ИСТИНА

In the course of the neoliberal governmental rationality there is a shift from formally state-driven regulatory competences towards those driven by the community (Rose, 1996; Blokland et al., 2015; Kemp, Lebuhn, & Rattner, 2015). Community participation, i.e. local population’s voluntary participation in political and social affairs, is now viewed as an important component of an efficient urban development (Friesecke, 2011; Petrova, 2011; Zhu, 2015). However, this participation may be hindered by the passiveness of the local community and by the lack of support from municipal authorities. Numerous studies have acknowledged the changes of urban governance after the transition from state socialism to neoliberal capitalism in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (e.g. Stanilov, 2007; Kinossian, 2012; Hiob & Hess, 2014; Liepa-Zemesa & Hess, 2016). The new governance regimes in the post-socialist countries have open up the political arena for various forms of community participation in urban development, both formal and informal. However, it is still not clear to what extent does the post-socialist community gets involved in these practices (Liepa-Zemesa & Hess, 2016). The present study focuses on the types and extent of community participation in urban development of a post-socialist city. The empirical findings are based on a surveys targeting the population of two randomly selected small cities of Central Russia – Kasimov (Ryazan region) and Kirov (Kaluga region). The research was held in small cities, since they are the predominant type of urban settlements in Russia. The objective of the study is two-fold. First, it makes an attempt to explore types, intensity, and individual determinants of community participation in urban development of a post-socialist/post-soviet country. Second, it aims to examine the obstacles to community participation specific to contemporary Russia. The present research allows to add up on the knowledge of urban development and the formation of a civic society in the post-socialist and especially post-soviet context, which is still underrepresented in the international academic literature (Short, 2014). The formal types of community participation in Russia are determined by the Federal law on local governance. Adopted in 2003 it secured the principles of voluntariness and legality of community participation in local (urban or rural) development. Among others listed in the law the types of community participation include local referendum, community appeals to local government, community legislative initiatives. Each type of the above interactions between the community and local authorities has a different degree of influence on administrative and political decisions. Informal types of participation are not legally regulated; thus, may vary according to the specific context. Who participates, how responsibilities are distributed, and which rules apply is determined by the contributors themselves (Friesecke, 2011). To answer the set research questions a survey was carried out. The general population included adults (18 and over years old) living in respected cities for over 10 years. The data for the research was collected on the basis of proportional quota sampling in three age groups (18-26 years; 27-60 years; over 60 years old), controlling for the sex of the respondents. 257 people were surveyed in Kasimov and 283 in Kirov. The questionnaire included a section on the personal and socio-economic characteristics of the respondents (sex, age, marital status, education, occupation) as well as specific questions regarding the participation in urban development. All in all, it consisted of 20 questions. In addition, interviews were conducted with representatives of local authorities, which allowed to compare the views of the stakeholders and the community. Exploratory data analysis was used to summarize the data, while ANOVA was used to understand the variations in community participation of different population groups. The obtained data are quite similar in both cities. Argued by Gudkov (2009) a post-soviet individual is “guided” by the authorities, showing little interest in engaging and controlling the decision making process. Fifty to sixty percent of respondents believe that they are not able to effect the decisions about urban development carried out by the local authorities; while over 70% believe that they should be able to. Nevertheless, only about a third of the surveyed are familiar with the strategic documents, that define the future development of the city. About 20% regularly track the current work of the local authorities, and only 7% are actually involved in decision making process. About a half of respondents take part in social and cultural life of the city. Only informal small scale types of community participation are more or less spread in the cities under study. Such as landscaping and seasonal garbage collection. Evidence suggests that employed and educated individuals are more likely to take part in urban development and cooperate with the authorities. Other social characteristics of the individuals are not statistically significant. The main reasons for the weak participation in the urban development are “lack of time due to personal issues”, “uselessness, due to the fact that individuals have no influence on urban development”, “lack of interest in the matter”. The last two reasons are actually strongly connected with the politics of the local authorities. They are either not able to explain the importance of community participation in urban development to the public, or are not interested in such participation. As a result, there is a mismatch between the communities’ and the authorities’ opinion on the future development of the cities. Despite the fact that majority of the surveyed sample believe that the community should be actively involved in shaping the urban development agenda, the individual willingness to participate is quite low. The local authorities seem to be little interested in active community participation; while the public remains quite passive.