Региональный дирижизм" и сельская самоорганизация в Татарстане

Библиография

1. Барсукова С.Ю. (2004). Реципрокные взаимодействия: сущность, функции, специфика // Социологические исследования. № 9. С. 20-29.

2. Габдрахманова Г.Ф. (2016). Об особенностях этнической идентичности татар // Историческая этнология. Том 1. № 1. С. 27-38.

3. Маркварт Э.Э. (2016). Российское местное самоуправление перед главными вызовами современности // Росс. эконом. журнал. № 6. С. 3-17.

4. Моляренко О.А. (2016). Теневое государственное и муниципальное управление // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. № 3. С. 120-133.

5. Стародубровская И., Миронова Н. (2010). Проблемы сельского развития в условиях муниципальной реформы в России / Научные труды. М.: Ин-т экономической политики им. Е.Т. Гайдара. -- 116 с.

6. Сумская Т.В. (2016). Местное самоупр.: эволюция бюджетной политики / Ред. С.А. Суспицын. Новосибирск: Изд-во ИЭОПП СО РАН. -- 212 с.

7. Фадеева О.П. (2003). Сельский труд: симбиоз формального и неформального // Россия, которую мы обретаем: Исследования Новосибирской экономико-социологической школы / Отв. ред. Т.И. Заславская, З.И. Калугина; ИЭОПП СО РАН. Новосибирск: Наука. Сиб. отд-е. Гл. 12. С. 222-252.

8. Фадеева О.П. (2016). Реалии сельского самоуправления: реформы и их последствия // Регион: экономика и социология. № 4. С. 267-289.

9. Фадеева О.П., Нефёдкин В.И. (2018). Вертикали и горизонтали сельского Татарстана // ЭКО. № 1. С. 101-118.

10. Хакимов Р.С. (2016). Татарская идентичность: состояние и перспективы // Историческая этнология. Том 1. № 2. С. 242-252.

Abstract

"Regional dirigisme” and rural self-organization in Tatarstan

Olga Fadeeva, PhD (Sociology), Senior Researcher, Institute of Economics and Organization of Industrial Production, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Novosibirsk

Vladimir Nefedkin, PhD (Economics), Senior Researcher, Institute of Economics and Organization of Industrial Production, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Novosibirsk

The article considers a wide range of issues of functioning and development of rural settlements under the permanent reduction of powers and financial independence of local self-government.

Based on the data of the sociological expedition to five municipal districts of the Republic of Tatarstan, the authors show that regional and municipal authorities aim at developing self-organization of local population, which allows to partially offset negative consequences of unitary trends and to expand the possibilities of rural development.

The article identifies reasons for the relative failure of regional authorities attempts to create large vertically integrated agricultural holdings in Tatarstan, and features of the large enterprises (former state farms and collective farms) participation in supporting livelihoods and development of rural settlements.

Such participation consists of a set of reciprocal, patron-client and market interactions, the ratio between which depends on the specific local historical and ethnocultural context.

The authors conclude that even in adverse external conditions the system of rural self-government is capable of initiating self-organization of local communities and of performing functions of a development institution.

Thus, the diversity of economic and social practices determined by ethnocultural and religious peculiarities contributes to the accumulation of symbolic, social and cultural capital of rural communities and to its conversion to economic capital, and activates rural-urban exchanges that compensate for the limited resources of rural development.

Key words: Tatarstan, rural settlement, local practice, self-organization, selfgovernment, dirigisme.

References

1. Barsukova S.Yu. (2004) Retsiproknye vzaimodeystviya: sushchnost, funktsii, spetsifika [Reciprocal interactions: essence, functions, specificity]. Sotsiologicheskiye issledo- vaniya no 9, pp. 20-29.

2. Gabdrakhmanova G.F. (2016) Ob osobennostyah etnicheskoy identichnosti tatar [On the

3. features of the ethnic identity of the Tatars]. Istoricheskaya etnologiya, vol. 1, no 1, pp. 27-38.

4. Markvart E.E. (2016) Rossiyskoe mestnoe samoupravleniye pered glavnymi vyzovami sovre- mennosti [Russian local government in the face of key challenges of our time]. Rossiyskiy ekonomicheskiy zhurnal, no 6, pp. 3-17.

5. Molyarenko O.A. (2016) Tenevoye gosudarstvennoye i munitsipalnoye upravleniye [Shadow state and municipal administration]. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: eko- nomicheskiye i sotsialnyye peremeny, no 3, pp. 120-133.

6. Starodubrovskaya I., Mironova N. (2010) Problemy selskogo razvitiya v usloviyah munitsipalnoy reformy v Rossii [Challenges of rural development under the municipal reform in Russia]. Nauchnyye trudy, Moscow: In-t ekonomicheskoy politiki im. E.T. Gaydara.

7. Sumskaya T.V. (2016) Mestnoye samoupravleniye: evolyutsiya byudzhetnoy politiki [Local Government: Evolution of Budget Policy]. Red. S.A. Suspitsyn, Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IEOPP SO RAN.

8. Fadeeva O.P (2003) Selskiy trud: simbioz formalnogo i neformalnogo [Rural labor: a symbiosis of formal and informal]. Rossiya, kotoruyu my obretayem: Issledovaniya Novosi- birskoy ekonomiko-sotsiologicheskoy shkoly. Otv. red. T.I. Zaslavskaya, Z.I. Kalugina, Novosibirsk: Nauka, chapter 12, pp. 222-252.

9. Fadeeva O.P (2016) Realii selskogo samoupravleniya: reformy i ih posledstviya [Realities of rural self-government: reforms and their consequences]. Region: ekonomika isotsi- ologiya, no 4, pp. 267-289.

10. Fadeeva O.P, Nefedkin V.I. (2018) Vertikali i gorizontali selskogo Tatarstana [Verticals and horizontals of rural Tatarstan]. EKO, no 1, pp. 101-118.

11. Khakimov R.S. (2016) Tatarskaya identichnost: sostoyaniye i perspektivy [The Tatar identity: state and prospects]. Istoricheskaya etnologiya, vol. 1, no 2, pp. 242-252.

Размещено на Allbest.ru