institutional self-organization of russian society: vector of evolution svetlana kirdina, doctor of...

Institutional self-organization of Russian society: vector of evolution

Svetlana Kirdina, Doctor of SociologyInstitute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences

ESA 8th Conference, Glasgow, September 3-6, 2007

2

Main ideas

The goal - quantification analysis of the development trends in the evolution of the Russian society.

The subject of analysis - the institutions being formed in the society.

The method - the empirical research on the corpus of federal laws and acts in modern Russia


3

Self-organization of society?

Karl Marx said ”people create their own history themselves”. That is people organize the society according to their understanding, views and potentials.

Emil Durkheim postulated that societies are “realities with the nature, which is imposed to us, which can change like all natural phenomena according to their own (managed by themselves) laws”.


4

Our approach

the societies are considered as self-organized evolutionary structures. Their goal is the reproduction of social life in the environment.

Self-organization mechanism is reflected in institutional structures, that is historically formed by people constant rules of social interrelations.

One of the manifestations of such self-organization mechanism, that is institutions structure, are enacted laws.

Quantification analysis of enacted laws allow us to estimate the vector of institutional changes.


5

Two main source of information

The State Duma (Parliament) of the Russian Federation open database of the introduced acts and bills enacted from 1994 up to nowadays (2006).

The special data base Consultant+ with law passing dates and the final texts of federal laws.


6

Distribution of federal laws according to spheres of regulation1. Economy and finance (segments of economy, state

regulation, implementation of new economic forms, structural reforming, state property, bonds, stock-shares, taxes, collections, labor regulation, wages and salaries etc.);

2. Politics and state structure (administrative, territorial and state structure, political parties, deputies of all levels of legislation powers, non-government and not-for-profit organizations, public unions, elections, administrative governance, federal, regional and municipal executive power bodies, judicial system, prosecutors office, citizens’ appeals, decision making procedures, RF Constitution, RF President, citizens’ rights and freedoms, state symbols, mass-media etc.);

3. Codes (Criminal code, Civil code, Criminal-procedural code, Administrative code, Arbitrary code etc.);

4. Other laws (international agreements ratifications, territorial naming, ecology, military service etc.)


7

The methodological pitfalls

Federal acts are only a part of legal environment along with orders of the Russian government , federal programs and regional legislation as well. Nevertheless the federal acts analysis enable us to evaluate the main vector of institutional changes on macro-level.

“Laws are not always stayed within”. However they express consensus of main political and economic forces in the regulated area. That is why the enacted laws are the indicators of actual social behavior of main actors.

A period of analysis from 1994 up to 2006 is not enough to grasp long-term effects of changing legislation influence on the parameters of social and economic growth. Nevertheless in the transition countries changes are performed much faster.


8

Some results of the preliminary legislation analysis (1) There is a difference in the terms of laws

enaction introduced by different actors. As a rule, the laws introduced by the President are enacted faster than others. The laws introduced by the deputies or regional legislative bodies are discussed longer in the State Duma before they are enacted. This tendency has become more vivid since 2002 (Table 1)


9

Table 1. The average term of enacting of federal laws initiated by different actors from bill to act, days

Average a year

President Government Deputies and FC members

Regional bodies

Courts

1996 198 169 212 193 253 X

1997 247 210 203 346 302 453

1998 307 253 270 371 389 173

1999 339 282 251 446 294 337

2000 353 322 345 319 539 504

2001 368 316 345 392 568 410

2002 360 240 254 451 484 818

2003 317 229 297 361 495 X

2004 323 227 313 335 475 240

2005 314 207 413 233 418 226

2006 257 73 197 257 582 341

Average a period 314 218 286 341 436 269


10

Some results of the preliminary legislation analysis (2) The average term from bill to act is

decreasing permanently since 2001 (368 days in average) up to 2006 (314 days)

The reduction of time-frame of law enactions implicitly shows that the political consensus between legislative and executive branches is being formed in the Russia Federation


11

Some results of the preliminary legislation analysis (3)

At present legislation changes have modernizing rather than revolutionary character. It is evident from the proportion of new laws and amended existing laws: In 1990th the law on implementation on new forms of economical political life were adopted more often. However their percentage is decreasing after 2000 (Table 2).


12

Table 2. The share of new federal laws in total number of enacted new laws and amendments, %

Average a year

President Government Deputies and FC members

Regional bodies

Courts

1995 94,1 100 100 88,9 100 X

1996 68,5 95,4 71,0 51,1 100 X

1997 62,1 84,0 69,4 26,1 33,3 50

1998 63,3 91,7 72,0 46,5 25,0 66,7

1999 52,7 86,4 64,1 35,9 30,0 50,0

2000 57,9 82,6 70,4 14,3 57,1 X

2001 44,9 80,0 56,5 22,2 0 100,0

2002 49,5 82,3 52,9 20,9 33,3 100,0

2003 36,8 62,1 42,8 13,0 58,3 X

2004 32,4 77,8 46,6 12,2 18,7 20,0

2005 29,1 65,4 47,4 2,3 22,7 x

2006 27,8 88,5 41,3 8,2 2,9 40,0

Average a period 51,6 83,0 61,2 28,5 40,1 47,4


13

Conclusion about the vector of institutional self-organization

It is directed to the stabilization as well as to unification and mutual understanding of legislation and executive branches.

Characteristics of this stabilization are, on the one hand, faster laws enaction from bills to acts, and, on the other hand, the changed proportion between new laws and amended existing laws.

The sign of unification and mutual understanding between the President (executive power) and the State Duma (legislative power) is the faster approval of laws introduced by the RF President.


14

Sociological survey results show that there are similar tendencies in civil society. Permanently high rating of the Russian President indicates it (source:http://www.levada.ru/prezident.html):

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Approve ofthe President, %

69,3 73,2 75,4 76,8 74,4 68,8 75,6 81,3

Disapprove of the President, %

21,3 19,9 18,1 21,2 23,2 28,5 22,4 17,6


15

Many thanks to Kirilyuk Igor and Tolmacheva Irina for their help in my analysis.

Thank you for your attention!

[email protected]

http://www.kirdina.ru/

institutional self-organization of russian society: vector of evolution svetlana kirdina, doctor of...

Documents

federal acts analysis

corpus of federal laws

distribution of federal

selforganization of

state regulation

state structure administrative

administrative code

federal programs