Attitudes towards privatisation in Russia

Europe - Asia Studies

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 447-465

  Debardeleben, Joan ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; ECONOMIC REFORM; INDUSTRIAL POLICY; PRIVATIZATION;

RUSSIAN FEDERATION;

EID: 0032803772     PISSN: 09668136     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09668139998949     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. This research is funded by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and from the University of Calgary-Gorbachev Joint Trust Fund. The research team involved in carrying out the study included, in addition to the author, Carl McMillan, Jon H. Pammett (both of Carleton University), Simon Milne (McGill University), Zhan T. Toschenko (editor, Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya), Andrei Kazakov (Institute for Complex Social Studies, Moscow), Vladimir Boikov (Academy of State Service of the President of the Russian Federation, Moscow), and Vladimir Yadov (Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences).
2. Joseph R. Blasi, Maya Kroumova & Douglas Kruse, Kremlin Capitalism: Privatizing the Russian Economy (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1997), p. 26.
3. Gosudarstvennyi komitet Rossiiskoi Federatsii po statistike (Goskomstat), Rossiya v tsifrakh: kratkii statisticheskii sbornik (Moscow, Finansy i statistika, 1996), p. 251.
4. Vladimir Popov, A Russian Puzzle: What Makes the Russian Economic Transformation a Special Case (Helsinki, The United Nations University, World Institute of Development Economics Research [WIDER], 1996), Research for Action 29, p. 41. Blasi et al. give a somewhat lower figure of 40% for employment in the private sector, although they note that most industrial employment is privatised. Ibid. p. 26. For official statistics, see Goskomstat, Rossiya v tsifrakh, p. 34.
5. Vladimir Popov, A Russian Puzzle: What Makes the Russian Economic Transformation a Special Case (Helsinki, The United Nations University, World Institute of Development Economics Research [WIDER], 1996), Research for Action 29, p. 41. Blasi et al. give a somewhat lower figure of 40% for employment in the private sector, although they note that most industrial employment is privatised. Ibid. p. 26. For official statistics, see Goskomstat, Rossiya v tsifrakh, p. 34.
6. Vladimir Popov, A Russian Puzzle: What Makes the Russian Economic Transformation a Special Case (Helsinki, The United Nations University, World Institute of Development Economics Research [WIDER], 1996), Research for Action 29, p. 41. Blasi et al. give a somewhat lower figure of 40% for employment in the private sector, although they note that most industrial employment is privatised. Ibid. p. 26. For official statistics, see Goskomstat, Rossiya v tsifrakh, p. 34.
7. World Bank, World Development Report, From Plan to Market (New York, Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 53.
8. Maxim Boycko, Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, Privatising Russia (Cambridge, MA and London, The MIT Press, 1995); Linda J. Cook & Vladimir E. Gimpelson, 'Exit and Voice in Russian Managers' Privatisation Strategies', Communist Economies & Economic Transformation, 7, 4, 1995, pp. 465-483.
9. Maxim Boycko, Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, Privatising Russia (Cambridge, MA and London, The MIT Press, 1995); Linda J. Cook & Vladimir E. Gimpelson, 'Exit and Voice in Russian Managers' Privatisation Strategies', Communist Economies & Economic Transformation, 7, 4, 1995, pp. 465-483.
10. For a history of privatisation in the early 1990s see Lynn D. Nelson & Irina F. Kuzes, Property to the People: The Struggle for Radical Economic Reform in Russia (Armonk NY and London, M. E. Sharpe, 1994).
11. See, e.g., Saul Estrin, Alan Gelb & Inderjit Singh, 'Shocks and Adjustment by Firms in Transition: A Comparative Study', Journal of Comparative Economics, 21, 2, 1995, pp. 131-153; Gary Krueger, 'Transition Strategies of Former State-Owned Firms in Russia', Comparative Economic Studies, 37, 4, 1995, pp. 89-110.
12. See, e.g., Saul Estrin, Alan Gelb & Inderjit Singh, 'Shocks and Adjustment by Firms in Transition: A Comparative Study', Journal of Comparative Economics, 21, 2, 1995, pp. 131-153; Gary Krueger, 'Transition Strategies of Former State-Owned Firms in Russia', Comparative Economic Studies, 37, 4, 1995, pp. 89-110.
13. Susan J. Linz & Gary Krueger, 'Russia's Managers in Transition: Pilferers or Paladins?', Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, 37, 7, 1996, p. 419; Pekka Sutela, 'Insider Privatisation in Russia: Speculations on Systemic Change', Europe-Asia Studies, 46, 3, 1994, pp. 427-428.
14. Susan J. Linz & Gary Krueger, 'Russia's Managers in Transition: Pilferers or Paladins?', Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, 37, 7, 1996, p. 419; Pekka Sutela, 'Insider Privatisation in Russia: Speculations on Systemic Change', Europe-Asia Studies, 46, 3, 1994, pp. 427-428.
15. David J. Brown, 'Excess Labour and Managerial Shortage: Findings from a Survey in St. Petersburg', Europe-Asia Studies, 48, 5, 1996, pp. 823-857; Blasi et al., p. 180.
16. Belyanov, 'Sacrificed on the Altar of Monetarism: Results of Monthly Surveys of Industrial Enterprise Administrators in First Half of 1996', Delovoi mir, 27 August 1996, p. 4, from FBIS, Central Eurasia (FBIS-SOV-96-175-S), 9 September 1996, pp. 19.
17. Belyanov, 'Sacrificed on the Altar of Monetarism: Results of Monthly Surveys of Industrial Enterprise Administrators in First Half of 1996', Delovoi mir, 27 August 1996, p. 4, from FBIS, Central Eurasia (FBIS-SOV-96-175-S), 9 September 1996, pp. 19.
18. Simon Clarke, Peter Fairbrother, Vadim Borisov & Petr Bizyukov, 'The Privatisation of Industrial Enterprises in Russia: Four Case-studies', Europe-Asia Studies, 46, 2, 1994, pp. 179-214
19. Cook & Gimpelson, 'Exit and Voice in Russian Managers' Privatisation Strategies', pp. 476-477, 480.
20. Oleg Kharkhordin & Theodore P. Gerber, 'Russian Directors' Business Ethic: A Study of Industrial Entrepreneurs in St. Petersburg', Europe-Asia Studies, 46, 7, 1994, pp. 1076-1077.
21. Andrei Kuznetsov & Olga Kuznetsova, 'Privatisation, Shareholding and the Efficiency Argument: Russian Experience', Europe-Asia Studies, 48, 7, 1996, p. 1183.
22. Brown, p. 827.
23. Kuznetsov & Kuznetsova, pp. 1173-1185; and Michael McFaul, 'State Power, Institutional Change, and the Politics of Privatisation in Russia', World Politics, 47, 2, 1995, p. 234.
24. Survey data cited below indicate a somewhat different judgement on the part of the Russian public. When asked whether they disagreed or agreed that 'privatisation hasn't influenced the operation of enterprises', respondents were split: 36% agreed with the statement, while 47% disagreed; 18% said they found it hard to answer. Nonetheless, a majority of those expressing an opinion felt that enterprises had changed. We do not know what the nature of the perceived change was, however. Data from the Carleton 1995 Russian Post-Election Survey.
25. The compromise is described in Boycko, Shleifer & Vishny, Privatizing Russia, pp. 13, 77-83; see also McFaul, pp. 230-235; and Cook & Gimpelson, p. 469.
26. See Vserossiiskii tsentr izucheniya obshchestvennogo mneniya (VTsIOM), Ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye peremeny: monitoring obshchevstvennogo mneniya, 1994, 3, May-June, pp. 22-24.
27. Data are from the Carleton 1995 Russian Post-Election Survey. The survey was undertaken by the author, Jon H. Pammett, Vladimir Yadov (Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences) and Andrei A. Kazakov (Institute for Complex Social Studies, Moscow). The latter directed the field work. The survey involved a representative sample (n = 2080) from 19 regions of Russia and was conducted in late-December 1995 and January 1996. The interviews were face-to-face interviews, with the respondent filling in the written questionnaire him or herself with the interviewer available to answer questions. The survey was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grants 410-94-0963 and 804-92-0013) and the University of Calgary-Gorbachev Joint Trust Fund. Data from the survey are deposited at the Carleton University Library Data Archive.
28. For a discussion of differences between large-scale privatisation and the privatisation of smaller municipal enterprises on the regional level see Darell Slider, 'Privatisation in Russia's Regions', Post-Soviet Affairs, 10, 4, 1994, pp. 367-396.
29. Data are from the Carleton 1993 Russian Enterprise Survey, which was undertaken by the author, Carl McMillan, Simon Milne, Zhan T. Toschenko, Vladimir Boikov and Andrei Kazakov. Boikov and Kazakov directed the field work which involved surveying a representative sample of workers and a complete survey of middle and upper-level managers in each of the enterprises. In all but two of the enterprises the surveys were conducted in mid-1993; in the other two they were carried out in summer 1994. The enterprises themselves do not represent a random sample of Russian enterprises; therefore these results cannot be considered representative of the Russian workforce. The enterprises were located in the city of Moscow, Stavropol krai, Nizhnegorodsk oblast' and Khanty-Mansiisk okrug. This survey was funded by grant no. 804-92-0013 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Data from the 1993 Enterprise Survey are deposited at the Carleton University Library Data Archive.
30. This survey was carried out on the same basis as the 1993 enterprise survey in 14 of the original enterprises, 12 of which were privatised state enterprises by the time of the 1997 survey. The enterprises included in the 1997 survey represented the same sectors as the 1993 survey with the exclusion of those in the telecommunications sector.
31. For other data on attitudes toward privatisation in Russia around this time see Blasi, Kroumova & Kruse, p. 43; see also Igor Gurkov, Popular Response to Russian Privatisation: Surveys in Enterprises, Studies in Public Policy, no. 245 (Glasgow, University of Strathclyde, Centre for the Study of Public Policy, 1995).
32. Nelson & Kuzes, p. 133.
33. Survey results reported in Nelson & Kuzes also involve comparisons between three similarly defined groups, although at the time the survey was carried out in 1992 voucher privatisation was in its early stages. The categories utilised were employees in state, privatised, and private enterprises in four cities in Russia. Presumably enterprises included in the category 'privatised' were not all joint-stock companies, but may have represented a wider variety of forms arising before voucher privatisation or may have included smaller or formerly municipal enterprises.
34. Official government statistics for 1995 indicate the following distribution of employment: 37.6% in state or municipal enterprises or associations; 36.4% in the private sector; 24.9% in enterprises and organisations of mixed ownership type; and the remainder in joint ventures and societal organisations or funds. (Adapted from Goskomstat, Rossiya v tsifrakh, 1996, p. 34.) These data do not divide the 'private sector' between privatised and private organisations or enterprises. The 'mixed' ownership category probably includes some organisations our respondents categorise as state and some which they categorise as joint-stock companies. Given these adjustments, our survey distribution seems reasonable.
35. This category includes those respondents who indicated they felt closest to one of the following political parties on the issue most important to them: Our Home Is Russia, Russia's Democratic Choice, Yabloko, Forward Russia, Women of Russia and the Republican Party. Other categories are defined as follows: 'Left' includes those closest to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Agrarian Party and the Bloc of Communists - Labouring Russia; 'Patriotic' includes the Congress of Russian Communities, Derzhava, My Fatherland and Power to the People.
36. This finding is generally consistent with the 1992 findings of Nelson & Kuzes, when similar questions are examined; see pp. 214-215, 217, 218. For more recent data see Zoya Kupriyanova, 'Peremeny. Chto izmenyaetsya v zhizni predpriyatii?, Ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye peremeny (VTsIOM), 1997, 3, May-June, pp. 34-35. Unfortunately, the categories of enterprise employment utilised (state, partial state and private) differ from ours. Presumably joint-stock companies without large state shareholding are included in the 'private' group.
37. In-depth interviews were conducted with the directors or deputy directors of each of the enterprises in the two periods, and statistical data were collected for each enterprise in both periods.
38. This finding is supported by data from VTsIOM. See Irina Perova, 'Izbytochnaya zanyatost' i ugroza sokrashchenii na predpriyatiyakh razlichnykh otraslei promyshlennosti', Ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye peremeny, 1997, 5, September-October, pp. 24-25. This source also indicates that the situation is most extreme in the machine tool and metallurgy branches.
39. For a more extensive analysis of attitudes toward democracy in Russia see Jon H. Pammett, 'Elections and Democracy in Russia', Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 32, 1, 1999.