Property Rights In Post Soviet Russia

This book looks at how top-down efforts to strengthen property rights are unlikely to succeed without demand for law from private firms.

The importance of property rights to economic and political development is widely recognized. Yet it remains unclear why institutions for protecting property rights often fail to emerge. Many scholars focus on leaders' incentives and assume that if institutions are "supplied," then firms will automatically use them. By contrast, this study emphasizes that firms often circumvent or subvert newly created institutions. Consequently, theories of property rights formation should not focus exclusively on whether or not leaders create institutions. They must also explain the conditions under which firms actually use formal institutions for protection. This study analyzes firms' strategies for protecting property rights in Russia and identifies conditions under which firms rely on state institutions. Observers of Russia frequently focus narrowly on high-profile property rights disputes and mistakenly conclude that the lawlessness of the 1990s persists. However, my original survey of Russian enterprises and in-depth interviews with firms, lawyers, and private security agencies reveal a remarkable shift in firms' strategies over time: Whereas Russian firms in the 1990s used illegal coercion -- such as mafia rackets -- to protect property, today they increasingly utilize law and formal institutions. To examine this shift in firms' strategies, I develop an analytical framework based on evolutionary game theory. The framework draws attention to several key characteristics of institutional development: (1) The expected payoffs to firms' strategies for protecting property depend on the interplay of direct effects (i.e., exogenous factors that determine the benefits and costs of a given strategy) and interactive effects (i.e., the extent to which other firms in an economy use a given strategy). (2) Over time, more effective strategies become predominant, due to mechanisms such as natural selection or adaptive learning. (3) A tipping point exists, at which society begins to break from a vicious cycle to a virtuous cycle. Relatively small changes can therefore initiate self-reinforcing cycles with large effects. Based on this analytical framework, the study investigates the sources of change in firms' strategies. Over the past decade, an incentive transformation has occurred. Firms now recognize that law is a more effective tool for protecting property than alternatives, such as private security agencies or informal connections with government officials. Three types of factors have shifted the benefits and constraints of illegal versus legal strategies in favor of law: (1) organizational changes within firms, such as the evolution of firm ownership structures; (2) changes in other institutional spheres, including the development of the tax administration and banking sector; and (3) changes from outside the domestic political and economic system, including the inflow of foreign investment. Incentive structures also explain variation across firms' strategies for protecting property. The nature of threats and available resources shape the relative benefits and constraints of using illegal versus legal strategies. Analysis of these two factors predicts the types of firms most likely to use legal strategies: (1) medium-sized firms rather than small or large firms; (2) firms that produce physical products rather than services; (3) firms that operate in large-scale rather than exclusively local markets; and (4) firms that lack informal connections to government officials. This study's conclusion explores pathways to the rule of law in transition and developing countries, with specific reference to Russia. Whether the rule of law will take root in Russia depends on the outcome of two conflicting tendencies: (1) increasing demand for law by firms; and (2) decreasing supply of law by predatory state officials.

Explains how the introduction of rural private property rights in Ukraine and Russia generated poverty.

Russian novels, poetry and ballet put the country squarely in the European family of cultures and yet there is something different about this country, especially in terms of its political culture. What makes Russia different? Maxim Trudolyubov uses private property as a lens to highlight the most important features that distinguish Russia as a political culture. In many Western societies, private property has acted as the private individual’s bulwark against the state; in Russia, by contrast, it has mostly been used by the authorities as a governance tool. Nineteenth-century Russian liberals did not consider property rights to be one of the civil causes worthy of defending. Property was associated with serfdom, and even after the emancipation of the serfs the institution of property was still seen as an attribute of retrograde aristocracy and oppressive government. It was something to be destroyed – and indeed it was, in 1917. Ironically, it was the Soviet Union that, with the arrival of mass housing in the 1960s, gave the concept of private ownership a good name. After forced collectivization and mass urbanization, people were yearning for a space of their own. The collapse of the Soviet ideology allowed property to be called property, but not all properties were equal. You could own a flat but not an oil company, which could be property on paper but not in reality. This is why most Russian entrepreneurs register their businesses in offshore jurisdictions and park their money abroad. This fresh and highly original perspective on Russian history will be of great interest to anyone who wants to understand Russia today.

This book analyzes privatization reforms, property rights, and raiders in post-Soviet Russia. The author surveys the existing literature in the context of predatory raiding in Russia and introduces the notion and concept of this phenomena; he suggests that the study may serve as an explanatory model for corporate, property, and land raiding in Russia. Building on previous scholarship, this monograph conceptualizes the predatory character of corporate hostile takeovers in Russia and links it with the coercive nature of the ruling authoritarian regime. This project will appeal to scholars, graduate students, and researchers in Russian and Post-Soviet politics, capitalism, corruption, and property rights.

Secure property rights are central to economic development and stable government, yet difficult to create. Relying on surveys in Russia from 2000 to 2012, Timothy Frye examines how political power, institutions, and norms shape property rights for firms. Through a series of simple survey experiments, Property Rights and Property Wrongs explores how political power, personal connections, elections, concerns for reputation, legal facts, and social norms influence property rights disputes from hostile corporate takeovers to debt collection to renationalization. This work argues that property rights in Russia are better seen as an evolving bargain between rulers and rightholders than as simply a reflection of economic transition, Russian culture, or a weak state. The result is a nuanced view of the political economy of Russia that contributes to central debates in economic development, comparative politics, and legal studies.

This title was first published in 2001: Based on extensive research, this trilogy provides new insights into Post-Soviet transformations without taking refuge in the traditional assumption that Russia is unique. Using powerful analytical tools, this trilogy marks the re-integration of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) into the main current of political science. An invaluable resource for all those interested in Russia and the Post-Soviet states. This first volume focuses on state, sectoral, and transnational actors from a predominantly rational choice perspective. The book includes an extensive introduction by the editor which uses additional material gathered by the project team on two polls, 1999 and 2000, which, in addition to the individual studies, provide sufficient data to obtain unprecedented insights into the basic preferences and the logic of action of the main players in Russia. The outcomes of this research will be particularly relevant for students, researchers, journalists and decision-makers interested in Russia and the Post-Soviet states’ politics, international relations, economics, social policy and sociology.

In Housing the New Russia, Jane R. Zavisca examines Russia’s attempts to transition from a socialist vision of housing, in which the government promised a separate, state-owned apartment for every family, to a market-based and mortgage-dependent model of home ownership. In 1992, the post-Soviet Russian government signed an agreement with the United States to create the Russian housing market. The vision of an American-style market guided housing policy over the next two decades. Privatization gave socialist housing to existing occupants, creating a nation of homeowners overnight. New financial institutions, modeled on the American mortgage system, laid the foundation for a market. Next the state tried to stimulate mortgages—and reverse the declining birth rate, another major concern—by subsidizing loans for young families. Imported housing institutions, however, failed to resonate with local conceptions of ownership, property, and rights. Most Russians reject mortgages, which they call "debt bondage," as an unjust "overpayment" for a good they consider to be a basic right. Instead of stimulating homeownership, privatization, combined with high prices and limited credit, created a system of "property without markets." Frustrated aspirations and unjustified inequality led most Russians to call for a government-controlled housing market. Under the Soviet system, residents retained lifelong tenancy rights, perceiving the apartments they inhabited as their own. In the wake of privatization, young Russians can no longer count on the state to provide their house, nor can they afford to buy a home with wages, forcing many to live with extended family well into adulthood. Zavisca shows that the contradictions of housing policy are a significant factor in Russia’s falling birth rates and the apparent failure of its pronatalist policies. These consequences further stack the deck against the likelihood that an affordable housing market will take off in the near future.

Russia’s “Economic Constitution” - its Civil Code - establishes crucial rules for post-Soviet society: freedom of contract and from arbitrary state interference are only two examples. In this volume, distinguished Russian and foreign scholars and practitioners examine post-Soviet changes in Russian private law and their impact upon law and society.