Paul
Goble
Staunton, December 31 – Many of the financial
advantages Moscow has are the natural result of agglomeration, of the concentration
of human capital and business and of the rents that such people and businesses
pay to be there, Natalya Zubarevich says. But some are not and are the result only
of the fact that Moscow is the capital of a hyper-centralized state.
These latter advantages, the
regional economist tells Stanislav Zakharkin of the URA news agency, mean that
the city gets money that it doesn’t earn and receives “simply by the fact of having
the status of the capital.” That distinction must be recognized if it is to be
addressed successfully (ura.news/articles/1036279439).
Zubarevich who
gained attention almost a decade ago for her discussion of “four Russias” (windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2013/09/window-on-eurasia-four-very-different.html)
says that the four were moving in very different directions until the Crimean Anschluss
which reduced to almost nothing the variations in their political preferences.
Now, she says as others have (windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2019/08/zubarevichs-four-russias-once-again-at.html)
that they are once again moving in different directions and at different speeds;
and it is far from clear, just as it was in 2011-2012 which of the four will
gain the most in the immediate future.
Zubarevich suggests that one of the
most critical flashpoints in the near term are conflicts between urban residents
with regional officials and the municipality heads the regions now
appoint. “Nowhere do the interests of a
city and a region correspond completely, and one must search for a compromise.
Returning to the direct election of
mayors would change little, she says; what is needed is “the decentralization
of financial resources and authority.” Before
2012, urban districts were able to keep 30 percent of the taxes they collected;
as of last year, they were allowed to retain only 15 percent.
No comments:
Post a Comment