Printer Friendly

Local self-government performance evaluation in Primorsky territory of Russia.


The analysis of local self-government performance in urban and municipal districts in Primorsky territory was conducted under Edict 607 of the President of the Russian Federation 28 April 2008 "On Evaluation of the Performance of Local Self-Government Bodies in urban and municipal districts." (based on Edict 1384 of the President of the Russian Federation 14 October 2012) and Decree 1317 of the Government of the Russian Federation 17 December 2012 "On measures aimed at fulfillment of Edict 607 of the President of the Russian Federation "On Evaluation of the Performance of Local Self-Government Bodies in urban and municipal districts" and Subclause I of Clause 2 of Edict 601 of the President of the Russian Federation, 7 May 2012 "On the main directions of state government improvement" [1].

In line with the 2012 local urban and municipal self-government performance evaluation analysis, 58 main indicators, including 11 ones reflecting actual performance results [2].

Parts of a common problem which were not settled previously:

Local self-government bodies show high performance in the following spheres: small and medium business, improving investment attractiveness, agriculture, secondary and supplementary education, and culture. Based on the overall performance results, performance ratings have been developed for urban and municipal districts [3].

The following districts have achieved maximum local self-government performance levels: Arsenyev urban district (1), Artyom urban district (2); municipal districts: Pogranitchny (1), Terney (2), Khankaiski (3).

The highest public satisfaction levels have been observed in the following urban/municipal districts (2012): GO ZATO Fokino (1), Ussuri (2)/ Terney (1), Khankai (2), Yakovlevka (3).

Problem definition:

Fulfillment of regional and municipal regulations and programs makes up the backbone of the state and local policy contributing to economic development of Primorsky territory. In line with the program, special steps aimed at reforming local economy, education, housing and utilities, urban development, energy- and resource saving and municipal service provision, are being taken. The planned 2013-2015 benchmarks reflect a complex programmic approach targeting the ever-changing problem area in various spheres, which play decisive roles in the life of municipal districts, outlining programs and socioeconomic development projects [4].

Summary of essentials:

In Primorsky territory, local self-government performance levels are estimated by the Department of Economy, which is to calculate municipal districts' ratings. The department uses 152 benchmarks spread over 10 directions [5]:

* economic development;

* income levels, health care;

* pre-school and supplementary education;

* secondary education;

* sport;

* housing and utilities;

* availability and quality of residential space;

* culture;

* Organization of municipal management

This performance benchmark list is based on the federal one. However, in line with the power administered as stated in the Elict, a few benchmarks were added to reflect the quality of local citizens' life, such as provision of public amenities and landscaping, lighting of streets and passageways, and dump elimination [8 c. 2].

Performance evaluation has been under way for two years since 2008. The procedure lies in checking 2 best-performing cities and 3 municipal districts and publishing the results in the Consolidated Local Urban and Municipal Self-Government Performance Report.

In 2009, the following districts achieved maximum performance levels: Vladivostok urban district (0,63), ZATO Bolshoi Kamen urban district (0,61); the following municipal districts showed maximum performance: Kavalerovsky (0,66), Tchernigovsky (0,61) and Spassky (0,58) [6].

Primorsky territory officials say that the research has demonstrated the government's ability to meet its liability effectively and how population's life had changed compared to the previous period.

Data obtained in research will be included in municipal development programs [7].

The key vector in estimating municipal governments' role in the economy of the area and, consequently, the rest of the Russian Federation, is defining the region's economic performance.

Here is the performance benchmark list for Primorsky territory [8]:

* Total length of local all-purpose hard-surface roads repaired, which have been subject to: 1) heavy resurfacing; 2) maintenance work.

* Total length of local all-purpose hard-surface roads handed over to non-municipal and/or state contractors on the basis of long-term contracts (over 3 years).

* Share of local all-purpose hard-surface roads within total length of local all-purpose roads.

* Share of population residing in communities not having regular bus or railway connection with the administrative capital of an urban district (municipal district), per total population of the urban district (municipal district).

* Number of small business entities.

* Share of average number of workers (excluding external pert-timers) of small enterprises per average number of workers (excluding external part-timers) of all companies and organizations.

* Land plot area.

* Share of tax-liable land per total urban district area (municipal district).

* Average length of the period between the date when the plot is decided to be granted, or the auction report to be signed, and the construction release date.

* Land space comprised of plots not receiving commissioning certificate from the date when the plot is granted or from the date when the auction report is signed: 1) number of residential objects, including private housing objects, over a 3-year period; 2) other capital construction projects--over a 5-year period.

* Proportion of profit-making agricultural companies per total number (for municipal districts).

* Proportion of agricultural land in use per total acreage within the municipal district.

However, this government performance evaluation method has two major flaws:

The majority of measures are absolute.

Municipal and urban districts differ significantly according to a variety of criteria, such as land space, population size, human and natural resources.

The absolute measures used for evaluation fail to reflect individual characteristics of each and every subject. This makes it difficult to adequately assess economic growth in the region, because changes taking place in one region may bear a different significance for another one.

As it was mentioned above, performance is reflected through result/expense ratio. However, this method disregards expenses; therefore, they can be referred to in evaluating government performance in meeting planned indicators set during previous years. In practice, indicators may grow due to extensive influence (providing the government handles funds in a more rational and effective way) and due to intensive influence (increased budget expenses). Lack of correlation between the indicators and the funds spent to achieve them, impedes adequate assessment and results in distorted local self-government performance indicators.

The following subjects showed the best economic developme t indicators:

- Arsenyev urban district showed positive investment dynamics (increased by a factor of 2.1 over three years) and steady salary growth at companies and social institutions;

- Vladivostok urban district showed growth thanks to high percentage of small business, high investment, high salary levels at companies, kindergardens, cultural and sport establishments;

- Terneysky municipal district showed the highest small business enterprise concentration among municipal areas in 2010-2012 (by a factor of 1,4)

Partizansky urban district showed low performance due to a serious slowdown in investment (sustaining a 43,4% and 51,3% loss respectively over the three year period), high share of all purpose roads not meeting quality standards: 41,2% in Partizansk town and 100% in Partizansky municipal district (2012).

In Primorsky territory, municipal districts are witnessing a boom in small and medium business and positive general dynamics. Governmental support provided in line with regional and municipal programs appears to have been the key factor [9].

In 2012, small and medium business sector showed a 4,2% increase in turnover (in current prices) totaling 453,1 billion rubles (44% of the general regional turnover).

In 2012, there were 86,000 small businesses in the region, including 55,000 individual entrepreneurs and 30,600 small businesses (including microbusinesses). There were 225 medium businesses in total. The total number of small and medium businesses grew by 1,4% compared to the previous year.

As of the end of 2012, in six urban districts of the region, the small and medium business count per 10,000 people exceeded the average value (405,7 units). Vladivostor urban district showed the highest small and medium business count (632 units), and ZATO Bolshoi Kamen urban district showed the lowest count (228,6 units).

Half of the municipal districts (11) showed a higher than average small and medium business count per 10,000 people--285,3 units with Kavalerovsky district demonstrating the maximum count (471,2 units). Spassky district showed the minimum of 178,5 units.

In 2012, the number of employed at small and medium enterprises grew by 3,9% compared to 2011, totaling 166,300 employees.

In six urban districts, the average share of small and medium business workers (excluding external parttimers) per general number of workers (excluding external part-timers) exceeded the average 32,1% urban district volume. The maximum indicators were observed in Nakhodkinsky UD (41,3%) and Artyomovsky UD (37,3%). The minimum volume was observed in Dalnegorsky UD (19,0%).

Indicators exceeding the average indicator for MD (37,7%) were observed in ten districts. The highest share of small and medium business employees was observed in Spassky MD (8,2%); the maximum share was observed in Terneysky MD (5,4%)

As of the end of the 2010-2012 span, 25 municipal units, including 7 urban districts and 18 municipal districts, showed annual increase of employment rate.

In implementation of the regional long-term 'Primorsky territory Small and Medium Business Development Special Program' for 2011-2013, a 638,9 million ruble sum was granted to small and average companies. The grant was made up of 132,0 million from the regional budget and 506,9 million rubles from the federal budget. Municipal business development programs received a 297,9 million ruble co-financing, including 223,0 million ruble granted to company towns. Thirty municipal units, including 2 settlements, received regional and federal grants. The total of 19351 small and medium enterprises received public support in 18 directions, including 10200 subjects in 2012.

To boost credit resources for business, the regional administration is implementing a stand surety mechanism for small and medium business in cooperation with the Primorsky territory Warranty Fund. As of 01 January 2013, the Fund had granted surety to 396 companies. The total amount of credits granted to small companies, for which the Fund stood surety, exceeded 1,9 billion rubles [10].

Primorsky territory is the first region in the Far Eastern Federal District to introduce and exercise the Commissioner for Entrepreneurs' Right Protection, whose priorities include the provision of favorable business environment and warranting protection of entrepreneurs' rights and lawful interests and monitoring the compliance with these principles by state and local self-government officials.

The Primorsky territory administration has passed the Primorsky territory Patent Taxation Act, which exempts entrepreneurs from income tax and individual property tax.

The Small and Medium Business Council of Primorsky territory participates in taking business support decisions. The council was established with the goal of strengthening ties between Primorsky territory state authorities, small and medium enterprises and organizations integrated in the regional small and medium business support infrastructure. A new business-government cooperation ground has been launched--the General Small and Medium Business Expert Community. Meetings will be organized to discuss administrative barriers that impede business activity, assess the regulatory power of legislative acts in the context of business and discuss competition opportunities [11].

All urban and municipal districts (with the exception of Yakivlevka District) showed an increase in fixed investment in 2012 compared to 2011. The highest investment rate per person was observed in UD ZATO Bolshoi Kamen (124,000 rub) and Tchuguyevski MD (83,800 rub). The highest average increase in 2010-2013 was observed in Vladivostok UD (by a factor of 2,2) due to construction of major transportation, utility and social objects in preparation for APEC Summit and as part of the Development of Vladivostok City APEC Cooperation Center subprogram, the Economic and Social Development of the Far East and Zabaikalye until 2013 federal program, as well as launching automobile production at SOLLERS Dalny Vostok Ltd., OOO MAZDA SOLLERS Manufacturing Rus Ltd., SOLLERS BUSSAN Ltd., and the launch of Terneyles Ltd., a major woodworking enterprise, in Terney MD.

Throughout 2010-2012, annual average growth was observed in the share of taxed land per total amount of land in urban district (municipal district), in all municipal district and 10 urban districts out of 12.

The highest taxed land share indicators per total amount of urban (municipal) land in 2012 were observed in Spassk Dalni urban district (84,8%), Arsenyev urban district (77%), as well as Olginsky (87%) and Khorol (86,8%) municipal districts. These high indicators are the result of intensive economic involvement of lands, perpetual land use opportunities for citizens and legal entities and intensive privatization of lands by citizens and legal entities [12].

In 2012, there were 219 active agricultural enterprises in Primorsky territory, exercising different forms of ownership, including 29 small and medium ones. The small business sector was represented by 957 individual farm-holding entrepreneurs and 183,280 private household plots. The number of agricultural workers totaled 60,000 individuals, including 7,703 farm enterprise employees.

In 2012, the share of agricultural production in gross regional product reached 4%. Within the sector, plant cultivation totaled 65,7%; animal breeding totaled 34,3%.

As of the end of 2012, in 9 municipal units out of 23 urban and municipal districts, all enterprises were profitable, except Lesozavodskoi urban area, Michailovka and Partizansk municipal districts with the share of profitable companies not exceeding 50%. A significant annual increase in the number of profitable organizations was observed in Nadezhinski (126%) and Kavalerovo (114%) districts.

Transport availability issues in municipal units occur due to poor quality of roads. Currently, a large proportion of local all-purpose roads have a high degree of deterioration [13].

As of now, all municipal units of Primorsky territory have completed the inventory of automobile roads and road construction elements with a countup of total road length (8,914 km).

In line of 2012 road improvement and traffic safety programs, municipal governments subsidized repair of 74,32 km (636 517 sqm) of local and community roads. Road expenses totaled 541,1 million rub, including 364,9 million rub from the regional budget and 176,2 million from municipal budgets.

This resulted in all roads in 2 UD and 13 MD meeting all standards. 6 UDs and 6 MDs showed lower numbers of roads failing to meet technical standards.

In 2012, the proportion of people leaving in areas lacking bus and railway connection with administrative centers averaged 1,99%, lowering by 0,06% as compared to 2011. There are no such communities in urban areas. The island areas located in Vladivistok and Nakhodka districts, regular naval connection was established.

Communities not connected with administrative centers are located in remote municipal districts in the north of the region (Krasnoarmeyski, Olginsky, Terney MDs).

In 2012, average salary at major urban enterprises amounted to 27334,2 rub and 23781,8rub in municipal districts.

In 2012, six urban areas showed a small and medium business salary size exceeding the regional average with the highest indicators observed in Vladivostok (35889,4 rub) and Nakhodka (32920,6 rub) UDs. The minimum salary size was observed in Dalnegorsky UD (20792,9 rub)

In MDs, the highest salaries were observed at small and medium enterprises in Shkotovski (30468,1) and Pozharski (30010,9) MDs; other 10 MDs showed higher than average salary levels [14].

The smallest average salary size was observed in Kirovski MD (17626,6 rub).

The government is planning a salary increase in 2015 in Vladivostok UD (up to 48239,2 rub) and Dalnegorsk UD (up to 28310,0 rub), Shkotovski MD (up to 42806,6 rub), Kirovski MD (up to 24041 rub).

On the whole, the planned salary indicators were developed in following Edict 59 of the President of the Russian Federation, 07 May 2012 "On measures aimed at implementing state social policy" and in keeping with current economic growth rate indicators (App. 1, App 2) stated by the Administration of Primorsky territory in Order 349-ra, 03 December 2012 "On measures aimed at increasing salaries in organizations located in the territory of Primorsky territory".

In 2012, the average monthly nominal salary of municipal preschool education employees was 13, 003 rub, 43k.

In 5 UDs the monthly nominal salary of preschool education employees exceeded this amount. These districts include Vladivostok (16 844,1 rub), ZATO Bolshoi Kamen (14 296,7 rub), Ussuri 14 037,6 rub), Nakhodka (13 508,1 rub), Arsenyev (13 298,0 rub). The other 7 UDs showed lower than average salary levels. The minimal salary indicator was observed in Lesozavodskoi UD (10 978,4 rub).

In 2012, the average salary indicator in MD amounted to 11 585r, 52k. Ten MDs showed indicators exceeding the average level; the highest indicators were observed in Khankai, Spassk, Nadezhdinski, Tchernigovo and Yakovlevka MD. In 12 MDs, salary levels are lower than average; Dalneretchensky MD showed the lowest salary indicator (9 121r, 40k).

Nearly all MDs showed steady salary growth in preschool establishments throughout 2009-2012. Maximum growth rate (48,9% in UDs and 55,4% in MDs) was observed in 2012, due to the fulfillment of Edict 597 of the President of the Russian Federation, 07 May 2012 "On measures aimed at implementing the state social policy" concerning salary increases for people employed at pre-school educational establishments.

In 2012, the government increased the salary subsidies by 0,4 billion rub. According to municipal predictions, this indicator is expected to increase on the average by 49,2% in urban areas and by 45,2% in municipal districts.

In 2012, the average nominal salary of municipal school employees reached 21 954r, 36k in UDs. This figure exceeded the averal level in 7 UDs; the highest indicator was observed in Dalneretchensk (24 371r ,1k) andUssuri (22 963r, 10k) UDs. In 3 UDs the indicator dropped below average; the lowest indicator was observed in Lesozavodsk UD (19 202r 20k). The average salary level for MDs is 19 775r, 51k. In 13 MDs, salary levels exceeding 19 775 rub, 51k were observed in Yakovlevka MD (23 703 rub, 20k), Partizansk MD (22 829 rub), Anutchino MD (22 295 rub, 40k), Nadezhdinski MD (21 325 rub, 20k).

In 2012, the average nominal monthly salary of municipal school teachers in UDs reached 26 189r 33k. Five UDs showed higher than average salary sizes: Dalnegorsky UD (28 080r, 60k), Dalneretchensky UD (27 926r, 70k), ZATO Fokino (27 570 rub), Ussuri UD (27 484 rub), Vladivostok UD (26 359 rub). Lesozavodsk UD showed the lowest salary indicator (23 953 rub, 30k). In MDs, the average salary level reached 26 161r 40k in 2012. Higher than average salary levels were observed in 13 MDs, the highest indicator observed in Partizansk MD (28507 rub, 40k), and the lowest--in Kirovski MD (23 160 rub 90k). In 2012, the average nominal monthly salary of municipal school teachers grew by 54,1% in UDs and by 55,3% in MDs. For that purpose, the regoional budget granted 1,5 billion rub.

Conclusions and recommendations for further research in this area:

Average nominal monthly salary of municipal culture and arts employees is demonstrating positive dynamics. As of the end of 2012, the average annual salary level reached 10 586r 60k, thus exceeding the 2011 level by 19,86%. The highest 2012 salary indicator was observed in Vladivostok UD (16 272 rub 20k) and in Partizansk MD (13 867 rub 20k). The lowest salary level was observed in UD Spassk Dalni and Dalneretchensk MD (7 920 rub 20k).

The average nominal monthly salary of municipal sports establishments is below average throughout Primorski Krai. In 2012, the highest indicator was observed in Vladivostok UD (26189 rub) and the lowest ones --in Partizansk UD (6518 rub, 30k) and Pogranitchny UD (12319 rub 4k).


Article history:

Received 23 January 2014

Received in revised form 19 April 2014

Accepted 6 April 2014

Available online 15 May 2014


[1] INFRA-M, M., 1993. Constitution of the Russian Federation.

[2] Basic Local Self-Government, 2003. Organization Principles Act 131.

[3] European Charter of Local Self-Government, 1990. Russian Version. Strasburg. ISBN 92-871-0804-8.

[4] Regulation of Emanzhelinsk Municipal District, Russian Federation, 2009. Ural Federal District (revised edition, 6 December 2005, 9 July 2008 and 10 July 2009).

[5] Antonova, N.A., Local Self-Government Bodies: Regulatory and Legislative Acts, P. 121)

[6] Glazunov, N.I., 2006. State (administrative) management. Textbook for high school (p. 320). M.: Prospect.

[7] Zotov, V.B., 2008. Municipal Management System. Textbook for high school: Ed. 3, revised. Peter, p: 512.

[8] Mozhayeva, N.G., 2006. Municipal management: textbook for high school (p. 254). A. A. Skamnitsky, N. G. Mozhayeva. Gardariki Tuitorship and Publishing Center.

[9] Metelev, S., 2013. Applying the Cluster Approach to the System of Preparing Human Resources for Activity in a Region's Innovation Economy, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 18(1): 80-84.

[10] Tchirkin, B.E., 2003. State and municipal management: textbook for high school (p. 320), M. Yurist.

[11] Shirokov, A.N., 2000. The Basics of Self-Government in the RF: textbook for high school (p. 304). A. N. Shirokov. M.: Municipal government.

[12] Gritchuk, A.G., 2007. Back to the Municipal Management Issue. 304 (p. 31).

[13] Danilenko, N.I., 2009. Municipal Development Budget of a Municipal Area. Municipal Management Practice (2nd. ed., pp: 99-109)

[14] Kovalyov, V.A., 2005. Russian Municipal Reform: Eternal Deadlock?(3rd ed.), Politechs.

Vitsenets Tatyana Nikolayevna

Far Eastern Federal University Vladivostok City

Corresponding Author: Vitsenets Tatyana Nikolayevna, Far Eastern Federal University Vladivostok City E-mail:
COPYRIGHT 2014 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Nikolayevna, Vitsenets Tatyana
Publication:Advances in Environmental Biology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:4EXRU
Date:Apr 1, 2014
Previous Article:Heavy metal content in the snow cover in the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Next Article:Regression prediction algorithm of suffusion processes development during geoelectric monitoring.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters