Analysis of Political and Legal Models of Local Self-Government

This article is devoted to the theoretical analysis of political and legal models of the organization of local self-government and aims to identify the main components of the model of local self-government in Russia, as well as to identifying points of growth and development. The theoretical basis of the research was formed by the theory of free community, social and economic theory, state theory of local government, as well as the dualism theory. The existing models of local self-government: Anglo-Saxon, Continental, and German were analyzed. In addition to the analysis of local self-government concepts, examples of states applying different governance models were also considered. The analysis highlighted the key characteristics of each model, as well as some features of their application in the contemporary context. It was argued that an important element of local governance, which is recognized in each model, as well as in “mixed” models, is a high level of trust and participatory activity on the part of citizens. Having analyzed the theoretical foundations of local self-government, as well as the experience of applying different models of governance in different countries, the author came to the conclusion that the combination of principles of different concepts and models of local governance is relevant in the conditions of globalization, as well as changes in social and political institutions. Today, in young democracies, including Russia, public administrators, citizens, and public organizations face an important question in search of an optimal model of governance at the local level. Forming a sustainable and effective system of local selfgovernment supposes that the principle of individual approach to subjects and settlements can play a key role. The main importance here is the emphasis on the formation of practices of trust and civic participation. These are the key points of growth and development of the emerging model of local governance. The development of civic participation and trust contributes to the efficiency of budget spending, solidarity and responsibility of citizens and their interest in solving the problems of the local community.

local governance in Russia, mixed model of local governance, theories of local governance, trust, civic participation

1. Barabashev G. V. Local self-government. M., 1996. (In rus)

2. Bolshakov S. N., Grigoryev A. N. Transformation of the system of territorial administration in France: role and functions of local self-government // Municipality: economy and management [Munitsipalitet: ekonomika i upravlenie]. 2015. № 1 (10). P. 22–29. (In rus)

3. Velibekova L. A., Borisova L. A. Domestic and foreign experience of organization of local selfgovernment // Management of economic systems [Upravlenie ekonomicheskimi sistemami]. 2017. № 3 (97). (In rus)

4. Gorbatuk E. S. Basic theories of local self-government: analytical review // SPbSU Journal. Series 6. Political science. International relations [Vestnik SPbGU. Seriya 6. Politologiya. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya]. 2015. № 1. P. 21–27. (In rus)

5. Gradovsky A. D. Collection of works. In 9 vol. Vol. 9. SPb.: Publishing house of M. M. Stasyulevich, 1908. (In rus)

6. Dunaeva N. S. Theories of Origin of the Institute of Local Self-Government: Conceptual Thinking // Problems of Science [Problemy Nauki]. 2015. № 12 (42). P. 269–271. (In rus)

7. Dureev S. P. Conservatism in the Russian model of local self-government // Journal of Moscow University named after S. Yu Witte. Series 1: Economics and Governance [Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta imeni S. Yu. Vitte. Ser. 1: Ekonomika i upravlenie]. 2017. № 2 (21). P. 54–62. (In rus)

8. Kiyatova Z. A., Markov P. N. Organization of power in Anglo-Saxon and German models of local self-government // Colloquium-Journal. 2019. № 24 (48). P. 17–19. (In rus)

9. Larichev A. A. Specifics of the corporate model of local self-government and divergence of modern approaches to local self-government in the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations // Law enforcement [Pravoprimenenie]. 2018. № 4. P. 86–97. (In rus)

10. Maliy A. F., Nikitenko I. G. System of local self-government: search for the optimal model // Scientific writings of Kazan University. Sreies Humanities [Uchen. zap. Kazan. un-ta. Ser. Gumanit. Nauki]. 2016. № 2. P. 617–624. (In rus)

11. Matveev V. F. Theories of Self-Government in Modern Science // Journal of Law [Vestnik prava]. 1905. № 1. P. 165–183. (In rus)

12. Perekhodov V. A. Foreign models of interaction between state and local self-government bodies: comparative analysis // Journal of PAPA [Vestnik PAGS]. 2012. № 32. P. 22–23. (In rus)

13. Priymak A. A. Models of formation of local self-government bodies and their influence on the status of the head of the municipality // Scientific journal [Nauchnyi zhurnal]. 2020. № 1 (46). P. 56–58. (In rus)

14. Tharkaho M. M., Markov P. N., Yeshev M. A. To the question of the peculiarities of the British model of local self-government (governance) // Colloquium-Journal. 2019. № 15 (39). P. 24–26. (In rus)

15. Khozikova E. S. Modern Approaches to Local Government and Self-Government in Foreign Countries // Law and Legislation [Zakon i pravo]. 2018. № 9. P. 48–52. (In rus)

16. Chirkin V. E. Modern Models of Local Self-Government // Russian Legal Journal [Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal]. 1995. № 3. (In rus)

17. Chicherin B. N. Course of State Science. In 3 parts: M., 1894–1899. Part 1. 492 p. (In rus)

18. Shamakhov V. A., Balashov A. I. New social and political normality and lessons of modernization of the post-Soviet management system // Administrative consulting [Upravlencheskoe konsul’tirovanie]. 2016. № 12(96). P. 6–15. (In rus)

19. Shtein L. The Teaching of Governance and the Law of Governance with a Comparison of Literature and Legislation of France, England and Germany. SPb.: A. S. Gieroglypov, 1874. 594 p. (In rus)

20. Shtober R. Practical requirements and dangers of local self-government in Germany // Local self-government: theory and practice. M., 1997. (In rus)

21. Shutov A. Yu. Zemsky elections in the history of Russia (1864–1917): Research of electoral systems. M., 1997. (In rus)

22. Akudugu, J. Accountability in local government revenue management: Who does what. In Information and Knowledge Management .Vol. 2. No. 8. 2012. P. 22–32.

23. Ardigó I. A. et al. Local government accountability mechanisms. Transparency International, 2019.

24. Barnett S., Townend J. Plurality, policy and the local. Journalism Practice, 2015. No. 9 (3). P. 332–349.

25. Ferry L., Eckersley P., Zakaria Z. Accountability and transparency in English local government: moving from «matching parts» to «awkward couple»? Financial Accountability & Management, 2015. No. 31 (3). Р. 345-361.

26. Fitzgerald J., Wolak J. The Roots of Trust in Local Government in Western Europe. International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale De Science Politique. Vol. 37. 2016. No. 1. P. 130–146.

27. Grant B., Drew J. Local government in Australia: History, theory and public policy. Springer, 2017.

28. Magnusson W. Local Self-Government and the Right to the City. Montreal-Kingston: McGillQueen’s Press, 2015.

29. Naumkina S. The basic European models of the local government system and their creative implementations in modern Ukraine // PolitBook. 2015. No. 2. P. 149–157.

30. Pandeya G. P. Does citizen participation in local government decision-making contribute to strengthening local planning and accountability systems? An empirical assessment of stakeholders’ perceptions in Nepal. International Public Management Review. 2015. No. 16 (1). Р. 67–98.

31. Porumbescu G. Using transparency to enhance responsiveness and trust in local government: can it work? State and Local Government Review. 2015. N 47 (3). P. 205–213.

32. Shipman M. Research and Local Government. Research Intelligence. 1976. Vol. 2. N 2. P. 14–15.