Tula, Tula, Russian Federation
Tula, Tula, Russian Federation
This paper attempts to quantify the impact of bureaucracy on economic growth in contemporary Russia. Data series on the number of civil servants (municipal) in state and local government bodies, including legislators, and the share of managerial personnel in the national economy were used. Correlations between these data series and a number of eco-nomic growth indicators were assessed. It was established that bureaucracy in state and municipal government bodies has a negative impact on economic growth in contemporary Russia. Even as the number of this category of employees decreases, an increasing negative impact on economic growth is observed. At the same time, their salaries are rising. This phenomenon can be explained by bureaucratic rent. The potential for increasing bureaucratic rent is ensured by the constant increase in the number of adopted regulatory legal acts, expanding the scope of control. Digitalization creates additional opportunities for obtaining bureaucratic rent. The bureaucracy of the hierarchical management structure of enterprises and organizations has a negative impact on economic growth. Moreover, as the number of this category of personnel declines, their wage levels rise, in part due to bureaucratic rent.
managers, government and administrative bodies, economic growth, bureaucratic rent
1. Pritchett L. Understanding Patterns of Economic Growth // The World Bank Economic Review, 2000. Vol. 14. № 2, pp. 221–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/14.2.221; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/IWQEUT
2. Graeber D. The utopia of rules: on technology, stupidity, and secret joys of bureaucracy. New York, London: Melville House Publishing. 2015. 262 p.
3. Evans P., Rauch J.E. Bureaucracy and Growth: A CrossNational Analysis of the Effects of “Weberian” State Structures on Economic Growth // American Sociological Review. 1999. Vol. 64. No. 5, pp. 748–765. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/GSHMVP
4. Abramova S.R. Ekonomicheskie aspekty byurokratii v gosudarstve [Tekst] / S.R. Abramova, Z.L. Sizonenko, V.G. Gizatullina, S.V. Kozlova // Diskussiya. 2025. — Vyp. 135. — S. 28–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46320/2077-7639-2025-2-135-28-33; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/OTKMTM
5. Meier K.J. Bureaucracy and Democracy: The Case for More Bureaucracy and Less Democracy // Public Administration Review. 2003. Vol. 57. No. 3, pp. 193–199.
6. Pugachev V.P. Byurokratizm v cifrovom obschestve [Tekst] / V.P. Pugachev // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 21. Upravlenie (gosudarstvo i obschestvo). 2025. — T. 22. — № 1. — C. 20–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU2073-2643-21-2025-1-20-41; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/OFXSFE
7. Sorensen E., Torfing J. The ideational robustness of bureaucracy. Policy and Society, V. 43, Is. 2, March 2024, pp. 141–158. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae015 EDN: https://elibrary.ru/LYUBCO
8. Monteiro P., Adler P.S., Bureaucracy for the 21 st Century: Clarifying and Expanding Our View of Bureaucratic Organization. December 21, 2021. Academy of Management Annals. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4008916 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4008916
9. Gittell J., Douglass A. Relational bureaucracy: Structuring reciprocal relationships into roles. Academy of Management Review, 2012. 37 (4), pp. 709–733. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0438
10. Jugl M. Patterns of bureaucracy: Conceptualizing administrative traditions Open Access. Administration Research and Theory, Volume 35, Issue 3, July 2025, pp. 277–291. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf012 EDN: https://elibrary.ru/KBAADW
11. North D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, 1990. 224 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
12. Basovskiy L.E. Razvitie v Rossii ekonomki neravenstva [Tekst] / L.E. Basovskiy, E.N. Basovskaya // Zhurnal ekonomicheskoy teorii. — 2011. — № 4. — S. 198–202 EDN: https://elibrary.ru/OOYIZJ
