Performance Incentives and Economic Growth: Regional Officials in Russia and China

Rochlitz, Michael; Kulpina, Vera; Remington, Thomas F.; Yakovlev, Andrei

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2530876

Cited by 17 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The resulting regional competition between state-business alliances works as a corrective against corruption (May et al, 2018). By contrast, the most important promotion criterion for Russian regional officials is political loyalty in the form of election outcomes for the ruling party (Rochlitz, Kulpina, Remington, & Yakovlev, 2015). The highly centralised tax system in Russia (only a small percentage of taxes collected locally remain in the region) may be a further disincentive for Russian governors to show initiative in the economic affairs of their region, and does not prevent rent-seeking and corruption.…”

Section: The Ambiguous Role Of Patrimonialism: Market Enhancing or Mamentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualising capitalism in the twenty-first century: the BRICs and the European periphery

Vasileva-Dienes

Schmidt

2018

Contemporary Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper provides a conceptual framework of the Special Issue by theorising and analysing the evolving nature of capitalism in emerging economies and the European periphery today. The conventional conceptual tools of comparative capitalism provide a useful structure for the analysis but have not been up to the task of capturing the changing nature of capitalism in the globalised world, in particular the rise of the emerging powers as well as their current crises. Neither do the conventional tools allow one to capture the developments in the political economies of the European periphery since the Eurozone crisis and the advent of austerity policy. In order to adequately assess these developments we need to rethink the comparative capitalism framework in the global context. To do so, we propose a more dynamic conceptual approach better suited to capturing the changing nature of political economies in and beyond the OECD world. We build upon Uwe Becker's open Varieties of Capitalism framework, among other approaches. Our theoretical conceptualisation highlights five aspects: (1) the role of the state as a central force organising the market (2) patrimonialism, understood as a distinct structural mode of political-economic organisation based on clientelism, patronage and informal relations between actors (3) policies and political institutions (4) the role of ideas, and (5) pressures from globalisation and economic crises.

show abstract

Section: The Ambiguous Role Of Patrimonialism: Market Enhancing or Mamentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualising capitalism in the twenty-first century: the BRICs and the European periphery

Vasileva-Dienes

Schmidt

2018

Contemporary Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this way of improving institutions also requires major changes in policy. Thus, an important prerequisite here is the extra degrees of freedom for sub-federal authorities and the formation of their incentives to support the development of the economy, which obviously are insufficient at present (Rochlitz et al, 2015).…”

Section: An Outline Of the New Economic Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional constraints and economic development

Gurvich¹

2016

Russian Journal of Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is an attempt to find a grounded answer to the question of why many large-scale economic development programs worked out in Russia from 2000 through 2010 have failed to yield the expected results. To this end, the author has diagnosed the Russian economy, including a comparative analysis against 20 countries at similar levels of development and analyzed both the Russian and global experience in developing and implementing economic programs. The author concludes that the development of the Russian economy is currently hindered by a rigid institutional framework and that growth cannot accelerate without removing it as part of the political process. Based on the analysis of various types of institutional reforms, specific measures are proposed that can ensure the country's evolutional development and can mitigate the economic and social risks threatening Russia if the status quo is maintained.

show abstract

“…Following the supposed "chaos" of the 1990s, Russia's government has emphasized control. Bottom-up initiatives are viewed with skepticism, regions are rewarded on the basis of political loyalty rather than being given incentives to foster initiative, and civil society groups receive funding based on political criteria rather than creative contributions (Balzer 2008;Rochlitz et al 2015). The incentive structure encourages local officials to be predatory more often than developmental.…”

Section: The Triple Helix Model In Transition Economiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Russian policies overwhelmingly encourage short time horizons and behavior that satisfies leaders in Moscow. China's leaders certainly do not encourage policies that contradict their views, but they have been far more pragmatic in accepting deviations that produce positive economic results (Rochlitz et al 2015;Zweig 2002;Florini et al 2012;Vogel 1989;Zhou 1996). The incentive structure in China, particularly in the 1980s and early 1990s, but also more recently rewards local officials for improving the local economy, at least statistically.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Triple Helix after communism: Russia and China compared

Balzer

Askonas

2016

Triple Helix

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Russia and China both are endeavoring to transform Soviet-style R&D systems characterized by separate education, research and business spheres into something more suited to a knowledge economy supporting innovation. The Triple Helix model is an attractive configuration, derived from the practices of the most successful innovation systems, and suggesting that the three key actors-universities, business, and the state-might in some instances substitute for each other. A model placing the state at the center appeals to non-democratic regimes and countries endeavoring to catch up with OECD nations. We compare the Chinese and Russian efforts to implement a Triple Helix program by examining institutional change, epistemic communities, funding, and the role of the state, with nanotechnology as a case study. While both nations have introduced major programs and allocated significant funding, we find that China has been vastly more successful than Russia in promoting collaboration among universities, business, and government to advance research and innovation. We attribute the difference to the quality of state policies that provide incentives for agents and epistemic communities to alter their behavior, an outcome facilitated by conditions at the beginning of reforms, which made the Chinese far more open to learning.Keywords: Post-Soviet science, Triple Helix, Chinese science, Russian science, Science policy, Innovation ResumenRusia y China buscan transformar los sistemas de I&D de la era soviética. Desean ir de un sistema caracterizado por educación, investigación y empresa en esferas separadas hacia un sistema mejor integrado y más apto para la economía del conocimiento. El modelo de la Triple Hélice permite un rol más flexible para los actores de innovación-universidades, empresas, y el Estado-donde bajo ciertas circunstancias, un actor puede sustituir a otro en algunas funciones. Ese es un modelo atractivo para países que se esfuerzan por alcanzar a las naciones de la OECD, y en particular para regímenes políticos que desean un rol más central para el estado. Comparamos los esfuerzos de China y Rusia con un estudio de caso: el desarrollo de la nanotecnología. Examinamos cambios institucionales, comunidades epistémicas, financiamiento de investigación, y el papel del Estado. Mientras que ambas naciones han introducido programas de promoción para la innovación y han asignado fondos importantes para esos proyectos, China ha sido mucho más exitosa que Rusia en la promoción de la colaboración entre universidades, empresas y el gobierno. Atribuimos la diferencia a políticas de incentivos (tanto para agentes individuales como para comunidades epistémicas) que han modificado el comportamiento de los actores de innovación y han permitido a las organizaciones Chinas adaptarse y aprender mejor de su experiencia. RésuméLa Russie et la Chine se sont engagées à transformer des systèmes de recherche de type soviétique caractérisés par la séparation des sphères des affaires, de l'éducation et de la recherche en quelque chos...

show abstract

Performance Incentives and Economic Growth: Regional Officials in Russia and China

Cited by 17 publications

References 45 publications

Conceptualising capitalism in the twenty-first century: the BRICs and the European periphery

Conceptualising capitalism in the twenty-first century: the BRICs and the European periphery

Institutional constraints and economic development

The Triple Helix after communism: Russia and China compared

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About