Attitudes Towards Privatisation in Russia

DeBardeleben, Joan

doi:10.1080/09668139998949

Cited by 20 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The micro social, geographical and political environment of the following case study is reported more fully elsewhere (Morrison and Struthers, 1995a;Struthers, Wylie and Young, 1994;1996). For further insight into the macro social, economic and political environment of Russia, see Debardeleben (1999); Graney (1999); Hanson (1999); Byung-Yeon and Sidorenko-Stephenson (1999); Kuznetsova and Kuznetsov (1999); Volkov (1999); and Young (1999).…”

Section: British-russian Case Studymentioning

confidence: 96%

Lessons from the UK Know How Funds Initiative

Morrison¹

2003

Industry and Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship that has existed historically between industry and higher education in Western economies is currently being mirrored in the transforming economies of the former Soviet Union. These emerging market economies have been encouraged by their association with a now obsolete British Council awards scheme to study historical and current relationships between businesses and education providers in established market economies. This paper analyses the professional and academic collaboration between a British and Russian university and their respective business networks. The case is set in the context of a UK government ‘Know How Funds’ project. The paper summarizes and analyses discursive sections of the periodic financial reports of the award holder, submitted throughout the project, to the British Council. The findings from the case study support the use of peer education and the resultant cascade of knowledge as mechanisms to drive through the transition to a market economy.

show abstract

Section: British-russian Case Studymentioning

confidence: 96%

Lessons from the UK Know How Funds Initiative

Morrison¹

2003

Industry and Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to one survey (Gustafson 1999: 43), in 1992, 7.3% of respondents agreed that privatization was ''in the interests of working people,'' but by 1994 only 1.4% thought so; corresponding figures for ''in the interests of the former nomenklatura'' were 15.4% in 1992 and 26.2% in 1994, while those who thought it was ''in the interests of people from the 'shadow economy''' rose from 28.7% to 49.2%. The second phase of privatization, the notorious ''loans for shares'' scheme whereby some of the country's largest and most profitable export industries were sold off at a fraction of their real worth to a handful of politically well-connected banks, proved even less popular (Debardeleben 1999).…”

Section: Many Shocks Little Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Condition of Labor in Post-Soviet Russia

Siegelbaum¹

2004

Social Science History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Labor (meaning both wage workers as well as their collective representation) in Russia was a major loser in the decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Aggregate data on prices, average wage and pension levels, wage arrears, and unemployment indicate a serious decline in workers’ standard of living that is unprecedented in the post-World War II era, while strike data show an upsurge in this form of worker militancy during the mid-1990s but a decline thereafter.This article seeks to explain both why these developments occurred and what prevented workers from adequately defending their collective interests. Four explanations have been advanced by Western and Russian scholars. The first is that workers were victims of state policies pursued in line with the“Washington consensus” on how to effectuate the transition from an administrative-command to a market-based economy. The second points to workers’ attitudes and practices that were prevalent under Soviet conditions but proved inappropriate to post-Soviet life. The third, claiming that several key indices of workers’ standard of living are misleading, denies that labor has been a loser. The fourth and most compelling of the explanations is derived from ethnographically based research. It argues that despite changes in the forms of property and politics, power relations at the enterprise level remained intact, leaving workers and their unions dependent on the ability of management to bargain with suppliers of subsidies and credits. The article concludes with some observations about workers’ survival strategies and the extent to which collective dependence on economic and political strongmen has worked against structural change in favor of labor.

show abstract

“…An important aspect of this strategy was to transfer state enterprise ownership into private hands. The headlong drive toward privatization was so rapid that by 1996, it was estimated that approximately 77.2 percent of large and medium size firms were acquired by private owners, and this figure corresponded to 88.3 percent of Russia's industrial output (Debardeleben, 1999).…”

Section: A Faltering Step Toward Privatizationmentioning

confidence: 99%