After studying the nature and variety of transition in 10 regional capitals of Russia, the authors observe that: 1) All cities have experienced radical changes in their institutions and economies - changes associated on the one hand with the abolition of central planning and the introduction of freer markets, and on the other hand with political decentralization and the introduction of local elections. 2) These changes have led to a wide diversity in economic and social outcomes, reflecting differences in the central government's (inequitable) economic relations with regions with regional as well as differing local and regional policies. Most northern cities adopted policies more consistent with the central government's support of free market reforms; most southern (Red Belt) cities pursued more cautious, protective policies. 3) City governments are using proactive economic policies, including interventions to save local industries. Such efforts highlight the dual nature of the Russian transition, characterized by a shift in power from central to local government as well s public to private enterprises. 4) A major difficulty facing Russian cities is the cost of subsidies to housing and utilities. Real estate in general constitutes a major expenditure category for local government rather than, as in most western cities, a major source of revenue. A transition in this area alone could revolutionize the finances and independence of Russian cities. 5) The jury is still out in what the right social and industrial policies were during the first years of reform. Ulyanovsk clearly lagged on market reforms, and Saratov represents a model of liberalization without institutional support. Both extremes have failed, but so far the social consequences of the Saratov model appear to be worse than those of the Ulyanovsk model. 6) With the credibility of Russia's federal government at an all-time low, foreign investors have no choice but to rely on the competence and reliability of local leaders, especially mayors and governors. They will be looking for evidence of accountability in the form of the rule of law, and transparency in the form of reliable public information. Information at the city level - often unavailable and not easily accessible - would be very useful in attracting local researchers to monitor progress (as a basis for accountability) and diagnose problems (as a basis for public policy debate and political decisions.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
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.:
Glaeser, Edward L & Hedi D. Kallal & Jose A. Scheinkman & Andrei Shleifer, 1992.
"Growth in Cities,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(6), pages 1126-52, December.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Edward L. Glaeser & Hedi D. Kallal & Jose A. Scheinkman & Andrei Shleifer, 1991.
"Growth in Cities,"
NBER Working Papers
3787, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Cited by: (explanations, 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.)