- 36 Downloads
The focus of this book has been the dynamic relationship between business and the state with respect to the policy of privatization in the Russian oil industry. In this connection, two key questions were posed in the opening chapter. The first concerns the perennial Russian fascination with ‘kto kogo’ or ‘who does what to whom’, and specifically, whether business—state relations are more accurately characterized as ‘capture’ or exchange. The second concerns an often overlooked segment of the business community, the Soviet-era general managers of oil companies. To what extent was their role in policymaking determined by institutional incentives in the post-Soviet era, rather than by values and personal networks inherited from their nomenklatura status? This chapter will address these issues by taking into account the foregoing analyses of the initiation of oil privatization and the specific case studies of YUKOS, Slavneft’ and Rosneft’. It will then consider the utility of the rational choice institutional approach as applied to policymaking on oil privatization.
KeywordsRelational Capital Policy Entrepreneur Policy Window Institutional Incentive Opening Chapter
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.S. P. Peregudov, ‘Krupnaya rossiyskaya korporatsiya v sisteme vlasti’, Polis, no. 3 (2001), p. 18.Google Scholar
- 6.John W. Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies ( New York: Longman, 1995 ), p. 165.Google Scholar
- 10.Anders Aslund, ‘The Russian President’s Second Term Disaster’, The Weekly Standard, 17 January 2005.Google Scholar
- 13.From Robert Coalson, ‘The Assault on “Kommersant”’, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Media Matters, 25 October 2004.Google Scholar
- 14.John Kenneth Galbraith, ‘Countervailing Power’, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings of the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association 44, no. 2 (1954): 1–6.Google Scholar
- 17.See Clifford G. Gaddy, ‘Perspectives on the Potential of Russian Oil’, Eurasian Geography and Economics 45, no. 5 (2004), p. 350, footnote 6.Google Scholar