Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

256 John F. Younglegislative acts of the Russian Federation concerning the improvement of thedivision of powers check title, passed 31 December 2005) blurred the distinctionbetween settlement and district local government, allowing the latterto pursue intersettlement infrastructure such as libraries, athletic facilities,and cultural organizations. On the surface, these alterations might seembanal, but they suggest a drift away from the principles of budget autonomyand local self-government enunciated in 2003. 27A second concern also flows from the distinction between theory andpractice. The 2003 law promotes a two-tier system to reconcile the tensionbetween administration and self-government. By design, municipal districtswould lean more to the purposes of administration, while settlements wouldlean more to self-government. It should not be a surprise to know that in theimplementation of the model, functions follow form. Since the district levelhas greater budget resources, the transfer of jurisdiction and authorityallowed by the law tends to flow upwards rather than in the other direction.Coupled with tighter control from higher-level administrations, local selfgovernmentbenefits only if the lowest tier, at the settlement level, alsoflourishes. Yet early returns, both in the transition period for those regionslagging behind in implementation, and in those regions where reforms havebeen implemented, suggest that the lowest tiers often transfer what meaningfulauthority they have to the district level, and receive instead the lessmeaningful clerical tasks. 28 Additionally, state functions transferred downwardsto municipal districts include such matters as health, social support,care for orphans and disabled children, and physical sports, while statefunctions transferred to settlement administrations are limited to the registrationof marriages and preparations for the census. 29 There is a danger insuch developments that municipal districts will eventually emerge solely asagents of state administration, and that the two-tier system of local governmentwill eventually develop into a two tier system of regional government,with only a very diminished role for settlement administrations.A third concern with local government reforms, especially from the perspectiveof administrative coherence, is the mushrooming of municipalitiesand the need for qualified personnel to staff these offices. Early estimates onthe number of local governments in Russia suggested that Law No. 131would almost triple the number of municipalities, from 11,560 to more than31,000. 30 Although full implementation has not yet occurred, a doubling hasalready taken place. 31 One significant consequence is that the number ofpeople required to work in these institutions is also growing. Nikolai Petrovhas suggested that hundreds of thousands of new civil servants are needed tostaff new municipalities. 32 Given that qualified personnel were difficult tofind prior to the new law, there is little reason to believe that this challengewill be easily resolved. An estimated 60 per cent of people elected to localgovernments are inexperienced in local government and administration. 33Additionally, one wonders about the overall cost of local government, giventhe increased number of full-time employees. This predicament might explain