Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Firms And Public Service Provision In Russia

Contents:

Author Info

  • Pertti Haaparanta

    (Helsinki School of Economics)

  • Tuuli Juurikkala

    (Helsinki School of Economics)

  • Olga Lazareva

    (CEFIR)

  • Jukka Pirttila

    (Bank of Finland Institute for Economies in Transition (BOFIT))

  • Laura Solanko

    (Bank of Finland Institute for Economies in Transition (BOFIT))

  • Ekaterina Zhuravskaya

    (New Economic School/CEFIR and CERP)

Abstract

This paper reports first results from a survey of 404 middle-sized and large manufacturing firms from 40 Russian regions in April-June 2003. We examine the extent of social service and infrastructure provision by the firms and the firms’ assessment of the quality of public infrastructure and the regulatory environment. Background information of ownership, investment, performance, competition, and finance decisions of the firms is also gathered. The data reveal that despite major divestments of social services during 1990s, a great majority of firms still provide at least some form of social services. For example, 56% of the firms have their own housing or support local housing, and 73% of the firms have recreation facilities or support employee’s recreation activities. While managers view the social service provision as non-essential and costly, many of the firms continue to provide these services, even to users other than their own workforce. The quality of public infrastructure is generally assessed as being good or satisfactory; the respondents were the least satisfied with the quality of roads. Over a half of the firms provide their own heat, but mainly due to technological reasons – although public service interruptions do occur – and 24% of the firms give support to the maintenance and construction of public road network. The regulatory burden the firms face continues to be severe. In more than half of the firms, for example, the general manager has to spend more than two weeks in negotiations about public infrastructure with the authorities. These descriptive results indicate that there is still a lot scope for improvement in the quality and quantity of public service provision in Russia. Enterprises are still engaged rather heavily in social service provision, road network would require improvements, and the easing of regulatory burden should continue. Addressing these questions is likely to be vital for the sustainability of investments and growth in Russia.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.cefir.ru/papers/WP41.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR) in its series Working Papers with number w0041.

as in new window
Length: 78 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cfr:cefirw:w0041

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 117418 Russia, Moscow, Nakhimovsky pr., 47, office 720
Phone: +7 (495) 105 50 02
Fax: +7 (495) 105 50 03
Email:
Web page: http://www.cefir.ru
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Sergei Guriev & Andrei Rachinsky, 2004. "Ownership concentration in Russian industry," Working Papers w0045, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
  2. Berglof, Erik & Perotti, Enrico, 1994. "The governance structure of the Japanese financial keiretsu," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 259-284, October.
  3. Daron Acemoglu, 2003. "The Form of Property Rights: Oligarchic vs. Democratic Societies," NBER Working Papers 10037, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Grossman, G.M. & Helpman, E., 1992. "Protection for Sale," Papers 21-92, Tel Aviv.
  5. Mike Burkart & Fausto Panunzi & Andrei Shleifer, 2002. "Family Firms," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1944, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
    • Mike Burkart & Fausto Panunzi & Andrei Shleifer, 2003. "Family Firms," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(5), pages 2167-2202, October.
  6. Grosfeld, Irena & Kolenikov, Stanislav & Paltseva, Elena & Sénik-Leygonie, Claudia & Verdier, Thierry, 1999. "Dynamism and Inertia on the Russian Labour Market: A Model of Segmentation," CEPR Discussion Papers 2224, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  7. Slinko, Irina & Yakovlev, Evgeny & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2003. "Institutional Subversion: Evidence from Russian Regions," CEPR Discussion Papers 4024, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  8. Antoinette Schoar, 2002. "Effects of Corporate Diversification on Productivity," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(6), pages 2379-2403, December.
  9. La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1998. "Law and Finance," Scholarly Articles 3451310, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  10. Marco Becht, 1999. "European corporate governance: trading off liquidity against control," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/13314, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  11. Guido Friebel & Sergei Guriev, 1999. "Why Russian Workers Do Not Move: Attachment of Workers Through In-Kind Payments," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 283, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  12. Roger Myerson & Serguey Braguinsky, 2005. "Oligarchic Property Rights and Investment," 2005 Meeting Papers 49, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  13. Sonin, Konstantin, 2010. "Provincial protectionism," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 111-122, June.
  14. Douglas Holtz-Eakin & Amy Ellen Schwartz, 1994. "Infrastructure in a Structural Model of Economic Growth," NBER Working Papers 4824, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Haaparanta, Pertti & Juurikkala, Tuuli & Lazareva, Olga & Pirttilä, Jukka & Solanko, Laura & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2003. "Firms and public service provision in Russia," BOFIT Discussion Papers 16/2003, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
  16. Reinikka, Ritva & Svensson, Jakob, 2002. "Coping with poor public capital," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 51-69, October.
  17. Yoshiro Miwa & J. Mark Ramseyer, 2003. "Does Ownership Matter? Evidence from the Zaibatsu Dissolution Program," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 67-89, 03.
  18. Ritva Reinikka & Paul Collier, 2001. "Uganda's Recovery : The Role of Farms, Firms, and Government," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 13850, October.
  19. Hansson, Par & Henrekson, Magnus, 1994. " A New Framework for Testing the Effect of Government Spending on Growth and Productivity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 81(3-4), pages 381-401, December.
  20. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1994. "Politicians and Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 109(4), pages 995-1025, November.
  21. Krishna B. Kumar & Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 1999. "What Determines Firm Size?," NBER Working Papers 7208, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  22. Alexeev, Michael & Kurlyandskaya, Galina, 2003. "Fiscal federalism and incentives in a Russian region," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 20-33, March.
  23. Brown, J David & Earle, John S, 2001. "Competition Enhancing Policies and Infrastructure: Evidence from Russia," CEPR Discussion Papers 3022, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  24. Shiller, Robert J & Boycko, Maxim & Korobov, Vladimir, 1991. "Popular Attitudes toward Free Markets: The Soviet Union and the United States Compared," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 385-400, June.
  25. Irina Slinko & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya & Evgeny Yakovlev, 2005. "Laws for Sale: Evidence from Russia," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 284-318.
  26. J. David Brown & John S. Earle, 2003. "The reallocation of workers and jobs in Russian industry," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 11(2), pages 221-252, June.
  27. Angelucci, Manuella & Bevan, Alan & Estrin, Saul & Fennema, Julian A & Kuznetsov, Boris & Mangiarotti, Giovanni & Schaffer, Mark E, 2002. "The Determinants of Privatized Enterprise Performance in Russia," CEPR Discussion Papers 3193, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  28. David S. Scharfstein & Jeremy C. Stein, 2000. "The Dark Side of Internal Capital Markets: Divisional Rent-Seeking and Inefficient Investment," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(6), pages 2537-2564, December.
  29. Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2002. "Asymmetric Federalism in Russia: Cure or Poison?," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper0304, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
  30. Zhuravskaya Ekatherina, 2000. "Incentives to Provide Local Public Goods: Fiscal Federalism, Russian Style," EERC Working Paper Series 99-15e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
  31. Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky & Konstantin Sonin & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2003. "Capture of Bankruptcy: Theory and Russian Evidence," Working Papers w0038, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
  32. Claessens, Stijn & Djankov, Simeon & Lang, Larry H. P., 2000. "The separation of ownership and control in East Asian Corporations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1-2), pages 81-112.
  33. Litwack, John M., 2002. "Central Control of Regional Budgets: Theory with Applications to Russia," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 51-75, March.
  34. Timothy Frye & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2000. "Rackets, Regulation and the Rule of Law," Working Papers w0002, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
  35. Marco Becht & Fabrizio Barca, 2001. "The control of corporate Europe," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/13302, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  36. Lambert-Mogiliansky, Ariane & Sonin, Konstantin & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2000. "Capture of Bankruptcy: Theory and Evidence from Russia," CEPR Discussion Papers 2488, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  37. Lavrov, Aleksei & Litwack, John & Sutherland, Douglas, 2001. "Fiscal federalist relations in Russia: a case for subnational autonomy," MPRA Paper 26537, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  38. Peter Hogfeldt, 2004. "The History and Politics of Corporate Ownership in Sweden," NBER Working Papers 10641, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Haaparanta, Pertti & Juurikkala, Tuuli & Lazareva, Olga & Pirttilä, Jukka & Solanko, Laura & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2003. "Firms and public service provision in Russia," BOFIT Discussion Papers 16/2003, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
  2. Solanko, Laura, 2006. "Coping with missing public infrastructure: An analysis of Russian industrial enterprises," BOFIT Discussion Papers 2/2006, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
  3. Tuuli Juurikkala & Olga Lazareva, 2006. "Non-wage benefits, costs of turnover, and labor attachment: evidence from Russian firms," Working Papers w0062, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
  4. Leppänen, Simo & Linden, Mikael & Solanko, Laura, 2012. "Firms, public good provision and institutional uncertainty: Evidence from Russia," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 522-530.
  5. Tuuli Juurikkala & Olga Lazareva, 2004. "To Divest or not to Divest? Social Assets in Russian Firms," ERSA conference papers ersa04p637, European Regional Science Association.
  6. Olga Lazareva & Andrei Rachinsky & Sergey Stepanov, 2007. "A Survey of Corporate Governance in Russia," Working Papers w0103, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
  7. Tuuli Juurikkala & Olga Lazareva, 2012. "Non‐wage benefits, costs of turnover and labour attachment," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 20(1), pages 113-136, 01.
  8. Avdasheva, Svetlana & Golikova, Victoria & Sugiura, Fumikazu & Yakovlev, Andrei, 2007. "External Relationship of Russian Corporations," Discussion Paper Series b37, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cfr:cefirw:w0041. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Julia Babich).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.