Liia Laanes FROM DESTRUCTION TO DEMOCRATIC REVIVAL: Local government in Estonia ISBN 978-951-653-422-3 (pbk.) ISBN 978-951-423-0 (PDF) ABSTRACT Institutions are shaped by history. Hence, in order to understand why local government institutions in Estonia were designed the way they were at the beginning of the 1990s after the collapse of communism, we should take into account both the history and the context of that time. To this end, the current thesis aims to analyse the re-establishment of local government in Estonia in the 1990s in the light of the past. For this purpose, a historical institutionalist approach is applied, with a particular focus on a path dependence and legacies framework. The interwar local government in Estonia was based on the structure created during the Russian era. Despite numerous legislative proposals, the special laws on local government were only enacted in 1937/38 under authoritarianism. During the communist period, the system used in the other Soviet republics was introduced in Estonia and local government became a state authority. The rebuilding of democratic local government in Estonia started at the end of the 1980s, not so much based on the interwar legislation on local government, but rather on the idea of interwar democratic local government. For some of the facets of local government institutions, the path had already been paved a century ago or earlier, making some choices in the post-communist period more likely while simultaneously reducing other available alternatives. The communist legacy of incomplete nation-building was a focal point for many parliamentary debates at the beginning of the 1990s, with the result that in some cases less attention was paid to other details in the legislative process. The thesis concludes that both interwar and communist legacies can help in explaining some of the institutional choices made at the beginning of the 1990s in Estonia. It proposes that the legacies explanation can prove useful in the historical institutionalist approach. Furthermore, when it comes to path dependence, it demonstrates that interdependent institutions can be more path dependent than procedural institutions. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would never have embarked on this journey had it not been for Emeritus Professor Markku Temmes, who reviewed my Master’s dissertation and recommended that I should consider pursuing PhD studies. That meeting also paved the way for my focus on local government in this thesis. I also appreciate the help of all the interviewees who took the time to share their experiences and memories of Estonia in the 1980s and 1990s. I likewise owe a debt of gratitude to all three PhD thesis supervisors for their patience and guidance. First, Emeritus Professor Jan Sundberg from the University of Helsinki, who has been there from the very beginning of my PhD studies until the very end. He played a crucial role not only in defining the topic and in helping me to explore alternative routes, but also in not allowing me to quit when I went to his office several years ago with that very idea in my head. Secondly, Professor Georg Sootla from Tallinn University, who took on the challenging role of secondary supervisor for someone from another university. Not forgetting Professor Pertti Ahonen (University of Helsinki), of course, in his role as Custos for the public examination, and for being there to help me across the finishing line in the final stages. The supervisory role was probably more complicated for all three because I had a full-time job in a different country and my visits to Helsinki were few and far between. I am also grateful to pre-examiners Adjunct Professor Kaija Majoinen (University of Eastern Finland) and University Lecturer Asko Uoti (University of Tampere) for their reviews of the manuscript and useful comments. Furthermore, I would like to thank Professor Tiina Randma-Liiv from Tallinn University of Technology for agreeing to act as the Opponent during my doctoral defence. I am also grateful to the Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters and to the editor, Professor Niklas Bruun, for accepting this work for publication in one of the Society’s series. Thanks are also due to Lynn Nikkanen for revising the language of the thesis. I would also like to extend warm thanks to my parents and my brother for their endless patience and encouragement, as well as my late grandparents Salme and Evald, who provided invaluable support in my early academic years. In addition, I am indebted to many of my relatives, colleagues and friends. Especially to Timothy, for listening to my ideas and frustrations for many years and who was there for emergency proofreading, and to Antonios, for showing me various sides of academia. Last but not least, I would like to say a special thank-you to Päivi for her support. All errors or omissions in the thesis remain my own. Liia Laanes Luxembourg, May 2018 5 CONTENTS stract ....................................................................................................... 3 cknowledements ..................................................................................... 5 List of tables and fiures .......................................................................... 10 reviations ............................................................................................ 11 1 ntroduction ..................................................................................... 13 1.1 Backround and rationale for the toic .................................. 13 1.2 esearch aim and structure of the thesis ............................... 14 2 Local overnment and decentralisation .......................................... 17 2.1 Local overnment and its vaues – democracy and autonomy ................................................................................................. 17 2.2 emocratisation ..................................................................... 20 2.2.1 The transition to democracy at the state eve .................... 20 2.2.2 The imact of eacies ......................................................... 22 2.2.3 ecentralisation and democratisation at the ocal evel .... 26 2.3 Local overnment in post-communist countries ................... 31 3 nalytical framework and methodooy ......................................... 37 3.1 istorical institutionalism ...................................................... 37 3.1.1 The main concets – path dependence and critica junctures ............................................................................................. 38 3.1.2 Gradual chane and resurrection of the ast ..................... 42 3.1.3 Historical institutionalism and case studies ...................... 46 3.1.4 Some remarks on rational choice institutionalism ............. 47 3.2 esearch methods and data ................................................... 48 4 Local overnment in 918–1940 The eriods of the Pariamentary eublic and the ra of Silence ...................................................... 50 4.1 General context ....................................................................... 51 6 4.1.1 Development he l ramework .................................. 53 4.1.2 The se and all ount government ............................... 59 4.2 Local utonomy ....................................................................... 64 4.2.1 Supervision .......................................................................... 65 4.2.2 Local ernment inances .................................................. 67 4.3 Local emocrac and ocal ernment ies ..................... 74 4.3.1 Constantl hangi electoral rules..................................... 74 4.3.2 The ppointed yor .......................................................... 86 4.4 Discussi nd onclusion ..................................................... 92 5 Abolishment cal elf-government ............................................ 96 5.1 General ontext ....................................................................... 97 5.1.1 Local dministrati he t nion .......................... 98 5.1.2 Short ri of erma cupation .................................. 100 5.2 The harp nd the d ystem ........................................... 101 5.2.1 People ................................................................................. 102 5.2.2 Abolishment ountie and rural ipalities ............ 106 5.2.3 Establishment cal soviets............................................ 109 5.3 Local dministrati t he ginni he 980s ............ 114 5.3.1 Administrative-territorial nits .......................................... 115 5.3.2 Local viets ....................................................................... 116 5.4 Discussi nd onclusion ................................................... 122 6 Democratic e he cal el .............................................. 125 6.1 General ontext ..................................................................... 125 6.2 Development he l ramework ocal government nd for inistrati form ..................................................... 127 6.3 Decentralisation .................................................................... 136 6.3.1 The ssue he county el .............................................. 136 7 6.3.2 The ess ntin lf-governi tatu t ocal government nits ................................................................ 140 6.3.3 Administrati erritorial nit – Partial urvivo of he Soviet ra ............................................................................. 142 6.3.4 Attempt at erritorial