In many ways, the emergence and maintenance of bad governance is similar to the rise of the political monopoly of autocratic rulers and their cronies, which is a by-product of the drive for power maximization of would-be dominant political actors given existing constraints or lack thereof.40 The pattern of creation of bad governance is similar to that of authoritarian regime-building:41 the drive for maximization of rents contributes to consistent building of those bad institutions (corruption, poor regulations, and the unrule of law), which may be considered effects of bad governance similar to the figures in Lorenzetti’s fresco. They maintain a socially inefficient equilibrium in order to serve the vested interests of actors with strong bargaining power.42 As a result, the ineffectiveness of government under these conditions becomes an unavoidable consequence of bad governance, although its scope and effects may vary in different sectors of economy and policy areas and during different periods of time. However, ineffectiveness of government is tolerated by rent-seeking actors and by societies at large as long as it does not produce major immediate challenges to the politico-economic order itself. Thus, bad governance is a functional, purpose-built, and even acceptable mechanism for many (if not most) political and economic actors, at least as a short-term solution
The implications of such a framing of bad governance for further analysis are straightforward: it is perceived as a primarily agency-driven rather than structure-induced phenomenon. Although certain structural conditions such as material, institutional, and organizational legacies of the past, the capacity and autonomy of the state, and international linkages of certain countries affect quality of governance across the globe, and there is no reason to consider bad governance in given countries (including Russia) to be inevitable. Indeed, bad governance is created by people who have strong temptations to exploit their power for private purposes: if they do not face major constraints, they may impose this mechanism on society. The issue, however, is that some of these self-interested, rent-seeking actors who aim to build bad governance can achieve their goals (often for a long period of time), while others fail to do so due to a variety of reasons.
FIGURE 9. The Genesis and Effects of Bad Governance
In essence, bad governance is a stable yet inefficient equilibrium: it can rarely be shaken, and re-equilibration is possible even after major exogenous shocks. As will be explored later in this book, post-Communist Russia, with its uneven political and economic dynamics, may serve as a prime example of this kind of low-level equilibrium. The stability of bad governance becomes self-reinforcing over time, while the apparatus of the state can only improve the quality of governance to a limited degree: its ability to pursue structural reforms aimed at improving effectiveness of government is severely constrained. The durable nature of bad governance in Russia and beyond demands reassessment and more in-depth analysis.
Bad Governance: Why?
The existing scholarship on good and bad governance is rather diverse and pays attention to different causal mechanisms, which in turn, are based upon the impact of political, economic, societal, and cultural factors. The influential institutionalist approach, which predominates in political economy literature, focuses on the decisive influence of overarching institutional settings, such as the prevalence of “extractive” versus “inclusive” institutions43 or of “limited access” versus “open access” orders44 in patterns of governance. These orders and/or institutions, which emerged historically in various contexts, may persist for decades or even centuries, determine patterns of political competition and accountability (or lack thereof), and provide major conditions for good and bad governance in the long run. Another influential macrolevel societal approach tends to emphasize the major impact of social capital,45 social embeddedness and personal networks,46 which in turn, affects the position of interpersonal and institutional trust47 as essential components of the quality of governance. At the same time, the dark side of social capital (such as clientelism, patronalism, “amoral familism,” and the like)48 provides fertile grounds for long-term persistence of bad governance, therefore making it increasingly difficult to combat over time. Several influential studies, both contemporary and historical,49 discuss the validity of these arguments, thus encouraging scholars of Russian governance to follow these frameworks as major guidelines.
Overall, there is a dismal consensus among specialists: the common assertion of durable bad governance has become the default vantage point for almost all writings about Russia and other post-Soviet countries.50 However, the popular explanations of such a persistence in the literature vary considerably. Some authors tend to be excessively shallow in their approach. They emphasize the pernicious role of Putin and his entourage, portray the entire process of politico-economic changes as a Manichean struggle between reformers (“good guys,” the crusaders of good governance) and rent-seekers (“bad guys,” the defenders of bad governance)51 and blame the latter group of actors for building a “kleptocracy” and “crony capitalism”52 if not “mafia states.”53 While the factual grounds for such a criticism are often correct, explanations of this kind are often insufficient, as in the political realm most “guys” are neither good nor bad by default. The same political actors may endorse policy reforms aimed at improvement of quality of governance or adopt measures that may have devastating effects on governance. In fact, Vladimir Putin contributed to advancements of some policy reforms in the early 2000s (discussed in the chapter 4), but he also paved the way for many practices of bad governance.
The alternative is focusing on excessively deep explanations, as many experts attribute roots of bad governance in Russia to secondary effects of negative legacies of bad informality,54 which tend to reproduce “single power pyramids” 55 in Russia and post-Soviet Eurasia over centuries. Some critically minded observers of Russia have deterministically argued that there is an inescapable path-dependency56 and deeply embedded patrimonial rule in Russia57 that cannot be overcome at all, or at least not in the foreseeable future. Such a perception cannot be used to explain why Russia, both historically and in the present, has been able to build and maintain decent quality of governance at least in some policy fields prioritized by political leaders, sometimes pursue successful policy reforms, and demonstrate certain “success stories” of state-driven projects and programs (discussed in the chapter 6). If any given country is doomed to be governed badly forever, then how can we explain these advancements: Why do good apples still grow on such a bad tree?
In this book, I address the issue of causes and mechanisms of bad governance in Russia and beyond from a different scholarly optics, which is not especially country-specific and context-bounded, but based on a more general rationale of state-building, political regime dynamics, and policy-making. I argue that although these days, bad governance is almost universally perceived as an anomaly, at least in developed countries, in fact human history is largely a history of ineffective and corrupt governments, while the rule of law and decent state regulatory quality are relatively recent matters of modern history when they emerged as side effects of state-building.58 Indeed, the picture is quite the opposite: bad governance is the norm, while good governance is an exception. This paradox is not only a side effect of the worst features of human nature (although the personal qualities of many rulers, both contemporary and historical, are imperfect, to put it mildly). The problem is that most rulers, especially if their time horizons are short and the external constraints on their behavior are not especially binding, tend to govern their domains in a predatory way because of the prevalence of short-term over long-term incentives.59 While the examples of careless rulers who governed their respective states quite badly are numerous,60 we may wonder why some countries have established and developed good governance despite these incentives.