IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Firms and public service provision in Russia

  • Pertti Haaparanta

    (Helsinki School of Economics)

  • Tuuli Juurikkala

    (Helsinki School of Economics)

  • Olga Lazareva

    (Center for Economic & Financial Reserach CEFIR)

  • Ekaterina Zhuravskaya

    (Center for Economic & Financial Reserach CEFIR)

  • Jukka Pirttilä

    (Bank of Finland Institute for Economies in Transition)

  • Laura Solanko

    (Bank of Finland Institute for Economies in Transition)

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. The paper is part of the project “Infrastructure and Welfare Services in Russia: Enterprises as Beneficiaries and Service Providers” financed by the Academy of Finland (project number 200936), the World Bank, and Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation. The project has also received support from the Bank of Finland Institute for Economies in Transition.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series Macroeconomics with number 0401015.

in new window

Length: 87 pages
Date of creation: 30 Jan 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpma:0401015
Note: Type of Document - pdf; prepared on Win98; pages: 87; figures: included
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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. Becht, Marco, 1999. "European corporate governance: Trading off liquidity against control," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4-6), pages 1071-1083, April.
  2. Yoshiro Miwa & J. Mark Ramseyer, 2001. "Does Ownership Matter? Evidence from the Zaibatsu Dissolution Program," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-105, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
  3. Frye, Timothy & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2000. "Rackets, Regulation, and the Rule of Law," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 478-502, October.
  4. Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina V., 2000. "Incentives to provide local public goods: fiscal federalism, Russian style," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 337-368, June.
  5. Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2003. "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.
  6. Holtz-Eakin, Douglas & Schwartz, Amy Ellen, 1995. "Infrastructure in a structural model of economic growth," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 131-151, April.
  7. Sonin, Konstantin, 2010. "Provincial protectionism," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 111-122, June.
  8. Roger Myerson & Serguey Braguinsky, 2005. "Oligarchic Property Rights and Investment," 2005 Meeting Papers 49, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  9. Reinikka, Ritva & Svensson, Jakob, 2002. "Coping with poor public capital," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 51-69, October.
  10. David S. Scharfstein & Jeremy C. Stein, 1997. "The Dark Side of Internal Capital Markets: Divisional Rent-Seeking and Inefficient Investment," NBER Working Papers 5969, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. Pertti Haaparanta & Tuuli Juurikkala & Olga Lazareva & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya & Jukka Pirttilä & Laura Solanko, 2004. "Firms and public service provision in Russia," Macroeconomics 0401015, EconWPA.
  12. Mike Burkart & Fausto Panunzi & Andrei Shleifer, 2003. "Family Firms," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(5), pages 2167-2202, October.
  13. Angelucci, Manuela & 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.
  14. Irina Slinko & Evgeny Yakovlev & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2004. "Laws for Sale: Evidence from Russia," Economics Working Papers 0046, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
  15. Grossman, G.M. & Helpman, E., 1992. "Protection for Sale," Papers 162, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Ritva Reinikka & Paul Collier, 2001. "Uganda's Recovery : The Role of Farms, Firms, and Government," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 13850.
  19. Marco Becht & Fabrizio Barca, 2001. "The control of corporate Europe," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/13302, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  20. Krishna B. Kumar & Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 1999. "What Determines Firm Size?," NBER Working Papers 7208, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  21. Friebel, Guido & Guriev, Sergei, 2000. "Why Russian Workers Do Not Move: Attachment Of Workers Through In-Kind Payments," CEPR Discussion Papers 2368, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  22. Daron Acemoglu, 2003. "The Form of Property Rights: Oligarchic vs. Democratic Societies," NBER Working Papers 10037, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  23. Sergei Guriev & Andrei Rachinsky, 2004. "Ownership concentration in Russian industry," Working Papers w0045, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
  24. 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).
  25. Rafael LaPorta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, . "Law and Finance," Working Paper 19451, Harvard University OpenScholar.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. Irena Grosfeld & Claudia Senik-Leygonie & Thierry Verdier & Stanislav Kolenikov & Elena Paltseva, 1999. "Dynamism and Inertia on the Russian Labour Market: A Model of Segmentation," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 246, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  31. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1994. "Politicians and Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 109(4), pages 995-1025, November.
  32. 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.
  33. Antoinette Schoar, 2002. "Effects of Corporate Diversification on Productivity," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(6), pages 2379-2403, December.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. Slinko, Irina & Yakovlev, Evgeny & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2003. "Institutional Subversion: Evidence from Russian Regions," CEPR Discussion Papers 4024, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  37. 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.
  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)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpma:0401015. 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: (EconWPA)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.