Metropolitan autonomy

Moscow authorities do not want to part with state property in the social sector

The Moscow authorities are in no hurry to part with the numerous social institutions that now belong to the city and criticize the federal center for its haste in the commercialization of the educational and cultural sphere. Yesterday, at a meeting of the capital's government, Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov said that even the most affluent region of Russia cannot “let go to the market” schools, clubs, libraries and theaters. “The time has not come for the commercialization of the social sphere until income allows us to provide for the life of a family in market conditions. When there are market wages and pensions, then we will be able to afford it,” said Mr. Luzhkov, calling the new federal law “On Autonomous Institutions” a veiled privatization of “social services.”

The head of the capital's complex of property and land relations, Vladimir Silkin, however, assured that the transformation of state institutions into autonomous organizations, provided for by the federal law coming into force in the new year, will make it possible to restore at least some order in this sector. According to him, despite their social orientation, state institutions of the social sphere today are quite profitable, since income is not obtained from the provision of services to citizens, but from the illegal sublease of non-residential premises. In this sector, according to Mr. Silkin, up to 22 million square meters are concentrated, suitable for commercial rent. At the same time, officials even found it difficult to name the exact number of state institutions controlled by the mayor’s office, most of which, as the chairman of the budget and financial commission of the Moscow City Duma Igor Antonov put it, are “generally free floating.” According to very rough data, in general the number of budgetary organizations ranges from more than three to six thousand.

According to city deputies from United Russia, in contrast to state unitary enterprises, which have a direct path to the market for higher profitability, the image of the Moscow authorities depends too much on the services of state institutions of the social sector (schools, vocational schools, cultural and sports institutions). “The social sphere is too delicate a mechanism to let it float freely,” says Lyudmila Stebenkova, Chairman of the Moscow City Duma Commission on Healthcare and Public Health. Universities, according to her, too easily agree to the status of autonomous organizations, switch to open monetary relations with students and thereby lose their social orientation. In addition, in her opinion, this form of management is unacceptable neither for city schools nor for theaters, although “spotwise” it can be applied to some budget organizations.

Representatives of the city's social sectors themselves admitted that they were not averse to parting with some of the budgetary organizations under their jurisdiction, but only as part of an experiment. In particular, the head of the city’s department of physical education and sports, Mikhail Stepanyants, said that he was ready to test a new approach to managing the social sphere, but only at those sports facilities in the city where it is impossible to achieve sports results. For example, a 25-meter pool, which does not allow a professional to swing, but is quite acceptable for teaching swimming and improving the health of city residents, according to him, will be able to gain autonomy. “The question of repurposing most of the organizations on which the city’s professional sports training is based into autonomous institutions should not be raised at all,” he believes. According to the head of the Department of Culture, Sergei Khudyakov, even despite the fact that the federal law on autonomous institutions somewhat softened the so-called theater reform, indicating the voluntary nature of such transformations and guaranteeing budgetary funding for autonomous organizations, not all theaters in the city are ready for such experiments.

There was no need to explain for a long time to the mayor the risks of a massive transition of government institutions to the form of non-profit organizations. “It’s good that the state said that there should be no autonomous institutions in healthcare, but in public education and culture this is a direct continuation of privatization processes that completely exclude their social orientation,” Yuri Luzhkov gave his assessment. Having gained independence, the mayor is convinced, these “social autonomies” will “every day and hour act exclusively in their own favor - to earn more.” In his opinion, the capital will not be able to afford this in the next ten years.

Yulia KHOMCHENKO