Governance and land use decision-making in Russian cities and regions

Abstract

Using results of an elite survey from the late 1990s, this study examines various arguments to explain the roots of the slow pace of land marketisation in Russia. These include three arguments that focus in turn on structural impediments, resource generation opportunities provided by land ownership, and domineering local governments. The study also analyses two other explanations of spatial differences: the impact of local economic and demographic structure and urban governance. Findings offer some support for each of the dominant approaches but little evidence to support the importance of local economic structure. However, an analysis of governance and social practices are found to be useful in highlighting the relationship between beliefs, practices, and land allocation.

Notes

¹ O Khode Zemel'noi Reformy (Russian Government, 10 July 2003), available at: http://www.government.gov.ru/data/structdoc.html?he_id=102&do_id=1121, accessed 20 September 2006.

² Sostoyanie Zemel Rossii (Rosnedvizhimost'), 2005, available at: http://www.kadastr.ru/field_of_activity/lands_statisics/russian_federation, accessed 20 September 2006.

³The data presented in this table reflect total land rather than urban land only because only the total land data are available.

⁴See Andrew E. Kramer, ‘A Price Run-Up for Run-Down Communes', New York Times, 22 December 2006, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/business/worldbusiness/22russoreal.html, accessed 5 January 2007.

⁵Stated by Minister Gref of Economic Development and Trade that land is not competitively allocated to developers (see ‘Gref: Zemlya pod Stroitel'stvo—Tol'ko cherez Konkurs’, Rosbalt, 10 January 2005, available at: http://www.rosbalt.ru/2005/02/10/195863.html, accessed 20 September 2006).

⁶The article gave an example of one municipal government in Leningrad oblast' that maintained high budgetary resources by making extensive use of leasing out land, while less successful surrounding municipalities did not. See ‘V Lenoblasti Est' Odno Sverkhodokhodnoe Munitsipal'noe Obrazovanie’, Rosbalt, 14 December 2005, available at: http://www.rosbalt.ru/2005/12/14/238016.html, accessed 20 September 2006.

⁷But business may also prefer leasing since, as the following article suggests, it is more expensive to purchase land than to lease it; see Alexander Bekker, ‘$100Bln Bill for Land Puts RSPP in a Lather’, The Moscow Times, 10 June 2006, p. 8, available at: http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/06/10/050-full.html, accessed 21 September 2006.

⁸For an example of how the 2003 law on land use preserves leasing as the main means of land allocation, see Anna McDonald, ‘Moscow's New Law Scares Off Investors’, The Moscow Times, 3 June 2006, p. 9, available at: http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/06/03/045-full.html, accessed 21 September 2006.

⁹See Steven Lee Myers, ‘Russia's Window on the West is Reaching for the Sky’, The New York Times, 28 November 2006, p. 4, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/europe/28petersburg.html, accessed 28 November 2006.

¹⁰See ‘Parlamentarii Nizhegorodskoi Oblasti Predlagayut Perenesti na Poltora Goda Srok Vstupleniya v Silu Oblastnogo Zakona «O Tsene Zemli»’, Rosbalt, 28 January 2004, available at: http://www.rosbalt.ru/2004/01/28/140986.html, accessed 21 September 2006.

¹¹For a review of the legal framework for land regulation and reform including land use, see Trutnev et al. (2004, pp. 1269 – 1282). For an extensive review of land privatisation in Russian cities see also A. V. Khakhalin, ‘Analiz i Otsenka Reform v Oblasti Zemel'nikh Otnoshennii i Privatizatsii Zemli v Gorodakh’, available at: http://www.urbaneconomics.ru/texts.php?folder_id=80&mat_id=99&from=fp&page_id=1697, accessed 20 September 2006. This analysis includes regional case studies and a focus on the public policy aspects and outcomes of land reform and privatization.

¹²See Harding (1995) and the previous footnote; see also Ivankina and Rtishchev (2001, pp. 51 – 65).

¹³Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, ‘Real Estate Development: A Variety of Viewpoints’, paper written for a course Land Reform and Emerging Property Markets in Russia, 29 – 30 May 2001, St. Petersburg, Russia, available at: http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/647_viewpoints.pdf, accessed 20 March 2007.

¹⁴See footnote 11. In addition, a longer version (in Russian dated 9 June 2005) with considerably more information on selected regions is available at: http://www.urbaneconomics.ru/texts.php?folder_id=80&mat_id=99&page_id=1697&from=search, accessed 15 January 2007.

¹⁵Ethnic composition data are from Goskomstat SSSR (1991). Other demographic and economic data may be found in Goskomstat Rossii (1997), as well as other statistical yearbooks.

¹⁶I chose not to use a more rigorous technique like regression analysis because of strong collinearity among some of the contextual variables (e.g. 0.643 between 1996 net migration and 1997 number of small firms) as well as because of the aggregate nature of the data.

¹⁷See Harding (1995) and footnote 11; see also Ivankina and Rtishchev (2001, pp. 51 – 65).

¹⁸See footnote 11.

¹⁹See footnote 11.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Beth Mitchneck

I would like to thank the National Science Foundation for supporting this research as well as Michael Bradshaw, J.P. Jones, and anonymous reviewers for useful and constructive comments. Olga Mayorova has also provided excellent assistance. The usual disclaimers apply.