This paper discusses one of the instruments of deregulation — “regulatory guillotine”. The “guillotine” implementation within Russia is observed in the context of international experience and limited institutional opportunities for reforms in the modern Russian Federation. The article shows that the initial ambivalent design of the reform put Russian leadership in the beginning of 2021 in a position where they had to complete it without achieving economically significant results, or to recognize the need to pursue the reform on the long way (until 2024–2025). It is proposed to consider steps to encourage regulators and stakeholders to promote an evidence-based lawmaking and introduce the systematic training for current and future public officials.
To cut losses imposed by Western sanctions, an oligarch-connected company has used its access to the Russian state to gain control of the lucrative crabbing industry. This article lays out the details of the process for the take-over. Going forward, the question is whether Russian business as whole will seek to better defend its interests against this kind of encroachment.
The regulatory policy report is the latest in a series written in cooperation with the Higher School of Economics and expert and business communities during the work on a comprehensive strategy to modernize the public administration system in Russia. For CSR, changing the regulatory policy along with introducing modern managerial approaches to public administration, personnel policy, and large-scale digital transformation, is a priority for successful structural reforms.
The ideas and suggestions on the regulatory policy presented by CSR were of great interest to the Russian business community. CSR received dozens of conceptual proposals from experts, businessmen, and public officials from all over Russia. We worked on promising regulatory policy tools and a comprehensive strategy for two years and a major part of our deliverables can be found in Chapter 3 of this report. Many of these proposals were also included in the Development Strategy for 2018–2024 presented by CSR at the request of the Russian President.
An article looks at regulatory reform in Russia. Author outlines that the Russian economy suffers from excessive regulation. He argues that while promising plans to address this problem exist, the government lacks the political will to pursue them and has postponed this reform until the next political opening.
The article examines the international experience of using behavioral tools for increasing the effectiveness of public administration and assesses the prospects of their implementation in the Russian rulemaking practice. The first part provides a brief overview of the development of the theoretical framework of “nudge” and examines differences between the behavioral economy and the classical and neoclassical economic theory. Then, the authors describe practical cases of the application of behavioral «nudging» in various areas of regulation. The third part of the article concerns the experience of institutionalization of «nudging» at the state level in selected OECD countries and emerging countries, including a description of the specifics of the development and performance of specialized bodies (units) in leading states. The conclusion summarizes the prospects for, firstly, enriching the public administration theory with behavioral approaches, and, secondly, for institutionalization of behavioral insight unit within the Russian government.
The paper “Higher Education System in Russia: reform process and dynamics of internationalization” was prepared by the team of experts from the National Training Foundation (Moscow, Russia) as part of a larger research project “A comparative analysis: Challenges and opportunities for large higher education systems”.
The implementation of this large-scale project has allowed us to evaluate the dynamics of the national higher education system within a broader international context, as well as to compare its recent trends with other countries’ experience. The cross-cultural format of the comparative study, as well as the pressing character of the issues dealt with, have brought the topic of internationalization to the subject of a special debate and turned it into a possible direction for future joint work.
As the history of the Russian education system evolves, increasingly complex public systems and organizational structures lead to significant levels of systemic diversification. It is characterized by the presence of both strong, internationally recognized universities, and a large number of institutions that focus only on the national and even regional levels. Thus, it is logical that the approaches to the development and evaluation of the internationalization process should be differentiated as well.
The Ministry of Education and Science of Russia adopted such an approach, initiating a number of comprehensive strategic projects to form and support different elements of the higher education structure. In 2013, the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia initiated the “5-100” project in order to develop world-class universities. The goal of this strategic project is to increase the international competitiveness of leading Russian universities and have five of them included in the Top 100 of international ratings by 2020.
Thus, the leading role of the state strategic actions – such as the creation of the “5-100” project – remains persistent in the internationalization process. However, despite the fact that the development of the higher education system in Russia was historically dominated by the state, current institutional trends prove an emerging balance between state-private actors. The country’s state education policy is focused on enhancing the autonomy of state universities and on reducing the normative barriers that prevent universities from flexibly responding to the changes in the educational service market.
More autonomous higher education institutions are able to form their own ways in achieving the goal of internationalization within a given structure of incentives. This dual institutional development will continue to influence the future of the internationalization process in the higher education system of Russia.
2016 witnessed the first stage of implementing development program of pillar universities of the first wave of competition selection. The article presents a short description of the program, pillar university models and quality analysis of the results of program development implementation results in 2016 based on monitoring results. Conducted analysis allows for concluding that besides performing plans in terms of efficacy indicators and road map implementation, pillar universities in 2016 obtained real results in the field of changing their position in the region and forming proactive position in facilitating social and economic development of relevant Russian Federation regions. This allowed pillar universities for initiating processes of forming regional innovation infrastructure: opening techno-parks, business - incubators, collective use centers, etc.; initiating absolutely new formats of interaction with the region aimed at developing local communities, municipal and regional environment; intensifying the work with strategic partners in the Russian Federation. This article addresses project teams of Russian universities.
This article reviews approaches to optimize the subject area of regulatory impact assessment in Russia, selected OECD countries, the Eurasian Economic Commission and the European Commission. The authors set the task to systematize the approaches applied at various levels of regulation, identify best practices and provide recommendations to optimize the model of regulatory impact assessment in Russia.
The authors identified three types of "filters" that set the criteria for the selection of draft acts subject to assessment: (a) the "primary" filter that determines the scope of RIA, including types of regulations, and sometimes – certain policy areas subject to RIA, (b) the "secondary" filter aimed at the selection of acts according to their significance, and (c) exclusions from the RIA subject area. The selection of the optimal combination of criteria, providing the selection of acts, in regards to which it is possible and expedient to carry out RIA, largely determines the effectiveness of RIA institute.
Studying experience of the countries, leading in the field of RIA, allowed noting that despite differences in approaches, there is a number of common trends. Specifically, draft regulations should be the subject to assessment, first of all, if they have a significant impact on the stakeholders of regulation (excluding draft regulations aimed at the elimination of technical mistakes in the regulations, the adoption of organizational decisions by the authorities, informational documents, etc.), and, secondly, if the regulatory body is authorized to elaborate alternative options of solving regulatory problem (there is no specified directive on a certain decision). A common method of the selection of significant draft acts sets so-called "threshold values" of potential costs (for budget, business entities, or the economy as a whole) which may be caused by the adoption of the draft act.
In Russia, given the development of RIA procedure and clear understanding of the essence of the procedure as a cooperative communication with business and experts by government employees, formal criteria will be reduced, and the selection of draft acts for evaluation will largely depend on the discretion of the officials proceeding from the basic criteria - the degree of impact and the choice of alternatives.
This article is devoted to developmet of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) in Russia as part of the institutional reforms regarding legislative procedures.
Evaluation is an emerging field in Russia, and the authors have been intensively involved in it for over a decade. This article explores the evolution of evaluation capacity and describes the growth of evaluator competencies in Russia. It focuses on areas with extensive development: (a) the institutionalization of regulatory impact assessment in the public sector, (b) evaluation’s development in nongovernmental organizations, (c) the growth of monitoring and evaluation capacity in private foundations, and (d) the emergence of local independent evaluation consulting. Although no common definition of evaluator competencies exists in Russia, the role may be included in a professional registry currently under development.