ISSN 0798 1015

Vol. 39 (Number 24) Year 2018 • Page 30

Local Government and Communities in the Structure of Urban Community in Russia (based on the sociological research)

Gobierno local y comunidades en la estructura de la comunidad urbana rusa (basado en la investigación sociológica)

Konstantin A. ANTIPYEV 1; Eugeniia A. LAZUKOVA 2; Gennady V. RAZINSKY 3; Victor P. MOKHOV 4; Michael G. NECHAEV 5

Received: 01/03/2018 • Approved: 25/03/2018

Content

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Methods of research

4. Results

5. Discussion and conclusions

References

1. Introduction

Russia needs to reform the system of local self-government aimed at activating the role of citizens and local communities in solving urgent problems of regional development, satisfying the diverse needs of local residents. The existing model of local self-government is built into the “vertical power structure”, i.e. quite rigidly regulated by the regional public authorities.

Therewith, municipal structures have complex social and economic processes that change the situation in local communities. Reducing the number of people in municipal structures leads to their enlargement, and a decrease in the incomes of municipal structures puts them in financial dependence on subsidies from regional and federal authorities. Such picture is typical for many reforming post-Soviet countries (Wollmann, 2010; Swianiewicz, 2010; Rysavy & Bernard, 2013).  Therewith, the local community has a passive role of the civil organizations potential, citizens, small and medium-sized businesses is constrained by a large number of restrictions. Federal authorities constantly publicly declare the need to increase the openness of local self-government, increase civic activity of local communities, strengthen public control over decisions of the authorities, however, the actual processes at the local level need more in-depth research in order to understand where resources can be found to enhance the interaction of local authorities and local communities.

Of particular interest is the way local communities and local government see the solution of local problems, how far their opinions differ and converge, and subsequently the efforts undertaken. The actions of local authorities are more visible to local communities, as they relate to the everyday life in which these communities live (Gubina & Misbakhova, 2011). In the ideal design of “local communities - local governments”, local residents themselves form local authorities, direct its activities, in turn local government listens to the opinion of citizens, stimulates the civic engagement of communities (Sharp, 1970). However, because of, first and foremost, substantial financial and political dependence on regional authorities, local self-government bodies cannot pursue a policy based on the opinion of citizens.

When analyzing the interaction of local authorities and the population, it should be kept in mind that the local communities are heterogeneous. Urban communities are complex; the interests of their constituent parts are articulated by different interest groups, which create a complex field of political and social interactions. Due to these circumstances, between the city authorities and the local community there is a layer of socially active citizens united in political parties, civic organizations, voluntary associations, etc., which lead a complex struggle for dominant influence on city authorities.

 In rural settlements the communities are more homogeneous, there are fewer intermediate elements between them and the authorities, therefore local communities have more opportunities to directly influence the authorities. Despite the differences between urban and rural local communities, it should be noted that there are common interests between any local community and local authorities, interaction fields, within which they can unite efforts to solve common problems.

This study is aimed at identifying the socio-demographic, value-based, behavioral characteristics of municipal employees and members of the local community that affect the relationships between these groups.

The goal of the research is to identify the peculiarities of the local community and government as subjects of local self-government that determine their interaction. The goal setting is carried out in conditions of negative assessment by the citizens of many decisions made by the local authorities.

2. Background

Local self-government is most often seen as an important institution of civil society, as well as an important element of decentralization and deconcentration of authorities (Callaghy, 1984; Golenkova, 1999; Henderson, 2002). In the functioning of local self-government, first of all, local communities are interested, since they do not want to lose the opportunity to influence how the local authorities solve their important problems. However, it is often possible to observe the passivity of local communities in relation to authorities (Grad & Kaučič, 2015). This happens in several cases. Firstly, when a “social contract” is concluded between the authorities and local communities, under which the authorities pursues a paternalistic policy that meets the social interests of certain social strata, for example, state employees, socially unprotected groups of the population (Ross, 2007). Secondly, when local authorities are firmly embedded in the system of state administration and lose even the appearance of autonomy from the state (Golosov et al., 2016; Young & Wilson, 2007). In this case, the passivity of the population becomes an expression of the state domination in the sphere of local self-government. Thirdly, when, as a result of intra-elite combinations, the urban political regime forms (Engelstad, 2009), disinterested in developed civic participation.

Fourth, passive local communities arise with a rapid change in the social composition of communities, when communities cease to be such and become conglomerates of social groups devoid of any internal social ties that would make them communities. And, finally, fifthly, local communities, deprived of vivid social leaders who could articulate the interests of residents on behalf of citizens, are doomed to passivity.

 The passivity of local communities inevitably leads to conflict with local authorities, the growth of mutual discontent and alienation (Evans, 2014). This fits perfectly into the idea of atomizing social relations in a postmodern society and the idea of destroying the neighborhood community, which was replaced by weaker social ties (Bauman, 1992).

At the same time, if society is increasingly viewed as an abstraction, communities are tied to the neighbor or immediate environment of the person, the social environment of his environment (Sorensen et al., 2004). This tradition goes back to the work “Community and Society,” in which F. Tonnies identifies two types of social associations that make up the conceptual couple: society (Gesellschaft) and community (Gemeinschaft). In his opinion, community, unlike society, covers all forms of social relations. Relations in the community are characterized by a high degree of personal intimacy, emotional depth, responsibility, social cohesion, length in time. Anonymous and impersonal relations, on the contrary, are characteristic of “society”. F. Tonnies notes that “... in general they remain fundamentally united even in spite of all the dividing factors, whereas in society they are divided against all unifying factors” (Tonnies, 1957). The concept of Tonnies was later criticized, but still highly popular (Brint, 2001). In modern conditions, we are no longer talking about the homogeneity of communities, but about their differences, about the identification of the individual (stronger or weaker) with a particular community. The modern communications, where the territorial communities are replaced by virtual ones, have a significant impact on the community (Calhoun, 1998; Crang, 2000; Driskell & Lyon, 2002).

Local communities in sociology are viewed as a kind of social organization (Bernard, 1973), as a social capital (Putnam, 2000; Portes, 1998; Rose, 2000). Local communities are one of the social organization types of residents that are formed in a certain local area or part of it. In a developed form, this kind of self-organization of citizens is one of their participation varieties in governance as their community, and a broader social object, for example, a city, being a subject of the administrative process at its higher self-governing stage. The community interacts not only on its territory, but also in so-called “third places” - public spaces (Oldenburg, 1991; Plas & Lewis, 1996). At the same time, all theorists note that the local community can be constructed, given new characteristics to it, it can be activated (Briggs, 2003). This is significant for the post-Soviet space, where the activity of citizens at the local level was for a long time directed by the authorities themselves, they also determined the main agenda. After all, in most researches conducted in Russian municipal structures by various research structures, it is noted that citizens are involved in solving local problems, to the local authorities themselves in a consumer and non-initiative way. The reasons for this are seen in the social experience formed under the paternalistic policy of the state (Geller, 1994).

3. Methods of research

In the paper we use the data of two sociological surveys conducted in 2017 in the framework of the research project dedicated to the research of the relationship between the authorities and citizens in Perm, a large industrial city of Russia. The population of the city is just over one million people. The city itself is a typical city of the country with an industrial base. Perm is an urban district with its local self-government bodies, which is territorially divided into seven districts. They create territorial bodies of the city administration in order to provide management of the inner urban territories. Relations between local communities and local government are relatively even, although local conflicts arise due to differences in positions of power and residents. The research aimed to find out the relationship of local authorities and local communities, to identify points of solidarity and points of difference. The research was of a complex nature; therefore, both municipal administration employees and representatives of local communities became respondents. Municipal employees were questioned on the questionnaire “Local authorities and citizens: opponents or partners”. In all seven district administrations of Perm, 354 municipal employees were questioned. Return of questionnaires made 97.5%. Questionnaire surveying of employees is always a major challenge, as they are in their workplace, are bound by the relations of power with their management, which made the written anonymous survey more attractive than a personal interview (Hester & Francis, 1994). The survey touched upon the issues of interaction with local communities, municipal employees’ assessments of urban problems and other issues. The survey was conducted taking into account the number of administrations, emphasis was placed on municipal employees directly interacting with residents. In parallel, a survey was carried out by city residents based on the questionnaire “Citizens and local authorities: opponents or partners “(N = 640). The research covered residents of different parts of the city with different socio-demographic characteristics. Return of questionnaires made 95.7%. The leading factors were sex, age, type of activity, level of income, education, level of paternalism and citizens’ social activity. The research was subject to general rules and the strategy for conducting a questionnaire survey (Yadov, 2003; Tacq, 2011). The application of the quantitative method became optimal, since the data aggregates are large enough, differing in many respects (Brannen, 2005). In addition, the short-period slice of the empirical data was necessary when the respondents could not be influenced by certain factors: a change in the political and economic situation. This research may well become a panel study, being implemented after a certain period of time on the data aggregates with similar parameters. The study was also complicated by the design of the sample, which would include the most typical representatives of the local community.

In the course of the research, the opinions of the citizens were revealed with regard to the assessment of the local government, the problems of interaction, the vision of the prospects for interaction between local communities and the authorities. Comparing the opinions of municipal employees (who are at the same time representatives of the local community and professional managers) and ordinary citizens, one can draw conclusions about the similarities and differences in understanding the problems of the community and about the particularities of their interactions. By asking a number of similar questions in the study of interacting social objects, the interpretation of the data obtained can be improved (Savage & Burrows, 2007). As a result, based on the answers, a matrix of value-behavior characteristics of citizens and municipal employees was formed. The research was guided by the assumption that any hypotheses and theoretical models should be confirmed by the empirical data, only then it will be possible to identify stable dependencies (Skvoretz, 2016).

4. Results

The research of the relationship (in their interaction or conflict) of urban society in general as a city's population or of certain social groups that form it, with their agglomeration into certain communities, on the one hand, and municipal structures of local self-government, on the other, requires a comparison of their basic social characteristics. This is contingent upon the fact that, in our opinion, local communities and local government should not be viewed in different planes (Antipyev, 2013).

The fact is that they act on one social field, are subject to the impact of similar economic, sociocultural, sociogenetic particularities, values, needs. At the same time, the belonging of some - municipal employees - to managers, and others - of citizens who represent these or other socio-professional or other groups of society, including local communities - to managed ones, cannot but introduce some dissociation in their relations. To what extent they diverge, what unites them - these are the issues we will try to answer in this article.

Both publicist and scientific literature emphasize the “particularity” of the management stratum. Some, such as Ya. Shchepansky (1969), call such a target group bureaucracy, which is distinguished by a rationalized and depersonalized system of government and management, others, for example M. Djilas (1961), on the example of the socialist type societies, elevate them to a special new class, and, for instance, M. Voslensky (1991) designates managers as the ruling class. For a long time, the theory of the managers’ revolution of James Burnham was popular, according to which a new ruling class of organizers appears in society. Whereas, according to Ya. Shchepansky, this is simply one of the specialized technocratic strata, M. Djilas and M. Voslensky emphasized the essentially different and radically opposing structure of other society groups, which has economic and political levers of government.

The role of municipal employees is somewhat different from that of public employees. On the one hand, they are part of the public authorities’ apparatus, whose functionality is typologically similar to the functional of public employees. On the other hand, municipal employees by their nature are part of the local community, participating in the same social relations that are characteristic of the whole community.

In the course of the research, based on the obtained empirical data of two surveys, we compiled a matrix in which the tendencies of similarity and differences between citizens as members of local communities and municipal employees as representatives of municipal authorities are recorded.

It is interesting that the citizens appreciate their earnings more highly, at the same time almost two-thirds of municipal employees rate themselves as low-paid specialists (Table 1).

Table 1
Assessment of the wages amount (in % of the number of respondents)

Municipal employees consider themselves to be poorer in population, and, indeed, the average salary of respondents-officials was 20,663 rubles, and that of the respondents from among citizens made 27,004 RUB. At the same time, the population is confident that the earnings of local officials are high.

The high similarity of municipal employees and the population was demonstrated in the fact that the living well-being and the others are connected with their own efforts, the efforts of the leaders. To a lesser degree, they feel dependent on political leaders at different levels (Table 2).

Table 2
Dependence assessment of the well-being on different subjects (in % of the number of respondents)

The research showed that in a number of parameters (biosocial and sociocultural characteristics, value attitude to the market, sociogenesis and susceptibility to paternalistic syndrome, low law-abiding level, partial participation or total rejection of the city, similarity in extreme approaches to social differentiation), both groups demonstrate a certain similarity positions and social qualities. Moreover, for a number of positions, municipal employees are more prone to a negative evaluation of social processes in the country and the local community than the citizens. The generally accepted assumption that belonging to public or municipal employees, provide less criticality, has not been confirmed. Thus, for the main measures of the material situation, behavioral adaptation to market relations, the need for social support and assistance, the readiness for migration beyond the region, the level of satisfaction with their profession and position and the assessment of prospects for advancement, municipal employees are more critical than residents of the city (Table 3).

Table 3
Satisfaction with professional activity (in % of the number of respondents)

This is the general comparison picture of two urban social communities, which, in the context of relationships, functionally oppose each other as managed and managed. The research results show that employees of the lowest public authorities’ level (municipal employees) are typologically close to the civil community they manage. This can be explained, first of all, by the fact that they have a similar social origin, undergo social adaptation in the same environment, live and conduct their livelihoods within the urban community. In this regard, it is not correct to oppose the layer of municipal managers to the urban community as two opposing social groups that differ in principle in their values and ways of life.

Obviously, the responded municipal employees are one of those groups that are themselves subject to administrative influence. Of the entire array of respondents (354 people) less than a third (29.9%) represent leaders in local self-government bodies, while almost 70% represent ordinary performers. Ultimately, this leads to the fact that executing executives, experiencing the same problems as the citizens, lose their managerial “particularity”, losing their status of “contra” in relation to their potential customers - ordinary citizens.

Nevertheless, on the interaction way of citizens in general and local communities, in particular, with self-government bodies there are several barriers.

First, it is hindered by the barriers posed by the sociogenetically determined paternalism syndrome, which hinders the social activity of all those who are exposed to it (Razinsky, 2016).

Secondly, the equation of citizens' positions and municipal structures of the district does not exclude the dominant influence of higher authorities, starting with the city level and ending with the state level, which represent “contra” in relation to civil society.

The revealed similarity of some positions (for example, the dependence assessment of well-being) of the groups in question does not exclude the contradictory attitude to municipal employees, characteristic of Russian society. On the one hand, municipal employees as representatives of authorities' structures are a constant object of criticism from the local communities (Kordonsky, 2009; Ryvkina, 2000). On the other hand, part of the population has a desire to join a group of municipal employees. This is confirmed by a high competition among university entrants for the specialty “state and municipal management” (Simonyan, 2012). Prestigious position of municipal employees makes this socio-professional group involved in authorities, as well as guarantees of earnings and stability of the workplace of municipal employees.

Municipal employees and the public can differently assess the effectiveness of the local self-government system, based on their status position. But, at the same time, it is possible to identify similar opinions as to the reasons for the decrease in efficiency (Table 4).

Table 4
The reasons for the decrease in the effectiveness of local
self-government (in % of the number of respondents)

Corruption of local authorities is more noticeable to the population and the low level of material and technical base and financing is more allocated by municipal employees. At the same time, almost equal number of respondents singled out passivity and insufficient awareness of the population.

If from the side of the urban society there is both a feeling of dislike and dislike of municipal employees, then the latter have different attitudes towards the problems of the local community. The “isolation” of authorities from the needs and concerns of the population is a social problem that determines the relationship between municipal employees and the local community. This detachment from some officials is present. Among the Perm municipal employees, whose work implies communication with the population, about 15% are indifferent to the life of their city (Lazukova, 2014). In the course of the research, we found out what qualities local authorities associate with citizens and with what kind of municipal employees themselves. The following distributions were obtained (Table 5).

Table 5
The quality of local government in the estimates of residents and
municipal employees themselves (in % of the number of respondents)

It can be seen from the table that, despite a more positive assessment of the local government qualities by local officials, many positions have more similarities than differences. It can be connected that the municipal employee can evaluate himself and his work positively, but in general, the system evaluates critically. Citizens, however, are dominated by negative characteristics of local government

On what does this attitude depend? From many factors. For example, the length of residence in the city as a factor of the phenomenon researched shows a low interest in the problems of urban society among “newcomers”, those who relatively recently (no more than 5 years ago) came to live in the city. Most likely, this is contingent upon the weak identification of such officials themselves as a member of this or that local community.

This interest is also influenced by the location of the district administration, in which officials serve. In areas considered remote from the business center of the city, there are more respondents who are not interested in the life of the city. The “closure” of municipal employees in remote areas of the city on the personal concerns and concerns of their closest associates can be explained by the fact that women (up to 70-80% of the personnel of the municipal service, especially in the municipal service, junior and senior groups of posts), for which the issues of survival at the expense of conscientious service come out first without any serious discussion of urban problems. The lack of a decent replenishment of municipal employees in the most popular stratum leads to the domination of people who focus on the formal performance of their duties.

Municipal employees are more interested in the events of urban life. At the same time, the interest of local residents is lower (Table 6).

Table 6
Interest in local events

Municipal employees with a low level of education (full secondary) also show less interest in the problems of the urban society, which is explained by the low level of awareness and low social status in the municipal service system.

Dependence on income level and age is important. First, the higher the incomes, the greater the proportion of officials interested in Permian life. Apparently, low-income groups of municipal employees concentrate on personal problems (or problems of the nearest social space) as the most important at the moment, missing the life of a metropolis, a millionaire city. Secondly, interest in the problems of urban society increases with the age of municipal employees. Most likely, it can be interpreted as a shift in attention from personal life (already established by this time) to the concerns of society, and also because with age, municipal employees, especially men, attain higher positions, acquire the necessary experience and professionalism.

From the marital status of interest to the citizens' problems does not depend: among those who have, and among, those who do not have a family, about the same percentage of officials claim that there is no such interest (12 and 16% respectively). Dependence on social origin also does not exist (in all groups of municipal employees with different backgrounds, those who are interested in the problems of the municipality dominate); although against the background of the others, officials who come from the employees' families are notable: interest in the issues of city life among them has an overwhelming majority (95%).

Thus, it can be said that among municipal employees there are several groups of officials differently related to the problems of the city. A small group of municipal employees, for the most part high-ranking officials, is well-informed about urban problems, actively participates in the management of urban issues as part of his official activities. This group is the closest to the urban and regional elite, its representatives constantly communicate with various interest groups, with urban and regional deputies, representatives of big business, and politicians. For them, “by post”, it is peculiar to solve urban problems and participate in interaction with the population.

A relatively broad group of officials is aware of the urban problems, participates to some extent in their resolution, but their participation is limited to strictly performing functions. For them, interaction with the public is more a necessary ritual than an instrument of political interaction.

Finally, we found a fairly large group of officials, who for the most part occupy the lowest positions in the municipal official hierarchy, for whom the service is a means of subsistence, and participation in solving urban problems is no more than an official duty. They do not show any genuine interest in urban life, their worldview does not go beyond the narrow-minded ideas of urban life.

5. Discussion and conclusions

Modern Russian local governments exist in conditions of low citizens’ trust. The citizens characterize the authorities negatively, see only own benefit of the local government representatives in their actions that are not aimed at solving local problems. Discussion of this problem takes a big place not only among scholars, but also among politicians and public figures. Increased separation of local authorities from the society leads to negative consequences: increased outflow of population, low voter turnout for local elections, low participation of citizens in the activities of public organizations. It can also lead to protest actions when the interests of the authorities and local communities come into conflict. On the one hand, formally, within the legislation framework, the opportunities of the population for influencing the power are expanding. Public hearings have come into sight, the network of public chambers is growing under the bodies of authorities, the terms of processing citizens’ appeals are being shortened. On the other hand, citizens have low interest in local events, focusing on personal and family problems.

In the conditions of a large city, it is also necessary to take into account the strong differentiation of local communities. The large city is divided into districts, micro-districts, which have a different situation with the development of infrastructure, and accordingly, the assessments of the local authorities’ activities also diverge. This concerns the municipal employees, who work in these districts, they are generally more critical. Here one cannot speak of ethnic segregation, but rather of economic segregation. Residents of remote areas feel more isolated from common urban problems, more focused on the problems of their small local territory. Therefore, the issues of identification with the community, relations with the authorities, interactions with it seem significant for the study.

The research resulted in the identification of similarities and differences between the assessments of municipal employees and ordinary citizens who may prevent them from establishing interaction to solve problems at the local level. The research revealed that despite the skeptical assessment of the local authorities’ activities by the citizens, the municipal employees themselves feel their belonging to the local community; they do not oppose themselves to ordinary citizens.

The research showed that the initial assumptions about the great distance between local communities and municipal employees in assessing life in the city, the solutions to urban problems and the assessment of prospects were not confirmed. Municipal officials at the large city level feel their belonging to the urban society, not opposing themselves to the citizens. Moreover, the criticality of municipal employees on certain aspects of local life is even higher than for ordinary citizens. At the same time, citizens are largely unaware of their belonging to a particular community. The latency of these or those groups of local community is determined by their formalization level, institutionalization of the status, the degree of their subjectivity or a-subjectivity. Direct dependence was revealed: the more respondents are aware of their belonging to a particular group of the local community that has its own institutionalization, the more they acquire the status of real groups of the local community that are aimed at interacting with management structures. However, even the latency of most groups of the local community does not exclude them from the urban society as an object of influence (in our case, interaction with municipal structures): each of these groups has its own targeting, which makes it possible to find certain ways and methods of their integration into the active social life of the city. Based on the identified similarities, it is possible to predict the possible development of relations between communities and authorities, to identify possible points of cooperation. This creates opportunities for both activation and minimization of contacts between managers and citizens, and impedes building healthy relations between the authorities and the population. Some officials lack the interest in the life of the city, determined to a greater extent by their (low) level of education and (short) length of service in the bodies of municipal authority. It is problematic that both citizens and managers, being exposed to the paternalism syndrome, are not focused on activating their own social activities.

Therefore, a radical solution to the problem of activating self-governing principles, including at the urban society level, is possible only with a change in the overall management paradigm and the transition from a vertical management system to the management of a parallel, networked, cooperative, autonomous, democratically equal structures. Therefore, the building of cooperation between the local community and the local government has prerequisites that must be used taking into account the factors of municipal employees interest in the city life. Thus, the target goal of the study was achieved, the similarities and differences in the assessments of citizens and municipal employees were identified; it is possible to build cooperative relationships based on the revealed patterns, which is necessary for the development of local government and the solution of urban problems.

References

Antipyev K.A. (2013). Local Communities as a Basis of Local Self-Government.Perm:Publishing house of the State National Research Polytechnic University of Perm.

Bauman Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge.

Bernard J. (1973). The Sociology of Community. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Brannen J. (2005). Mixing Methods: The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches into the Research Process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), 173-184.

Briggs X. de S. (2003). Community building. In K. Christensen & D. Levinson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Community: from the Village to the Virtual World, 1, 246-250. ThousandOaks: Sage Publications.

Brint S. (2001). Gemeinschaft Revisited: a Critique and Reconstruction of the Community Concept. Sociological Theory, 19(1), 1-23.

Calhoun C. (1998). Community without Propinquity Revisited: Communications Technology and the Transformation of the Urban Public Sphere. Sociological Inquiry, 68(3), 373-397.

Callaghy T.M. (1984). The State-Society Struggle: Zaire in Comparative Perspective. New York: Columbia University Press.

Crang M. (2000). Public Space, Urban Space and Electronic Space: Would the Real City Please Stand Up?. Urban Studies, 27(2), 301-317.

Djilas M.  (1961). New Class. New York: Publishing House Frederick A. Preger.

Driskell B.R., & Lyon L. (2002). Are Virtual Communities True Communities? Examining the Environments and Elements of Community. City and Community, 1(4), 373-390.

Engelstad F. (2009). Democratic Elitism – Conflict and Consensus. Comparative Sociology, 8(3), 383-401.

Evans A.D. (2014). Local Democracy in a Hybrid State: Pluralism and Protest in Volzhskiy, Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs, 30(4), 298-323.

Geller M. (1994). The Machine and Cogs. The History of Soviet Man Formation. Мoscow:MIK.

Golenkova Z.T. (1999). Civil Society in Russia. Russian Social Science Review, 40(1), 4-18.

Golosov G., Gushchina K., & Kononenko P. (2016). Russia’s Local Government in the Process of Authoritarian Regime Transformation: Incentives for the Survival of Local Democracy. Local Government Studies, 42(4), 507-526.

Grad F., & Kaučič I. (2015). The Constitutional Basis of Local Democracy. Lex Localis - Journal of Local Self-Government, 13(3), 809-825.

Gubina N.V., & Misbakhova Ch.А. (2011). Public Confidence as a Sociological Indicator of the Municipal Government Quality. Bulletin of Kazan National Research Technological University, 20, 270-274.

Henderson S. (2002). Selling Civil Society: Western Aid and the Nongovernmental Organization Sector in Russia. Comparative Political Studies, 35(2), 139-167.

Hester S., & Francis D. (1994). Doing data: The local organization of a sociological interview. The British Journal of Sociology, 45, 675-695.

Kordonsky S.G. (2009). Administrative-Territorial Structure and its Resource Class Nature. World of Russia, 18(3), 37.

Lazukova E.A. (2014). Evaluation of the Public Service by Officials and the Population. Bulletin of State National Research Polytechnical University of Perm. Socio-Economic Sciences, 22, 77-84.

Oldenburg R. (1991). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts and How They Get You through the Day. New York: Paragon House.

Plas J.M., & Lewis S.E. (1996). Environmental Factors and Sense of Community in a Planned Town. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(1), 109-143.

Portes A. (1998). Social Capital: its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24.

Putnam D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. NewYork: Simon and Schuster.

Razinsky G.V. (2016). Youth in the City: Sources, Condition, Trends. Bulletin of State National Research Polytechnical University of Perm, 3, 73-88.

Rose R. (2000). Uses of Social Capital in Russia: Modern, Pre-Modern, and Anti-Modern. Post-Soviet Affairs, 16(1), 33-57.

Ross C. (2007). Municipal Reform in the Russian Federation and Putin’s “Electoral Vertical. Demokratizatsiya, 15(2), 191-208.

Rysavy D., & Bernard J. (2013). Size and Local Democracy: the Case of Czech Municipal Representatives. Local Government Studies, 39(6), 833-852.

Ryvkina R.V. (2000). Shadowing of Russian Society: Causes and Consequences. Sociological Research, 12, 3.

Savage M., & Burrows R. (2007). The coming crisis of empirical sociology. Sociology, 41, 885-899.

Sharp L. (1970). Theories and Values of Local Government. Political Studies, XVIII(2), 153-174.

Shchepansky Ya. (1969). Elementary Concepts of Sociology. Moscow: Progress.

Simonyan R.Kh. (2012). Reforms of the 1990s and the Current Social Structure of Russian Society (towards the 20th anniversary of economic reforms). Sociological Researches, 1, 41.

Skvoretz J. (2016). All for one and one for all: Theoretical models, sociological theory, and mathematical sociology. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 40, 71-79.

Sorensen T., Mastekaasa A., Kleiner R., Sandanger I., Boe N., & Klepp O.M. (2004). Local Community Mobilisation and Mental Health Promotion. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 6(4), 5-16.

Swianiewicz P. (2010). If Territorial Fragmentation is a Problem, is Amalgamation a Solution? An East European Perspective. Local Government Studies, 36(2), 183-203.

Tacq J. (2011). Causality in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Quality & Quantity, 45, 263-291.

Tonnies F. (1957). Community and Society. New York: Dover Publications.

Voslensky M.S. (1991). Nomenclature. The Ruling Class of the Soviet Union. Moscow: Soviet Russia.

Wollmann H. (2010). Territorial Local Level Reforms in the East German Regional States (Länder): Phases, Patterns, and Dynamics. Local Government Studies, 36(2), 251-270.

Yadov V.A. (2003). Strategy of Sociological Research. Description, Explanation, Understanding of Social Reality. Moscow: Dobrosvet.

Young J.F., & Wilson G. (2007). The View from Below: Local Government and Putin’s Reforms. Europe-Asia Studies, 59(7), 1071-1088.

1. Perm National Research Polytechnic University, Perm, Russia. konstant77@mail.ru

2. Perm National Research Polytechnic University, Perm, Russia. e.las@mail.ru

3. Perm National Research Polytechnic University, Perm, Russia. benyoma@mail.ru

4. Perm National Research Polytechnic University, Perm, Russia. mvpperm@gmail.com

5. Perm National Research Polytechnic University, Perm, Russia. mgn4@mail.ru