Study on the Dynamics of Regional Authorities’ Powers in Russia

#analytics #comments and articles

Experts from the Analytical Center of Baikal Lobridge have prepared a study examining how the distribution of powers between federal and regional authorities in Russia has evolved over the period 2016–2026, based on empirical data.

The analysis looks not only at the core dynamics of this process, but also at sector-specific developments relevant to both regional and federal governance levels.

The newspaper Vedomosti has published an article based on the results of the study. The full text of the study is available at the link. Below is a brief summary of the key findings.

Non-linear redistribution of authority

Over the past decade, relations between the federal center and Russia’s regions have shifted through alternating phases of centralization and decentralization. Against the backdrop of external and internal pressures, several structural patterns have become more visible:

Multifactor nature of changes, including geopolitical pressure, sanctions, public health crises, and economic shocks.
A gradual narrowing of regional policy autonomy, as the system prioritizes overall administrative controllability.
A clearly non-linear trajectory of reform, where periods of expanded regional authority are followed by renewed centralization.
Growing responsibilities that are not always matched by corresponding financial or institutional resources.
An expanding sphere of shared federal–regional competencies, which in practice reduces the independence of regional actors.

Regional empowerment as a crisis-management strategy

Between 2016 and 2026, the federal center periodically delegated additional powers to the regions in response to crisis situations, most notably during the COVID-19 pandemic, and later following the escalation of sanctions pressure and the start of the special military operation. However, these measures were largely temporary in nature and functioned as short-term management responses.

More consistently, regions have been assigned a growing number of socially and politically sensitive responsibilities. These include environmental and social regulation (for example, policies on stray animals), mobilization-related measures, support for families of military personnel, and economic adaptation to sanctions.

At the same time, performance criteria in these areas often remain fluid and situational, rather than fully standardized. That said, for businesses and investors, this means that even periods of expanded regional authority do not necessarily translate into stable regulatory autonomy at the local level.

The expanding role of governance KPIs

Over the period under review, performance indicators (KPIs) have become a central tool in managing regional leadership.

As the model of appointing “technocratic governors” has become more widespread, expectations around measurable outcomes in priority policy areas have increased. These typically include healthcare, digital transformation, housing construction, and integrated territorial development.

Federal executive bodies, however, operate under a less uniform system of evaluation. Their performance criteria are dispersed across different regulatory frameworks and are less directly tied to standardized outcome metrics.

From the perspective of external stakeholders, this makes it increasingly important to understand the KPI structure that shapes regional decision-making, as it effectively defines administrative priorities on the ground.

Expanding obligations and persistent resource constraints

The expansion of regional authority has consistently been accompanied by an increase in fiscal and operational responsibilities. This includes the development of healthcare IT systems, critical infrastructure protection mechanisms, and registries for stalled construction projects.

However, this expansion has not been matched by a proportional increase in funding from the federal level.

During the COVID-19 period and the initial phase of heightened sanctions pressure, regions did receive temporary financial support and limited tax flexibility. Over time, however, these measures have become more constrained as the system adjusted.

The 2024 tax reform further reduced regional revenues in certain preferential segments. As a result, the gap between assigned responsibilities and available resources has remained structurally embedded.

This creates for business a mixed outcome: regulatory conditions become more predictable, but regional capacity for independent policy-making remains limited.

Standardization of regional governance

The 2020 constitutional amendments and the 2021 federal law on the organization of public authority in the regions established a more unified governance framework across Russia.

In practice, this has led to greater standardization of administrative procedures, stronger federal involvement in the appointment of key regional officials and expanded methodological oversight from federal ministries.

For example, since 2021 federal authorities have approved heads of regional healthcare administrations, and similar coordination applies to security-related structures. Discussions are ongoing regarding the extension of this model to other sectors, including regional transport administration.

As a result, regional policy diversity continues to decline. At the same time, governance becomes more predictable and aligned with federal priorities — though the space for regional initiative is reduced.

Concentration of authority within the system

A similar trend is also visible at the municipal level, where regional governments have increasingly consolidated decision-making powers.

Driven by the need to implement federal priorities, regions are gradually absorbing functions that were previously handled locally. This does not occur uniformly across the country, but the broader direction is clear: authority is becoming more vertically integrated.

The result is a more coherent administrative hierarchy stretching from municipalities to the federal center. At the same time, however, engagement across different levels of government may become less evenly distributed.

Sectoral dynamics and regulatory logic

Across sectors such as taxation, land development, IT, healthcare, and natural resources, the mechanisms of power distribution differ in detail, but follow a consistent logic.

Regions are primarily responsible for implementation, adaptation, and operational support. Strategic rulemaking, regulatory design, and enforcement frameworks remain concentrated at the federal level.

This distinction is particularly relevant for assessing sectoral risks: formal regional involvement in regulation does not always reflect genuine decision-making authority.

In a comment to Vedomosti, the CEO and Managing Partner of Baikal Lobridge Eduard Voytenko noted the following:

“The formal list of governors’ powers has expanded from time to time as the country faced new challenges. Regional leaders have been given additional operational responsibilities, new spending obligations and, in some cases, specific crisis-management tools.

For example, during the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, governors were granted the authority to introduce high-alert and emergency regimes and to set up operational task forces. The pandemic, the start of the special military operation and the sanctions shock also led to a selective decentralization of certain tax powers: regions were allowed to extend payment deadlines for some taxes, introduce self-employment regimes and adopt other measures. However, most of these steps were temporary.

Despite the areas where regions retain discretion, the broader trend has been toward greater standardization and regulation of governors’ work. As a result, the role of the regional head remains extremely important, but it is increasingly focused on implementing federal priorities on the ground rather than shaping an independent regional agenda. For businesses, effective engagement with regional authorities now more often requires taking into account governors’ KPIs as well as the federal priorities that guide regional leadership.

This logic of unification and regulation is most clearly reflected in the system used to assess governors’ performance. Key indicators tied to national development goals are embedded in regional strategies and simultaneously incorporated into governors’ KPIs, creating a single framework of responsibility. Demographic indicators are perhaps the most vivid example of this approach.”

Conclusion

The evolution of relations between federal and regional authorities demonstrates both adaptability and cyclical shifts between decentralization and centralization, shaped by external pressures and crisis-driven governance.

Overall, however, the system continues to move toward greater centralization, while the institutional space for regional autonomy gradually narrows.

The emerging configuration creates both opportunities and constraints for business. On the one hand, governance standardization improves regulatory predictability and reduces fragmentation. On the other hand, constrained regional autonomy limits their role as independent policy actors and negotiation platforms.

In this context, it becomes increasingly important to assess not only formal competencies, but also the actual operational capacity of regional authorities.

Ultimately, organizations that are able to align their strategies with both federal priorities and regional implementation realities gain a clearer advantage in engaging with the state.

2026-04-26 17:00