What caused the new reform of urban governance, the reasons for the second reform.

Reforms of local self-government, conductedPeter I, did not differ in consistency and effectiveness. The reorganization of city and local authorities was hampered by the officials themselves. About what caused the new reform of urban governance, what weaknesses of the existing reform it was supposed to correct, we will tell in this article.

Prerequisites for urban reform

The reform of the city administration of Peter the Great beganlong before the planned reorganization of central and higher authorities in the state. The main reasons for the transformation were new public relations in the state, expansion of its territory and the designation of new functions of the executive power, which in the regions was carried out by local government.

City reform. First try

The restructuring of local authorities was dictatedtime requirements. Russia tried to secure access to the Baltic Sea, the military needs of the country grew. The ancient voivodship and mandated forms of self-government could not ensure the fulfillment of the set tasks for collecting taxes and recruiting in the managed territories. The primary task was to distribute responsibilities between zemstvos and bureaucratic departments, the introduction of elements of European urban governance. These factors explained what caused the new urban governance reform and how the updated authorities should function. To this end, in 1699, the first urban reform was launched.

During the municipal administration reforman attempt was made to reform Russian cities on a European model, to give them the same rights as those of the city councils of Western European states. Russian cities came out of the subordination of the voivodships, and management of them was transferred to the burmasters, who were determined by election. In the capital there was a burmistrist chamber, before which the town bureaucrats reported on the state taxes, fees and duties collected by them. In other cities, the levers of government were transferred to the zemstvo huts, which were also run by elected bailiffs.

Disadvantages of the First Reform

About what caused the new urban reformmanagement, can be judged from the disappointing results of the first transformations. The newly formed system turned out to be opaque and not effective enough. The fragmentation of the local authorities did not allow building a clear vertical line of subordination. The confusion was supplemented by a multitude of secondary organs. Thus, Peter I supplemented bureaucratic power with elected class institutions. In addition, along with civil authorities, the military administration also operated, which was responsible for passport control and collection of poll tax, thus duplicating some functions of civil authorities.

What was the cause of the new urban governance reform? Based on the above, you can form several reasons:

• there was still no strict vertical of power;
• the powers of appointed local managers were limited to elected bodies;
• an excessive number of elected offices (governors, voevods, representatives of class assemblies) made it difficult for local self-government bodies.

Second City Reform

In 1720, in the new capital of the Russian Empire, the Chief Magistrate was created, to which all elected city magistrates were subordinate.

In 1721 the regulations were adopted, in whichoutlines the new principles of urban structure. Cities were divided by the number of inhabitants into five large classes. The population was divided into "irregular" and "regular" townspeople. Among the "irregular" citizens were mostly representatives of the poorest sections of the population. Wealthy "regular" citizens were left with their former privileges.

Despite the loyalty of the authorities to the richtownspeople, the new system of self-government has not proved its effectiveness. The management still prevailed in inflexible, military-bureaucratic methods of solving problems, moreover, the increasing centralization did not allow elected bodies to carry out policies on the ground.