with initially lower per capita income to increase human and physical capital at higher rates. There is little evidence for transfers contributing to increased cross-regional growth synchronization. The results also suggest that federal transfers did not significantly improve regional fiscal sustainability, a conclusion that is supported by the lack of convergence in per capita real income across Russian regions in the last 15 years.
Continuity, Legitimacy, and Agricultural Development: Conclusions
This chapter aims at bringing together the principal conclusions of the volume, emphasising some particular aspects and questions. Policy continuity in relation to the late 1980s was rightly defined by the Aylwin government policymakers as an essential instrument for further agricultural growth. But in a democratic environment the Aylwin policies, in part precisely because of their strong element of continuity, could be implemented only if they were perceived as legitimate by the majority of the rural population, and by the poor in particular. This means that substantial improvements in agricultural income distribution, and in the quantity and quality of the social services provided to the rural poor, were unavoidable. In order to achieve legitimacy it was, and is, necessary to introduce changes. A lucid, creative combination of continuity and change was the only guarantee of success for the Aylwin policies, and for those of future democratic administrations. Continuity and legitimacy are the fundamental pillars for democratic agricultural development.