Institutionalisation of housing finance policy during the 1990s and early 2000s
In the period between 1992 and 2004, the policy paradigm and its supporting instruments and settings advocated by Gosstroy and a team of expert advisors were adopted in law. In this process, the 'hollow' paradigm introduced in Russian housing in 1990-1992 was filled in with specific instruments and settings for the organisation of housing finance. This was an evolutionary process of paradigmatic transformation. But why, by the end of 2004, was an American-inspired paradigm of housing finance adopted in Russia while other competing options were left out? I answer this question with reference to the position taken by the advocates of different ideas within the policy sub-system and the connection between policy ideas and actors' interests. Particular attention is given to the process of policy deliberation that unfolded within the State Duma around the Law on Mortgages (Ob ipoteke, 1998) and the Law on Mortgage Securities (Ob ipotechnykh, 2003). In this process, a vigorous competition between two models of housing finance took place. And while legislative-executive relations changed between 1992 and 2004, it is argued that throughout this period, policy largely followed the ideas supported by Gosstroy. As I argue, in terms of the Model of social learning, Stages 5 and 6 - where ideas are competing for the support of influential policy officials and where ideas are debated in the legislature - are problematic in the Russian context.