The Merger of Power and Management: Transition to а “Manual” Regime at the Initial Stage of Market Reforms in Russia in 1991

The study is devoted to examining the role of a “manual” control in the design and implementation of radical market reforms. A review of the scholarly literature has demonstrated the relevance and promise of investigating the special governance modes within the system of public administration. It has been shown that prevailing views of B.N. Yeltsin’s role in shaping the socio‑economic policy of the RSFSR Government during the period under study are incomplete, reducing his contribution to mere public political support for the reformist economists. The primary sources for this research include legal and administrative documents, memoirs, and contemporary media reports. An inductive method was used to summarize the research results. The RSFSR President’s influence on determining the government’s operational parameters is considered in two dimensions: organizational and facilitative. The organizational dimension involved maximizing the speed of decision‑making. Yeltsin took steps to overcome entrenched intra‑ and interdepartmental coordination practices, introduced additional reporting on current issues, and curtailed debate during government sessions. This approach reduced the drafting period for foundational reform documents to just a few weeks. The facilitative dimension involved invoking extraordinary presidential powers and advancing government bills through the RSFSR Supreme Council. Presidential decrees intended to establish the legal framework for market relations were reviewed and amended directly in government meetings and often came into force without parliamentary approval. Members of the presidential administration — and Yeltsin himself — played a leading role in lobbying for the reform’s key measures and were responsible for managing the information flow about the reforms in state media. Although the President generally granted the government’s economic team considerable autonomy, he intervened in decisions falling within his specialized remit: issues with significant foreign or domestic political implications and the military‑strategic aspects of socio‑economic policy. As a result, the reformist economists were forced to adjust their own plans, leading to distortions in the reform program. Synthesizing the findings of this study has allowed us to delineate the limits of situational adequacy for a “manual” governance mode during reform processes: namely, the presence of tight time constraints and institutional barriers. The risks inherent in this model include societal fragmentation, a narrowing of the political maneuvering space, and a proliferation of unpredictable consequences stemming from voluntaristic decisions.

1. Bach T., Hammerschmid G., Löffler L. (2018) More Delegation, More Political Control? Politicization of Senior-Level Appointments in 18 European Countries. Public Policy and Administration. Vol. 35. Is. 1. P. 3–23. DOI: 10.1177/0952076718776356

2. Baryshnikova N.A., Sukhorukova A.M. (2021) Socio-Economic Development of the Post-Soviet Countries: Three Decades after Socialism. Moskovskiy ekonomicheskiy zhurnal. No. 3. DOI: 10.24412/2413-046X-2021-10137

3. Baydakov I.M. (2022) Elaboration of the Yeltsin-Gaidar Radical Reform in the Programs of the Government of the Russian Federation. Istoricheskiy zhurnal: nauchnyye issledovaniya. No. 6. P. 209–225. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0609.2022.6.39044

4. Biryukov S.V., Ryabova E.L. (2021) The Phenomenon of Leadership in the Context of Modern Crises and Challenges. Etnosotsium i mezhnatsional’naya kul’tura. No. 1(151). P. 9–19.

5. Brainerd E. (2021) Mortality in Russia Since the Fall of the Soviet Union. Comparative Economic Studies. Vol. 63. Is. 4. P. 557–576. DOI: 10.1057/s41294-021-00169-w

6. Cameron R. (2024) The Evolution of Management Delegation in the South African Public Service. Administratio Publica. Vol. 32. Is. 3. P. 45–65. DOI: 10.61967/adminpub.2024.32.3.4

7. Elmatsani H.M., Widianingsih I., Nurasa H., Munajat M.D.E., Suwanda S. (2024) Exploring the Evolution of Leadership in Government: A Bibliometric Study from E-Government Era into the Digital Age. Cogent Social Sciences. Vol. 10. Is. 1. DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2414877

8. Gadzhiyeva R.G. (2024) Prospects for the Development of Modern Political Leadership in Public Administration. Kul’tura mira. No. 39. P. 129–136.

9. Gaidar Ye.T. (2009) Vlast’ i sobstvennost’: Smuty i instituty. Gosudarstvo i evolyutsiya [Power and property: Troubles and institutions. The State and evolution]. Saint Petersburg: Norma.

10. Glaz’yev S.Yu. (2011). Uroki ocherednoy rossiyskoy revolyutsii. Krakh liberal’noy utopii i shans na «ekonomicheskoye chudo» [Lessons from the latest Russian revolution. The collapse of the liberal utopia and a chance for an “economic miracle”]. Moscow: Izdatel’skiy dom “Ekonomicheskaya gazeta”.

11. Klein N. (2009) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Moscow Izdatel’stvo “Dobraya kniga”.

12. Kolesnikov A.V. (2022) Pyat’ pyatiletok liberal’nykh reform. Istoki rossiyskoy modernizatsii i naslediye Egora Gaydara [Five five-year plans of liberal reforms. The origins of Russian modernization and the legacy of Yegor Gaidar]. Moscow: Novoye literaturnoye obozreniye.

13. Korgunyuk Yu.G. (2007) Stanovleniye partiynoy sistemy sovremennoy Rossii [Formation of the party system of modern Russia]. Moscow: Fond INDEM.

14. Kupryashin G.L. (2024) On the Public Governance Robustness in Turbulent Times. Zhurnal Novoy ekonomicheskoy assotsiatsii. No. 4(61). P. 236–241. DOI: 10.31737/22212264_2023_4_236-241

15. Logvenkov I.S. (2024) Personnel and Structural Evolution of the Russian Government on the Eve of Radical Market Reform. KLIO. No. 11(215). P. 202–208. DOI: 10.24412/2070-9773-2024-11215-202-208

16. Modugno G., Bertoni M., De Rosa B. (2022) The Simplification of Public Administration: A Managerial Perspective. Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy. Vol. 68. Is. 1. P. 64–76. DOI: 10.2478/ngoe-2022-0006

17. Ponkin I.V. (2016). Manual Control. Gosudarstvennaya sluzhba. No. 4. P. 45–48.

18. Shlychkov V.V. (2017) And Again about “Manual Control” or Effectiveness Due to Efficiency. VEPS. No. 3. P. 52–58.

19. Siegel D. (2021) Privatization without Capitalism: The Social Relations of Property in Post-Communist Transitions. Polity. Vol. 53. Is. 1. P. 6–40. DOI: 10.1086/711646

20. Solov’yev A.I. (2021). Politika i upravleniye gosudarstvom. Ocherki teorii i metodologii [Politics and government. Essays on theory and methodology]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo “Aspekt Press”.