![]() Russian governors largely copy the manual, inefficient governance model adopted by the Kremlin. In this context, there seems to be no serious difference between the regions. The political perspective presupposes adequate and effective governance decisions under time pressure. The quality of governance can be seen politically or economically. However, this sea of «poor governance» also has islands of relatively «reasonable» governance at the regional level. «Poor governance» implies high levels of corruption, inept and inefficient bureaucracy, asymmetry of information that undermines the links between regional and federal authorities, and low level of accountability of government bodies. For domestic and foreign researchers, Russia is a typical case of «poor governance». The academic literature as a whole confirms this dim view. That is on a par with countries such as Papua New Guinea and Liberia. The Transparency International 2019 report sees Russia ranked 137th out of 180. the perceived level of corruption, Russia’s performance is even worse. If we look at another important component of good governance, i.e. It has occupied a position in the bottom third for accountability. According to the Worldwide Governance Indicators for 1996−2019, Russia has consistently retained a position in the second half of the world’s countries in government performance. Even so, there has been no significant improvement in the quality of public administration. Post-Soviet Russia has undergone significant socio-economic and political transformations since then.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |