Authoritarian Modernization
in
Russia
—
Mission: Impossible?
It is no wonder that rent-seeking, poor quality of the state regulations and lack of the rule of law impose major barriers to successful implementation of policy reforms. However, unlike many Third World countries, which are widely perceived as hotbeds of stagnation under dictatorships, post-Soviet Russia for a while displays an opposite trend: rapid economic growth in the 2000s served as a major source of building and further maintenance of the politico-economic order of bad governance. At that time, Russia’s ruling groups were interested in growth and development not only to increase the amount of rents and to satisfy the appetites of numerous rent-seekers but also because of the need for legitimation of the political regime.101 Although by the 2020s this agenda was seemingly exhausted, and the word “modernization” almost disappeared from Russian political discourse after Dmitry Medvedev lost his presidential post in 2012,102 great developmental ambitions (in the form of national projects and the like) remained an important part of policy-making in Russia. The reshuffling of the Russian government in 2020 further revitalized ambitions of a successful implementation of the authoritarian modernization project. Post-Soviet bad governance in Russia implicitly assumes high aspirations by ruling groups. But given the conditions of the Russian state and regime, the agenda of narrow modernization faces major obstacles. Policy reforms that infringe on the interests of influential rent-seekers have often been curtailed, and even those policies backed by powerful supporters may lead to unintended and undesired consequences. These consequences depend not only on specific policies in certain areas, but to a great degree on the hierarchical mechanism of policy-making within the framework of the power vertical, with its aggravation of principal-agent problems (analyzed in detail in chapter 2). Therefore, policy reforms in various areas in Russia have often resulted in privatization of gains and socialization of losses but have not much improved its institutional performance. These outcomes, however, make chances for successful socioeconomic advancement more and more elusive over time. Although the modernization efforts were not entirely in vain, their effects have often been partial, controversial, and short-lived.
To summarize, the political conditions of the authoritarian modernization project in Russia in the 2000s were quite unfavorable to begin with; the combination of electoral authoritarianism and poor quality of governance hindered the success of full-scale simultaneous reforms in various social and economic areas. The reformers could only hope to establish some pockets of efficiency and achieve success in certain high-priority policy areas where the reforms could be more successful, while in other policy areas reforms could either be suspended or fail completely. While an analysis of Russian modernization in the 2000s confirms these expectations, a closer look at the political and institutional environment of adoption and implementation of policy changes in Russia will help to understand the patterns and variations in policy reforms in different areas, analyzed in more detail in chapter 4.
Although considering recent developments in Russia one might argue that the post-Soviet authoritarian modernization project is nearly exhausted and has little chance of continuing in the foreseeable future, 103 it is worth considering its experience further. Modernization as such will be a necessary part of the agenda for Russia’s development. Its ideas, institutions, and policies are still to be discussed, even though now there are no signs that a new window of opportunity is about to open. One should learn certain lessons from the trial-and-error reforms and counterreforms of the recent past, accumulate knowledge about their advances and setbacks, and not repeat the same wrong moves. These lessons may be labeled “Mission: Impossible.” Similarly to the film series, authoritarian modernization in Russia may include several episodes with recurring protagonists and may be popular among the public. Unlike the films, however, the success of the Impossible Mission Force under a dual-track strategy is highly unlikely.
Chapter
4
Opportunities and Constraints
Policy Reforms in the 2000s
WHY ARE SOME SOCIOECONOMIC reforms successful while others are not? To what extent do the political regime and its institutions affect the outcomes of major socioeconomic reforms? Can a reform-minded nondemocratic leader, supported by a team of well-qualified experts, modernize his/her country without the fear of losing in free and fair competitive elections? And what of the conditions supporting (or opposing) the successful implementation of such a narrow program of authoritarian modernization?
The Russian experience of socioeconomic reforms in the 2000s can be perceived as a crucial case of authoritarian modernization in the context of post-Communist social and political changes. In 2000, when Vladimir Putin came to power, the Russian government proposed an ambitious and large-scale program of economic and social reforms in Russia. Some of these reforms were initiated by the liberal economists who had greatly influenced the policy agenda in the 1990s.1 In the 2000s, they sought to implement their ideas under more favorable circumstances. The 1990s had been marked by a deep and protracted economic transformation recession, a major decline of state capacity, and constant intraelite conflicts; by contrast, the 2000s became a period of high economic growth, recentralization of the Russian government, and large-scale support for Putin’s leadership from major political and economic actors and from Russian citizens. Although the policy reforms of the 2000s contributed to the improvement of the quality of governance in Russia, their outcomes have failed to meet the expectations of optimists and pessimists alike. A decade later, the reformers themselves assessed the implementation of their programs, and their leading figures, such as German Gref and Yevgeny Yasin, realized that fewer than half of the proposals had been implemented, and only a few had been successful. (A more precise calculation made in 2016 by the team of the Center for Strategic Research found that only 36 percent of policy changes had been implemented.) Several proposed measures stopped at the stage of discussing good policy alternatives, and among those reforms that have been implemented successfully, some have had a series of unintended and undesired consequences.2
It is necessary to explain this diversity of outcomes of policy reforms, considering they occurred nearly simultaneously and within nearly the same economic and political circumstances. A synchronic comparative analysis allows me to disregard certain factors such as the impact of the Soviet legacy or public opinion of the Russian people: I do not assume that these factors were unimportant, but they do not explain why some reforms succeeded and others failed. At the same time, the widespread statements that tend to explain the troubles of policy reforms through the resistance of interest groups (“oligarchs,” siloviki, regional leaders, and other rent-seekers),3 the rise of global oil prices, or Putin’s interest in consolidating his personal political power4 are limited and insufficient. They do not adequately explain why the tax reform of the 2000s became a success story, but the reform of the system of social benefits (monetizatsiya l’got) faced numerous problems. Why was the reform of the school graduate evaluation system implemented despite considerable costs, while the reform of the state administrative apparatus and the full-scale reorganization of federal government agencies in fact led to an increased number of bureaucrats and their empowerment? Putin, oil, and siloviki alone are not responsible for the variation in the outcomes of reforms that were launched almost simultaneously and under similar conditions. This chapter attempts to explain the factors and mechanisms behind the successes and failures of the 2000s’ policy reforms in Russia. I focus on the one hand on the impact of electoral authoritarianism and the poor quality of the state on policy changes, and on the other hand on the institutional factors that affect the vertical and horizontal fragmentation of the Russian government and the inefficiency of its policies.