On approaches to constructing a new public administration system of developing rural territories of the Russian Federation

Introduction to the problematics

Russian rural areas have a powerful natural, economic, historical, and cultural potential, which, if used efficiently in the 21st century, may ensure sustainable multi-sectoral development [1], full employment, and a high level and quality of life of population. These areas have all opportunities for improving the health of the nation and increasing demographic indicators through a good environmental situation [2], organic farming, the formation of environmental thinking, and responsible consumption. Today, 37.3 million people1 permanently live in Russian rural areas, including 23.6% of young people, aged 15–342. According to surveys by Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM), more than 42% (61.6 million people) of Russians have real estate outside a town3, which is used for temporary residence – primarily, in the summer. Such commonness of this phenomenon is typical only for Russia, although it is popular in many countries. In European countries, dachas (country real estates) are limited to three hundred acres, and activities there are strictly regulated (for example, in Germany, 1.2% of population have dachas); in the United States, only wealthy people have real estate in a town and outside it; in Finland, country dachas are intended for recreation, Finns do not engage in gardening and horticulture.

Currently, the majority of Russian citizens are interested in developing rural areas, but socio-economic processes in rural areas have been recently characterized by a number of negative trends.

• 1.    A total number of villages and settlements decrease. According to the all-Russian population censuses of 2002 and 2010, a number of rural localities decreased by 1.4% (from 155.3⁴ to 153.1 thousand⁵). According to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation⁶, there were 153.5 thousand rural localities in Russia at the end of 2018: since 2010, there was 0.3% increase.

• 2.    A total number of rural residents decrease. Low life expectancy and migration outflow are observed, and the issue of keeping young people is particularly acute [4]. Thus, life expectancy at birth in rural areas is 71.67 years, which is 1.67 years lower than in urban areas⁷. From 2010 to 2019, a number of rural residents decreased by 0.8% (from 37.6⁸ to 37.3 million people⁹).

• 3.    In 2015–2019, there was a steady trend of shifting poverty toward rural areas [5]; the poverty threshold in rural areas is 30.7%¹⁰ amid increased unemployment. In Russia, the poverty line is at the level of the minimum wage – 12.13 thousand rubles per person. Rural poverty is poverty caused by low income, insufficient access to basic public social services, and limited life opportunities.

• 4.    Modernization of engineering, social, and transport infrastructure in rural areas proceeds slowly, while the rate of destruction is much higher. Thus, according to the Center for Economic and Political Reform, in 2005–2015, a number of medical institutions decreased by 3.3 times (from 3.6 to 1.1 thousand), a number of schools – by 35.9% (from 40.4 to 25.9 thousand)¹³. At the same time, in 2005–2015, there was a positive but insufficient dynamics in development of engineering infrastructure. Provision of housing stock increased by 14% for cold water supply, by 11% – for sanitation and hot water supply, and by 22% – for gasification¹⁴.

• 5.    A number of functioning enterprises decreases. According to the all-Russian agricultural censuses of 2006 and 2016¹⁵, a number of agricultural organizations decreased by 39.2% (from 59.2 to 36.0 thousand). At the same time, the area of farmland decreased by

31.2% (from 132.3 to 90.2 million hectares), and a number of cattle – by 17.8% (from 23.5 to 19.3 million heads). A number of private subsidiary farms has decreased by 8% over 10 years and amounted to 23.5 million units, while a number of abandoned farms increased by 1.1 million units.

• 6.    Technological, socio-cultural innovations, and advanced technologies are being very slowly introduced in rural areas, and not enough attention is paid to energy efficiency and energy saving. If you look at the statistics of 2017, agricultural production in Russia accounted for only 1.4% of all energy consumed in the country, and the household sector – for 14.3%¹⁶. In Russia, the issue of establishing a social norm of electricity consumption in the amount of 300 kW/h per family per month is sometimes discussed. In 2017, the specified norm was exceeded in rural settlements of 34 regions¹⁷. It is natural, since rural residents are traditionally forced to use electricity to improve the comfort of their homes and due to economic necessity. The household electricity tariff significantly differs for urban and rural consumers: for rural residents, the tariff is 30% lower than for urban ones. If we overview the experience of other countries, in 2010, more than 37% of American homes, including seasonal ones, used electricity as the main source for heating, nearly 44% – for hot water, 60% of homes were equipped with electric stoves (in Russia in 2017 – about 22%)¹⁸.

• 7.    The pressure on ecological systems increases due to development of large-scale animal husbandry, fires, illegal garbage dumps,

In the 1990s, widespread territorial movements from urban areas to countryside became important for some time, but it did not provide a real tangible increase of rural population. From 1989 to 2002, about 300 former urban-type settlements were returned to the rural settlement network, mainly due to small population. As the result, a total number of rural localities in Russia increased by almost 2.5 thousand. However, the increase was mainly caused by small localities: in 1989, only 20% of villages and other settlements in Russia had 10 inhabitants maximum, and, by 2002, this number doubled (39.3%) [3].

In recent years, the change of dynamics could be explained by the creation of “rural agglomerations” around the largest and biggest cities, but these are mainly formed by temporary residents (summer residents), or permanent residents working in a city. Nevertheless, the negative trends of “Russian village” depopulation continue to increase.

If we divide rural society into groups11, then the most numerous group will include rural residents who take a passive position and do not see the future. The second group is active self-employed entrepreneurs who create jobs. It is also possible to point out a separate active group – summer residents (dachniki). In fact, these citizens most clearly refute the theses about village extinction, and, although there are not a lot of them, they can have a significant impact on development of rural areas.

According to VCIOM surveys, 31% of Russians would like to buy a dacha in the future12. The most important characteristics while buying a suburban property are the distance from home (68%), the presence of a house on the site and its arrangement (70%), ready-made garden equipment (51%), and availability of utilities – electricity (85%), water supply and sanitation (81%), gas (62%).

predatory deforestation, and pollution of reservoirs and rivers. For the most part, it is caused by the loss of government control, since powers and responsibilities of local selfgovernment bodies are significantly limited.

Thus, trends and challenges that reflect ongoing changes of the object of government administration – rural territories – become more and more clear:

• 1.    Russians mostly own and purchase real estate in agglomerations around large and the largest towns, simultaneously requesting for environmental friendliness and aesthetics of a place of residence. Today, citizens are very mobile, ready to go out of a city often and combine life in a city and outside it.

• 2.    Transition to a new technological order. The transition of humanity from industrial to information society is characterized by a change of the technological basis. In the information industry, human intelligence becomes the main productive force that creates an intelligent product [6]. In this regard, the role and place of a person in the economy radically changes. Only a creative person can produce new knowledge and information – the main resource of the information economy.

• 3.    Currently, there are high operating costs for maintaining outdated engineering and social infrastructure in rural areas. This problem can only be solved by creating a new multifunctional

• 4.    Rural areas are unattractive for business, since access to the main factors of production is closed: access to natural resources and land is difficult, there are no highly qualified personnel, and the costs of creating new industries that require additional investments in production infrastructure development are high.

Unlike the industrial economy, which is national in scale, the network economy is global, which significantly expands a number of interacting parties. In the network economy, transactions are performed electronically, leading to the creation of virtual relationships. There is a digitalization of all spheres of human activity: the boundaries of accessibility and the time factor are erased. Under these conditions, it is possible to improve the quality of rural life on the basis of digital technologies and introduce intelligent automation in agriculture.

infrastructure [7] that will meet modern conditions.

These challenges and trends are also typical for rural areas abroad [8]. Research shows19 that the formation of rural areas of the future has already begun, and it is a promising field for technological innovation, maintenance of a healthy and environmentally friendly lifestyle, and development of regional markets for organic products.

The indicated trends related to the transformation of the management object require a radical change in the subject of management – the system of state administration of rural development. This task becomes more and more urgent, since creation of conditions for sustainable development of rural areas is one of the most important strategic goals of government policy, the achievement of which will ensure food security, increase the competitiveness of the Russian economy and the well-being of citizens.

Thus, the article is aimed at developing a modernized system of public administration of rural development in the Russian Federation, based on strategic planning “from the bottom-up”, project management, and intersectoral partnership.

To achieve the goal, the following objectives should be solved:

• – structure existing scientific approaches, consider modern government policy in relation to development of rural territories in Russia and abroad;

  – formulate and structure primary management problems that hinder sustainable development of rural areas in Russia;

  – develop new elements of public administration system for rural development in Russia.

At the same time, the UN targets in the field of sustainable development may be adopted as targets that a modernized administration facility should achieve20:

• 1.    Economic growth must be inclusive in order to ensure sustainable jobs and equality.

• 2.    Investment in infrastructure is essential for achieving sustainable development.

• 3.    Energy becomes a key factor contributing to the solution of modern problems.

• 4.    Food and agriculture sectors offer key solutions for development and are central for the fight against hunger and poverty.

• 5.    Work toward sustainable development is not possible without building partnerships at the global, regional, and local levels.

• 6.    Protection and restoration of ecosystems and promotion of their rational usage will help to achieve sustainable development.

Rural development in countries is managed using various principles and mechanisms (Tab. 1). Australia and the United States use the market model with minimal government intervention. At the same time, the USA, like the EU countries, restricts agricultural production through government support mechanisms. China and India are focused on overcoming poverty [8; 9].

There are different approaches to the problem of rural development at the level of theoretical development and practical policy implementation. These concepts are often applied together, superimposed on one another,

Table 1. Foreign experience of rural development

Country Brief description of measures applied EU countries There is a multi-level and interdepartmental system of management and financing of agriculture. In Germany, rural areas are developed based on the principle of preserving the traditional way of living, in the UK and Spain, rural tourism is actively supported, in the Netherlands, development has an ecological and economic orientation. European rural development policy 2014–2020 – 118 programs; budget of the European Fund for rural development – 100 billion euros, EU countries – 61 billion euros, 30% – environmental goals, 5% – support for local initiatives. USA In 2017, a task force on agriculture and rural prosperity was created; the main goals are to integrate rural territories into a single information space, to improve the quality of life, to ensure employment of rural population, to spread innovations, and economic development. The basis of rural development is the functioning of local communities. Canada Rural development on a decentralized basis – 118 programs, 15 “regional development corporations”; reliance on local initiatives and the Canadian Rural Partnership network structure (established in 1998); focus on residents of sparsely populated and remote areas – a matrix criterion for allocating funds for these indicators. China An interesting experience is the creation of village and volost enterprises, which should become the most important element of the cooperative sector in rural areas. The basis for rural development in China is the creation of rural social infrastructure and the implementation of large-scale national projects in rural areas. There are programs “Rural revitalization” (until 2022), “Agricultural modernization” (until 2035), “Rural rejuvenation” (until 2020), and “Creating a strong agricultural sector and achieving full self-realization of farmers” (until 2050). India Mahatma Gandhi’s rural employment guarantee act functions. National flagship programs are being implemented that guarantee 100 days of work for rural households. Goals: smoothing social disadvantage, environmental guidelines. Australia The model of extensive agricultural production (low level of government support for agricultural producers, focus on other activities) is implemented. Electricity generation through alternative energy sources is widespread in rural areas, which affects the nature of public relations. Brazil Development of rural areas is largely due to the extensive method of farming, combined with the usage of new technologies. Divisions of Embrapa Corporation are created in each state, which are engaged in development of industry specialization, having financial autonomy, which allows implementing public-private partnership projects. According to: Semin A.N., Strelka E.A. Analysis of relations arising in the process of strategic planning of rural development. ETAP: Economic Theory, Analysis, and Practice, 2019, no. 3. Available at: (accessed: July 8, 2020).

20 Goals of sustainable development. Available at: (accessed: May 7, 2020).

and implemented through complex interactions of institutional, political, and social forces that have their own specific goals.

Studies of Russian (N.M. Edrenkina, A.E. Kremin) and foreign (F. Mantino, J.D.

Van Der Ploeg) scientists [8; 10; 11; 12] on generalization and standardization of approaches to rural development, as well as the legal framework at different levels of public administration, were reviewed (Fig.1) .

Figure 1. Government policy and scientific approaches to rural development in Russia

Rural settlement

Applied scientific foundations of sustainable rural development
SECTORAL MODEL: rural development based on agricultural development	REDISTRIBUTIVE MODEL: rural development by reducing disparities in rural development levels based on budget funds	TERRITORIAL MODEL: rural development through the formation of relationships within local economy and concentration of available resources

Fundamental scientific basis for sustainable development of rural territories
NEOCLASSICAL APPROACH: development through the pursuit of a balance between capital accumulation and population growth using domestic resources	KEYNESIAN APPROACH: development through the growth of technical and economic indicators that do not affect the complex of socio-economic prerequisites	INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH: development through providing institutions with economic growth using investment in human capital, innovation

Source: own compilation.

Recently, at the federal level, there has been an understanding of the need to review approaches to managing rural development [13]. A number of strategic documents have been approved to address this issue:

• 1.    The strategy of sustainable development of rural territories of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030 (RF Government Decree no. 151-p, dated February 2, 2015).

• 2.    The strategy of spatial development of the Russian Federation until 2025 (RF Government Order no. 207-р, dated February 13, 2019).

• 3.    State program of the Russian Federation “Integrated development of rural territories for 2020–2025” (Decree no. 696, dated May 31, 2019).

• 4.    The state program for the development of agriculture and regulation of agricultural commodities markets in 2013–2020 (RF Government Decree no. 717, dated July 2012).

• 5.    Main directions of development of the financial market of the Russian Federation for 2019–2021.

All submitted documents are designed to reverse the situation with the degradation of Russian rural territories, but this has not yet been achieved. Analyzing the current trends and studying the positive experience of the world [8; 14], we came to the conclusion that the reason lies in the existing system of state administration of rural development, which does not meet modern challenges outlined above. Formed in an industrial administrative-planned economy, it has a number of systemic problems:

It is the awareness of the totality of these problems and its solution that makes it possible to develop a qualitatively new state policy in the field of rural development. The archaic state policy, implemented in previous years, naturally required actions that restricted rural development. These actions, in turn, provided the results that we have today. If the policy is not changed, the degradation of most rural areas will continue. The new policy will allow outlining fundamentally different actions at all levels of government that will let achieve different results. Next, we will analyze its main elements.

Ideological problems

Ideological problems are dominant, as they determine a set of future actions for changing the situation in rural areas. Outdated ideas, which prevail among managers, do not allow moving forward, and there are still no clear guidelines on key issues related to rural development. Today, a value of rural areas and the need to invest in development of its infrastructure is not obvious to most managers. The countryside is perceived as a burden, which is not capable of self-organization without strict government regulation, and its residents – as dependents who must be supported by the government. An equal sign is put between the countryside and agriculture. Rural lifestyles are considered less progressive, less attractive, and these are opposed to urban lifestyles which are more progressive, attractive, and providing more opportunities. Such beliefs significantly limit the range of studied management decisions. In this regard, in order to develop an efficient strategy for rural development, we consider it important to consolidate a number of basic theses in the public consciousness, management and scientific community:

• 1.    Rural areas of Russia have a huge potential: it may not just provide food, environmental and territorial security of the country,

• 2.    Development of rural areas is not the same as development of large-scale agricultural production. Development of rural areas involves strategic planning, local government development, development of local mixed economy, development of cooperation, introduction of modern technologies, removal of legislative restrictions, introduction of TASED²¹, and good governance. The government needs to give local stakeholders (local governments, entrepreneurs, active residents) the competence to develop their small homeland at the expense of local resources and allow them to manage these processes with full responsibility, including the right to make mistakes.

• 3.    Rural and urban lifestyles should not oppose but complement each other, making people’s lives richer, more vivid, calmer, more harmonious, and the future –more defined and protected [15; 16]. The request for such association was very accurately expressed by the Vologda poet Nikolai Rubtsov in the poem “Facets”: “... I want to live in a town and a village at once”. Own apartment and access to developed social infrastructure in a city and, at the same time, a well-maintained, energy-efficient house with a spacious plot

  that allows enjoying nature, silence, organic products, which can be reached at any time within 1–1.5 hours should become a generally accepted standard of living in Russia. Such a standard, which is not available for many reasons to people in a lot of other countries, may become a key competitive advantage of our government in the fight against demographic problems. The most surprising thing is that, in fact, a huge number of Russians already live in cities and villages at the same time, but Russian management science, public administration, and legislation do not take this circumstance into account at all²² 21 .

but also allow it to become a driver of development of the domestic economy and exports, to achieve a high level and quality of life for rural residents and urban residents, and systematically generate resources for development of own engineering and social infrastructure.

Administrative (organizational) restrictions

The current budgetary approach to rural development, which is embedded in all adopted programs and budgets, is a “up-bottom” approach. Within its framework, comprehensive development is ensured at the national level through the movement of budget funds from the federal center to rural areas in all functional social areas (education, health, etc.).

Along with its advantages, it has a number of limitations:

• a)    all key decisions are made by officials with minimal participation of residents of the territory, summer residents, and entrepreneurs;

• b)    work on the functional principle is carried out simultaneously in many ministries and departments at the federal and regional levels, it is poorly coordinated;

• c)    since there is a constant lack of funds, officials use the policy of “plugging holes”, or competitive selection of individual projects that are not related to each other, when making decisions;

  Figure 2. Strategic administration with “bottom-up” principle

  

  discussion, selection, development, and implementation of strategic projects

  Source: own compilation.

  
  

• d)    there is no personal responsibility for incorrect choice of priorities and negative changes in a particular territory at all levels;

• e)    monitoring of ongoing processes in the territorial context is minimized.

Our main idea is an offer to supplement the existing system of public administration with a strategic approach based on the “bottom-up” principle (Fig. 2).

Activities should start at the level of a specific rural settlement with the preparation of a comprehensive long-term strategy for its sustainable development, developed on a project basis23. Residents, entrepreneurs, and summer residents should actively participate in it [17]. It is possible to provide methodological assistance to them by actively involving the scientific community and employees of regional authorities, deputies. At the next stage, the strategy goes through the municipal district level. Regional strategy, generated from settlements’ strategies, is protected at the regional level. If it is supported, the amount of budget resources, allocated to the implementation of district and specific settlement strategies, the amount of cofinancing, and the implementation plan and forms of control are determined. By joining project teams, stakeholders concentrate available resources of a particular rural settlement [18] and have unlimited opportunities for attracting external resources based on development of the communication system.

It is important that, through development and implementation of settlement strategies, it is possible to ensure comprehensive sustainable development of all

Table 2. Comparison of budgetary (“up-bottom”) and strategic (“bottom-up”) approaches

Budgetary	Strategic
Goal setting depends on the budget. If there is money, tasks are set and solved; if there is no money, nothing is done. The reactive approach is based on adapting to existing budget limits and requirements	Goal setting does not depend on the budget. First, tasks are set, and then the search for resources for its solution begins. If there is no money, there is planning and preparation. The proactive approach is based on self-reliance and actions
Emphasis on budget funds	Emphasis is placed on extra budgetary funds
Participation of local residents in the planning, distribution and disbursement of funds is minimal	Participation of local residents and all concerned in the processes off planning, allocation and usage of funds is maximum
Involvement of non-financial resources of the territory in the processes of its development is minimal	Attracting non-financial resources of the territory (energy, time, enthusiasm, intelligence of residents, etc.) to the processes of its development is maximum. Resources inside and outside rural settlements, its concentration
There are time limits. The terms of implementation of measures are linked to the duration of the program, budget, and election cycles. Planning horizon – 1–3 years	There is no time limit. The timing of the implementation of the measures can be arbitrary. Planning horizon is up to 100 years
Strict restrictions on a number of participating rural areas. You need to meet a lot of conditions, spend a lot of effort to get money, and report for them	There are no restrictions on a number of participating rural areas. All territories can participate at the same time
Consideration of the characteristics, potential, and problems of an individual settlement is minimal	Taking into account the characteristics, potential and problems of an individual settlement
Requirements for qualification and responsibility of regional and municipal officials are medium	Requirements for the qualification and responsibility of regional and municipal officials are high
Comprehensive development is provided only at the national level, partially at the regional level, and not at the municipal level	Complexity of development is ensured at the country level, at the regional level, and at the level of a specific rural territory
There are few opportunities for using cooperative and agglomeration links	Opportunities for using cooperative, agglomeration, foreign economic, interpersonal, and other relations are high
Source: own compilation.

promising2422 rural areas of the country with a prospect of 70–100 years, improving the residents’ quality of life by making the most efficient usage of budget funds, attracting extrabudgetary funds and other resources in order to solve this problem.

A comparison of budgetary and strategic approaches to rural development is presented in Table 2.

Thus, the usage of strategic planning and project approach [19], based on the abovementioned ideological concepts, in addition to the currently used budget approach, may significantly improve the quality of management

• ²⁴    The prospects of a territory should be determined by local residents. At the same time, it is possible to build housing and live in “unpromising” territories. Prospects are solely related to the effectiveness of budget investments in infrastructure. The decision on the prospects of a particular territory can be reviewed based on the dynamics of its socioeconomic development.

of sustainable rural development in Russia and the dynamics of positive changes. However, it will require a significant change of federal laws no. 131-FZ “General principles for the organization of local self-government”, dated October 6, 2003, and no. 172-FZ “On strategic planning in the Russian Federation”, dated June 28, 2014.

Legal restrictions and contradictions

The economy of rural areas in Russia has been developing in recent years mainly due to development of large-scale agricultural production [20] and extensive usage of natural resources, such as the forest fund. It creates a lot of risks inherent in single-industry towns. The environmental burden on nature grows. A separate issue concerns the humanity of keeping farm animals in large agricultural complexes. At the same time, the share of agriculture in the country’s GDP decreased from 16.5 to 5.7% from 1990 to 2018. The volume of agricultural production in 2017 amounted to 5.7 trillion rubles. The share of people employed in agriculture is about 9% (2015). This dynamics indicate the need to increase labor productivity in rural areas, primarily using new technologies and equipment.

We believe that, considering the existing potential at the state level, we should set a goal to increase the quantitative indicators of production of all types of products in rural areas by 2–3 times in the next 7–10 years with a stable number of employees. Of course, rural areas should focus on development of agriculture, but, in addition, it is necessary to create conditions for the formation of a multilayered local economy. In practice, there is a successful experience G. Sanzhapova2523 and G. Tyurin [21], who prove that sustainable development of rural areas can be provided not by large-scale agricultural production but by enterprising entrepreneurs. Then the countryside will be able to support itself and have opportunities to invest in its own development.

For many years, each ministry and agency has regulated its area of responsibility without assessing the complex impact of decisions on rural areas. A number of regulations grows, and it does not make any difference between large cities and villages (for example, in terms of fines). As the result, today, there is an alarming situation associated with legislative restrictions on development of rural territories: a) limited access of rural residents to local resources (forest, water, sand, arable land), gas, electricity, credit, and even roads; b) local government has virtually no powers, it does not have a real impact on the territorial situation and the behavior of people living there; c) cooperative movement in most territories is destroyed; d) initiative is often punishable.

To change the situation, we propose:

• 1.    Appling the “regulatory guillotine” mechanism, suggested by Prime Minister D.A. Medvedev²⁶, to the sphere of legislative regulation of rural development. Land, administrative, and other types of law require changes and radical simplification.

• 2.    Implementing legislative reform and considering introduction of different scales of administrative penalties for cities and rural areas.

• 3.    Implementing administrative reform, moving away from the “two-headed” system of governance in rural areas. A head of a settlement must manage a territory entrusted to him, and local residents must have maximum rights to dispose of the land and other resources of their settlement.

• 4.    Developing legislative mechanisms for introducing the most favorable living conditions in all rural areas (labor, pension, tax, and other types of law).

• 5.    Extending the TASED regime²⁷ 25 to all rural territories of our country: rural settlements should become territories with a special legal regime for conducting business, which, in the future, will allow achieving the following goals (Tab. 3) : a) create comfortable living conditions for people; b) ensure accelerated social and infrastructure development; c) promote investment.

  Table 3. Measures proposed within the TASED regime for rural areas

  Residents	Resources	Business
  Preferential rural mortgage	Free access to natural resources (land, water, forest) for rural residents	Simplified procedure for registering enterprises of any industry in rural areas
  Preferential retirement conditions for rural residents	Broadband Internet access	Exemption of enterprises from income, land, and property taxes for 15 years
  Payment of lifting fees to specialists of any industry who moved to work in the countryside and signed a 7 year contract	Gasification of settlements	Exemption from supervisory checks and reports
  Guaranteed free professional training at any technical school and university for young people who will return to work in the countryside	Special tariffs for housing and utilities services, fuel, and electricity prices	Preferential terms of lending and leasing, support for cooperation and export
  Source: own compilation.

  
  

• 6.    Giving everyone, not just large families, an opportunity to get a free land plot for housing construction and personal subsidiary farming and extending the “Far Eastern Hectare”²⁸²⁶ program to all rural territories of Russia.

• 7.    Giving all residents of the country an opportunity to take out a loan within the “Rural

• 8.    Conducting a tax amnesty for agricultural enterprises for taxes accrued before 2015. This will allow accumulating capital in the direction of enhancing investment activities.

• 9.    Providing agricultural enterprises and entrepreneurs, who want to open any production in rural areas, with preferential access to local resources and preferential long-term loans and leasing.

• 10.    Creating comfortable conditions for development of cooperation and export.

Some of these measures are already being implemented, but these are not yet united by a common concept and strategy for creating the TASED regime in all rural areas of our country.

The agricultural census of 2016 showed that a total area of unused farmland in Russia was 97.2 million hectares in 2015 – 44% of all agricultural land in the country.

In the Vologda Oblast, the program “Vologda Hectare”2927 is being implemented: according to it, everyone is offered to own plots for agriculture, farming, grazing, sowing, and construction of livestock complexes.

Mortgage” program and get wood for building a house30. The provision of ready-made housing kits for housing construction in rural areas is also a promising option.

According to the forecasts of the RSHB Center for Industry Expertise, current economic turmoil and the “Rural Mortgage” program with a preferential rate of up to 3% per year will lead to the RF de-urbanization. Relocation to rural settlements is still local, but, after the economic crisis caused by COVID-193129, a trend for moving to rural areas may be established: according to forecasts, 2–3 million people may decide to permanently reside in rural areas.

Necessity to switch to a new technological order

The world rapidly moves to a new technological order, which is based on new energy and digitalization. It is stated in the report on the results of global digitalization trends monitoring of 2019, conducted by the “Rostelekom” group of companies that “over time, the study of global digitalization trends from a tool that solves local objectives has transformed into the decision support system for strategic planning, innovative development...”323. It is obvious that the 21st century is the age of transition to distributed energy. It is based on energy efficiency, electric transport, private generation, intelligent power storage and transmission management systems, and the usage of water, wind, and solar energy. The national project “Digital economy of the Russian Federation”3331 will create infrastructure basis for sustainable rural development based on digitalization. An opportunity for remote work and the growth of Internet coverage create prerequisites for living in rural areas. Development of online distance education will help to train specialists in the countryside itself.

Is it possible to carry out a new electrification of rural settlements today? Let us turn to the history of the Soviet period. In 1920, the decree “On Russia’s electrification plan” was adopted – the government’s plan for electrification of Soviet Russia GOELRO [22], the development plan for not just one energy sector but for the entire economy. It included the building of enterprises that provide construction sites with everything necessary and advanced development of the electric power industry. All this was tied to territories’ development plans. A number of maintained agricultural settlements increased by 166 times in 1917–1927 (from 542 to 89.73934).

In the current situation, rural areas of Russia have a unique chance to stop being outsiders of the global technological development and become its leaders, since it has main resources for this – a universally developed (unlike gas and heating networks) centralized power grid and mostly private individual housing stock.

By emphasizing development of electric heating, not gasification, it is possible to significantly reduce time and cost of switching from firewood, coal, and fuel oil to comfortable, modern, warm, safe housing that does not harm the environment and, in the future, supplies electricity to the common network. The effect of this decision is huge, and the cost of implementing it is insignificant, because main networks and capacities were built, and electricity consumption in Russia per capita is significantly lower than in developed countries with a similar climate (Fig. 3) . As mentioned above, the share of rural areas in a total amount of electricity consumed does not exceed a few percent.

We see prospects for successful development of Russian rural areas through its electrification based on the principles of new energy, energy efficiency, energy conservation, digitalization (“smart grids”), as well as modern achievements of science and technology in these areas.

In order to ensure an accelerated transition of Russia and its rural territories to the new technological order, it is offered:

• 1.    Dramatically (3–4 times) reduce electricity tariffs for enterprises, located in rural areas, and its residents.

  Figure 3. Rating of countries by the level of electricity consumption, thousand kW/h per person.

  

  Source: Analiticheskiy portal. Available at: (accessed: May 7, 2020).

  
  

• 2.    Ensure development and implementation of energy saving standards for new and existing administrative and residential buildings that are being built and reconstructed in rural areas.

• 3.    Nullify import customs duties and other taxes and charges, which lead to higher prices for goods related to “new energy” (electric cars, batteries, solar panels, etc.), and create incentives for the opening of such systems production in our country. According to the Ministry of Transport, Russian regions are ready to cancel the transport tax on electric vehicles, and this benefit is already active in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kaluga, Tambov, and Tyumen regions. In 2020, the Eurasian Economic Commission decided to abolish import customs duties on certain types of motor vehicles with electric engines.

• 4.    Develop regulations that allow rural residents to independently generate electricity and sell the surplus to the common grid.

• 5.    Launch a separate program aimed at improving the energy efficiency of housing stock in rural areas.

Without it, Russia risks ending up on the backyard of global technological development!

Conclusions

Summing up the overview of elements of the new system of public administration of rural development in the Russian Federation, we may conclude that, today, the administration paradigm in the world changed: therefore, rural life and rural economy must be developed using completely new administration and organizational principles, in close connection with development of cities, and considering residents’ aspirations, not separately. The “Russian village” needs to be structurally and functionally rethought and rebuilt using the best global experience and its own competitive advantages.

Targeted measures, individual programs, and the efforts of some ministries and regions will not solve the problem of the preservation and quality rapid development of rural areas. These are tasks for a special federal interdepartmental structure among the executive authorities, the State Duma committee as the legislative branch of the government, coordinating structures at the regional level. As the result of the decision to change the system of public administration of rural development, the amount of budget funds involved will not increase significantly, but a total amount of funds, invested in the countryside, effort, energy, time, material resources, and intelligence will significantly grow. The efficiency of its usage will also noticeably increase, which will inevitably lead to prominent positive results across the country.

The main task of the proposed new administration system is to change the attitude to the countryside, which is now seen as an endangered and unpromising territory, remove existing barriers, and concentrate allocated funds around integrated development of specific rural areas through settlements and districts’ strategies, adding residents, summer residents, and entrepreneurs’ own funds. As the result, due to competent management decisions at the federal level, supplemented by “efforts from the bottom” and the introduction of new technologies, it is possible to radically improve the quality of life in rural areas, develop a multi- layered local economy and cooperation, and change negative demographic trends in the country [23].

The authors proposed an approach, the scientific novelty of which consists of proving the hypothesis that sustainable development of rural territories in Russia can be achieved only through qualitative modernization of its state administration system toward the implementation of strategic “bottom-up” planning, in addition to applied “up-bottom” budget planning, and design approach [24] at the expense of developing local and territorial social self-government, local mixed economy, cooperation, introduction of modern technologies, removal of legal restrictions, and introduction of the TASED regime (Fig. 4).

First of all, it is necessary to change the existing ideology, since the increase of financial injections into rural territories without the formation of a new “rural ideology” will not be able to ensure sustainable development. Thus, without changing administration approaches, funding will be dispersed, and it will not allow achieving required comprehensive effects across Russia’s vast rural territories.

Figure 4. Elements of a modernized administration system of rural territories’ development

Source: own compilation.