Preview

Political science

Advanced search

Political Effects of Sub-Regional Fiscal Policies in Russia

https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2021.02.04

Abstract

The study offers empirical evidence that the fiscal policy of the regional and local elite can influence the electoral results of the current government. It demonstrates that in determining the budgetary policy the political leaders rely on electoral business cycles. As a rule, there is a tendency towards a decrease in expenditures on socially significant items, that the population may be most sensitive to, between the elections while there is an increase in expenses before the upcoming elections. The implementation of regression analysis on data from 2010 to 2019 showed that each level of the Russian budgetary system can be assigned certain fiscal functions, the combination of which can lead to the growth of electoral support by the population both for the president and the governors, and for the ruling party at federal and regional elections. The authors have established a model of the fiscal functions’ distribution between the authorities from regional and sub-regional levels that can strengthen the loyalty of the electorate. This allows to claim the municipal reforms, the implementation of which started in the 2000 s along with the policy of recentralization, has its positive results for existing political regime.

About the Authors

R. F. Turovsky
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation

Moscow



A. P. Lyutikova
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation

Moscow



References

1. Асемоглу Д., Робинсон Дж. Экономические истоки диктатуры и демократии / пер. с англ. под науч. ред. Л.И. Полищука, Г.Р. Сюняева, Т.В. Натхова. М.: Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2015. 512 с. EDN: UWDEFP

2. Гонтмахер Е.Ш., Малева Т.М. Социальные проблемы России и альтернативные пути их решения // Вопросы экономики. 2008. № 2. С. 61-72. DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2008-2-61-72 EDN: IJFJYT

3. Кузнецова О. Региональная политика России: 20 лет реформ и новые возможности. Изд. 3-е. М.: Ленанд, 2017. 392 с.

4. Стародубцев А.В. Политическая лояльность или эффективность? Факторы распределения межбюджетных трансфертов в России // Пути модернизации: траектории, развилки и тупики: сборник статей. СПб.: Изд-во ЕУСПб, 2010. С. 325-352.

5. Туровский Р.Ф. Российское местное самоуправление: агент государственной власти в ловушке недофинансирования и гражданской пассивности // Полис. Политические исследования. 2015. № 2. С. 35-51. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2015.02.03 EDN: TUHDWD

6. Alexeev M., Kurlyandskaya G. Fiscal federalism and incentives in a Russian region // Journal of comparative economics. 2003. Vol. 31, N 1. P. 20-33. DOI: 10.1016/S0147-5967(02)00011-2 EDN: LHRWXT

7. Beazer Q., Reuter J. Who is to blame? Political centralization and electoral punishment under authoritarianism // The journal of politics. 2019. Vol. 81, N 2. P. 648-662. DOI: 10.1086/701834 EDN: VPGUBD

8. Fiscal decentralization, budget discipline, and local finance reform in Russia's regions / M. Alexeev, N. Avxentyev, A. Mamedov, S. Sinelnikov-Murylev // Public finance review. 2019. Vol. 47, N 4. P. 679-717. DOI: 10.1177/1091142118804245 EDN: FSRHZB

9. Frye T., Reuter J., Szakonyi D. Vote brokers, clientelist appeals, and voter turnout: Evidence from Russia and Venezuela // World politics. 2019. Vol. 71, N 4. P. 710-746. DOI: 10.1017/S0043887119000078 EDN: BITMSE

10. Nordhaus W. The political business cycle // Review of economic studies. 1975. Vol. 42, N 2. P. 169-190. DOI: 10.2307/2296528

11. Robinson J., Verdier T. The political economy of clientelism // The Scandinavian journal of economics. 2013. Vol. 115, N 2. P. 260-291. DOI: 10.1111/sjoe.12010

12. Sharafutdinova G., Turovsky R. The politics of federal transfers in Putin's Russia: regional competition, lobbying, and federal priorities // Post-Soviet affairs. 2017. Vol. 33, N 2. P. 161-175. DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2016.1163826 EDN: YUTZMJ

13. Shishkin D. Fiscal incentives and shared revenue sources with differentiated sharing rates // Public finance review. 2013. Vol. 41, N 4. P. 473-488. DOI: 10.1177/1091142113475698 EDN: ROEEEV

14. Stokes S. Political clientelism // The Oxford handbook of comparative politics / C. Boix, S.C. Stokes (eds). N.Y.: Oxford university press, 2009. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566020.003.0025

15. Treisman D. Fiscal redistribution in a fragile federation: Moscow and the regions in 1994 // British journal of political science. 1998. Vol. 28, N 1. P. 185-222. DOI: 10.1017/s0007123498210210 EDN: FOGNXX

16. Tullock G. Autocracy. Dordrecht: Springer science & Business media, 1987. 243 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-7741-0

17. Turovsky R., Gaivoronsky Y. Russia's regions as winners and losers: political motives and outcomes in the distribution of federal government transfers // European politics and society. 2017. Vol. 18, N 4. P. 529-551. DOI: 10.1080/23745118.2017.1286312 EDN: PRKMEL

18. Wintrobe R. The political economy of dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1998. 390 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139174916

19. Zhuravskaya E. Incentives to provide local public goods: fiscal federalism, Russian style // Journal of public economics. 2000. Vol. 76, N 3. P. 337-368. DOI: 10.1016/s0047-2727(99)00090-0 EDN: LFZSDR


Review

Views: 157


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1998-1775 (Print)