Development of the management system for Siberia c. Administrative structure and management of Siberia

Siberia was a marginal territory with a special legal status. Administrative reforms of the first half of the 19th century assigned a special model of governance to Siberia, based on a combination of the principles of centralization and decentralization of power in the state. In the second half of the 19th century, the situation in Siberia changed and it acquired the status of an internal outskirts, which necessitates the need for another administrative reform. This article attempts to analyze the content and general principles administrative reform in Siberia at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries.

Revision of imperial traditions during the Great Reforms of the 60s. The 19th century, caused by the modernization and rationalization of Russian political culture, led to changes in the system of government bodies. One of its elements, most firmly associated with imperial political technologies, was the institution of governor generals (vicerarchates) created by the gubernatorial reform of 1775. The legal nature of the power of governors-general was never clearly defined; in particular, the issue of attributing it to the sphere of management or supervision was not even finally resolved. In practice, in general, “the enormous power of the governor-general was based mainly on the personal trust of the monarch and was almost uncontrollable.”

Creation of specific peripheral government institutions in highest degree characteristic of empires. The border situation in empires and local states is fundamentally different. A local state clearly defines its territory and develops a stable and, as a rule, long-term unchangeable political course; an empire does not know such a clear demarcation.

In general, the institution of governors general was the most striking confirmation of the fact that in Russia, as is typical for the empire in general, “there were no clear distinctions either between the spheres of colonial administration and foreign policy, or between the colonial and administration and domestic policy.”

The extraordinary breadth of governor-general and vicegerental powers was, moreover, largely forced, precisely on the periphery. The personal power of governors general compensated for the lack of administrative presence. Gradually, nation-state building, combined with the trend of rationalization, comes into conflict with the preservation of the General Governments as institutions that do not fit into the regular hierarchical structure. In the second half of the 19th century. The governor general's power is increasingly turning into a political figure, called upon to maintain and strengthen order and the integrity of the empire. Therefore, governor-general power, as a rule, is retained in the outskirts, where political circumstances required local centralization of administrative efforts.

Siberian governors-general in the second half of the 19th century. they still continued to retain emergency powers. By decree of September 25, 1865, Alexander II authorized the governor-general of Eastern Siberia “pending the introduction of a new judicial system in Siberia” to bring exiles to court-martial “in the event of treason, rebellion, or inclination towards them of the inhabitants of the region, open resistance to military force in the localities.” their maintenance, forced release of prisoners, murder, robbery and arson.”

It is characteristic that at the same time the center was concerned about the growing desire of the governors general, in connection with the vesting of them with emergency powers, to expand their power functions. The abolition of the Siberian Committee was one of the steps aimed at eliminating this contradiction. Governors-General were forced to turn more and more often to the Ministry of the Interior. Their financial independence, already very limited, was narrowed as a result of the financial reform by creating a single treasury and strengthening central control over the expenditure of funds.

Siberian governors-general unsuccessfully tried to expand their financial rights, at least within the framework of spending funds allocated from the budget. The law prohibited governors general from introducing new taxes, changing the breakdown of funds spent by branches of government (with the exception of amounts intended for extraordinary needs), and transferring government property to private hands. Interpreting the duties of governors-general very broadly, the law prescribed: “The governor-general, having supreme supervision over all units in general, does not enter into the detailed and internal regulations of any of them separately, maintaining each in the order established by law.”

In a country with such different economic-geographical, ethnic and political conditions, it was simply impossible to create a comprehensive unified administrative system. In the post-reform period, the central government was forced to pursue a flexible administrative policy, allowing, within certain limits, regional pluralism in public administration.

At the same time, one should not exaggerate the desire of the central administration for a flexible, balanced management policy in Siberia after the liberal reforms that began in the country, caused by the abolition of serfdom. Administrative management reform in the 80–90s. XIX century (during the period of so-called counter-reforms) was one of the links in the chain of imperial transformations in Siberia. In Siberian administrative policy at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. the general line is clearly visible, aimed at the gradual unification of Siberian administration and the rapprochement of the administrative structure of Siberia and the center of Russia.

The maturing crisis of traditional imperial policy by the end of the 19th century. also affected the sphere of management. It was caused by the growing contradiction between central authorities and local governments. Initially, with the beginning of the reforms of the 60–70s. XIX century, decentralization and the development of local self-government were considered by the authorities as a means of preserving central power unchanged and at the same time satisfying the oppositional claims of Russian society.

The new regulation, introduced on June 12, 1890 in 34 zemstvo provinces, provided for significant changes in the electoral system: along with the property qualification, class curiae were also introduced. The new law contributed to the strengthening of the nobles in zemstvo administration and at the same time government control over it. For this purpose, in particular, provincial representatives for zemstvo affairs were created.

In the spring of 1895, the Ministry of Internal Affairs developed a project to unite Siberia into one central body of the provincial institutions of the ministry. In June 1895, this opinion of the State Council was approved by the emperor. At the same time, the State Council made a recommendation to carry out a similar reform in the provinces of European Russia.

However, this project was not considered during the period of Goremykin and then Sipyagin as Minister of Internal Affairs, and thus the administrative management of Siberia was considered in the general mainstream of the imperial policy of the center in the field of management.

With the appointment of Plehve as Minister of Internal Affairs, the project of reform of provincial government throughout the empire became the object of a special commission, which began its work on February 27, 1903. The expansion of the administrative power of the governor was recognized as “one of the main tasks of the reform.” The implementation of provincial reform was of great importance for Siberia, which did not have a zemstvo. Reforms of the 1860s The governors were very disappointed. And not because most of them were conservatives, but because the reforms carried out by the center made the heads of the provinces more dependent on the Ministry of Internal Affairs and did not provide them with a permanent staff.

On May 3, 1903, Nicholas II approved the Plehve reform project. As a result, the following decades were marked by a serious expansion of the powers of governors in all regions of the country, including Siberia, in relation to the police, zemstvos, and in resolving social conflicts on the ground.

A feature of the reform of the provincial government of Plehve was that, along with the strengthening of the power of the governors, there was also a strengthening of control by the Ministry of Internal Affairs over the sphere of administration, which caused a certain dissatisfaction among the governors, depending on this ministry.

Against the background of the obvious strengthening of the influence of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the provinces, which reflected the desire of state authorities to continue to adhere to the traditional imperial course in the field of administrative policy, the legislation prepared by Plehve by the fall of 1903, which proclaimed the expansion of the rights of local governments, looked very modest. The meaning of the reform was some reorganization of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Previously separate divisions of the ministry in charge of zemstvo and city affairs were united as part of the Main Directorate for Local Economic Affairs. Now, under the chairmanship of the minister himself, the Council for Local Economic Affairs was created as a permanent institution, consisting of heads of departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, as well as representatives of other departments and local figures - “leaders of the nobility, chairmen of provincial and district councils and councils for zemstvo economic affairs, city heads."

The council was supposed to have a “purely advisory character”; its conclusions were not binding on the Minister of Internal Affairs in his activities in managing the local economy. The project for the reorganization of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, prepared by Plehve, was approved by the State Council at the beginning of 1904, and after approval on March 22, 1904, it became law.

Thus, we see that in its administrative policy, the Russian state power, unlike other areas of activity, “did not compromise on principles,” striving at all costs to preserve the political unity of the empire with the help of strict administrative policies, and, in fact, thereby created an obstacle to a relatively harmonious balancing between the aggravated socio-economic and political contradictions of the center and the outskirts.

Despite the strengthening of the power of governors by the beginning of the 20th century. the staff of subordinates and the instruments of power that they possessed still remained clearly insufficient compared to the scale of the tasks that faced them. However, all these weaknesses and difficulties paradoxically increased the role of the governor in the provinces, including Siberia. Since the governor of the province could not fully rely on either the order or the bureaucratic mechanism, he was forced to enter into many of the details of local affairs himself.

Thus, administrative policy Russian state in Siberia did not contribute to the preservation of the empire. In Siberian administrative policy at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. the general line is clearly visible, aimed at the gradual unification of Siberian administration and the rapprochement of the administrative structure of Siberia and Russia. However, the achieved level of unification could not prevent the collapse of the empire. The fact is that the modification policy took place against the backdrop of increasing rationalization and complication of the functions of Siberian government, which specialized the bureaucratic structure of the region and thereby forced it to counteract the policies of the center in cases where it infringed on regional interests. Thus, there was a constant element of confrontation between the imperial center and the Siberian administrative apparatus, which did not contribute to the preservation of the empire.

To summarize, it can be argued that the main problems of the administrative policy of the autocracy in Siberia, which were not completely resolved, were:

Searches for optimal administrative-territorial management of the region;

Relationships between central and local authorities, delimitation of their competence;

Unification and coordination of actions of Siberian government bodies at the central and local levels;

Interaction between state government institutions and public self-government bodies.

In 1852, the Second Siberian Committee was created, the main task of which was to carry out transformations of the Siberian court. Over the twelve years of its activity, the committee developed the Regulations dated June 21, 1864, limiting it to issues of jurisdiction of cases. In accordance with this Regulation, the consideration of cases in the Siberian courts was carried out not according to class, but according to the territorial principle. Thus, a step was taken towards the elimination of the class structure of society in Siberia. Subsequently, by 1871, the Ministry of Justice developed a package of documents on the transformation of the Siberian judicial system. These included the following bills:

– “On strengthening the composition of police departments in Siberia with special officials for conducting investigations”;

– “On the introduction in Siberia of the institute of judicial investigators and judicial bailiffs”;

– “On the introduction of magistrates’ courts”;

– “On the reorganization of prosecutorial supervision”;

- “On changing the staff of judicial administration in Siberia.”

Organization of governance of the peoples of Siberia at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. Charter on the management of foreigners 1822

1. Siberia in the regional policy of the Russian state in the 18th century. The changes that took place in the structure and composition of the administration of Siberia at the end of the 17th-18th centuries began with the reform of the voivodeship administration. The central position in it was occupied by the Siberian Order, the judge of which was the main institution and represented the tsar in governing the region. The competence of governors in Siberia, in contrast to Central Russia, was much wider, because they were in charge of issues of settlement and development of the region, and resolved issues of current diplomatic relations with neighboring peoples and countries. The absence of noble land ownership and the peculiarities of Russian settlement in the vast expanses of Siberia led to developed self-government among the settlers - the service “troops”, the “worlds” of townspeople and peasants. Internal management yasach "foreigners" were preserved in their traditional form. The political and legal reforms of Peter I led to fundamental changes in the governance structure of Siberia. Already during the provincial reform of 1711, the Siberian order was actually eliminated and regional administration was united in the hands of the Siberian governor, which strengthened the hierarchical subordination of local government bodies. Since the 1710s ideas of separating the court from the administration, introducing collegial principles in management appeared, and the formation of a permanent supervisory body - the fiscal office - was taking place. The provincial reform of 1719 contributed to the isolation of administrative, fiscal and judicial bodies and introduced the collegial principle of decision-making. Management began to be based not on custom, but on legal norms, and acquired a bureaucratic character. These principles were reflected in the organization of government in the city, where from then on class self-government began to develop and the influence of service people decreased. However, no fundamental changes are taking place in the management of the state peasant class; as before, the state manages this social group through government clerks. It must be emphasized that the transformations of the early 18th century. in Siberia were carried out taking into account the specifics of the region and, as a result, there were deviations here in the desire to create a unified system of provincial government in the emerging empire, which was later reflected in the “Instructions” to the Siberian governor in 1741. Deviation from the rational principles of empire-building implemented Peter I, was restored in the late 1720s. Siberian order and management procedures of “Moscow antiquity”. Such restorations did not justify themselves in practice, since, in addition to the Siberian order, all-Siberian affairs fell under the competence of the Senate and collegiums, as well as the Siberian governor. During the provincial reform, specialized financial bodies were retained within the framework of regional administration, and a departmental mining department functioned. Fragmentation and uncertainty of administrative functions did not contribute to the incorporation of the region into the empire. Transformations in the field of regional government of Catherine II, namely the small regional reform of 1764 and the provincial reform of 1775, during the disaggregation of administrative-territorial units, led to the approach of power to society. As a result, the Siberian Order was liquidated, and the Tobolsk and Irkutsk governors became proxies and representatives of the Empress in this huge region. Due to the absence of a noble class in Siberia, it was not possible to strengthen noble self-government, as was the case during the reform in the central part of the empire. The way out of this situation, which was special for Russia, was the replacement of the noble bodies of the court and the management of bureaucratic institutions. An extensive specialized system of administrative, fiscal and judicial bodies was created, and the departmental mining department continued to function in a modified form. During the period under review, city self-government and management were rationalized through the creation of presences that collectively solve city issues. In the 1760-1790s. Measures were taken to reorganize the management of peasants and indigenous people.

2. Development of the management system of Siberia in the first quarter of the 19th century. Political view of Siberia at the beginning of the 19th century. was determined by three main objectives: the profitability of the region, the convenience of its administration and the protection of the eastern and southern Asian borders of the empire. The complication of any of these tasks, and most often at the same time, forced the supreme power to carry out measures that could, if not improve, then at least stabilize the situation. This approach in government policy early XIX V. in relation to Siberia, gave Siberian legislation an inconsistent, uncoordinated, and largely situational character. There is no doubt that the lack of organizational and managerial foundations in Siberian government and the responsibility of local officials was not compensated by attempts to improve and increase the responsibility of central government bodies. The establishment of ministries in 1802 not only did not improve the management in this regard according to the Provincial establishment of 1775, but rather strengthened the shortcomings inherent in Catherine’s local government. The contradictory principles inherent in its provisions affected the practice of public administration. While the Establishment on the Provinces pursued the task of bringing the managers closer to the governed, it tried to fill the provincial regulations with people closely familiar with the interests and household features localities, ministries concentrated power and administrative powers, “pulled” them to the center and gradually subordinated provincial regulations not only in the order of supervision, but also in the order of management. The provincial regulations assigned to the ministries lost contact with each other to such an extent that there was a disconnect between the regulations of various departments. Meanwhile, these two systems - central and local government - were not coordinated with each other. Two mutually opposite influences, the phenomenon of centralization and the need to take into account local characteristics in management, should have prompted the supreme power to improve management structures along the “center-region” axis, legislatively reconcile them with each other in order to ensure the existence of everyone, to protect the weakest from being absorbed by the strongest. Appointment of a new Siberian governor I.O. Selifontov in 1801, the establishment of the General Government in Siberia in 1803, as well as the sending of a new ruler I.B. to the region. Pestel in 1806 took place on the basis of principles that included streamlining management and strengthening local authorities. Such a step in the management of Siberia meant that the government followed the previous path, relying on strengthening the power of the governor-general and centralizing the local state apparatus. The collision of the competence of ministerial departments with the powers of local government urgently required a legislative delimitation of the areas of competence of local and central institutions as a necessary condition for the state to implement administrative functions in relation to Siberia, both at the level of the center and in the region itself. At the beginning of the 19th century, therefore, the system of public administration developed, subject to multidirectional and largely contradictory trends. In determining the principles of regional policy, the autocracy faced an inevitable choice: to introduce a nationwide system of governance or to grant Siberia some administrative autonomy. Recognition of the special status of Siberia within the empire would lead to the legislative consolidation of the region’s independence and the formation of “Russia-Siberia” relations (center - region). Without fundamentally resolving the question - the colony of Siberia or the outskirts - the supreme power could not develop a strategy for managing this vast territory. Projects for the territorial and administrative transformation of Siberia at the beginning of the 19th century. were considered by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In October 1818 Minister of Internal Affairs O.P. Kozodavlev presented a note on the management of Siberia to the Committee of Ministers. It proposed removing Pestel from governing the region and appointing a new governor-general. . Establishment for the management of the Siberian provinces in 1822 and the reform of the management of Siberia in the 1820-1840s. As a result of his activities as Siberian Governor-General M.M. Speransky prepared 10 draft legislative acts on the most important issues of management and legal regulation of life in the Siberian Territory. They provided for the reform of the territorial and administrative structure of Siberia, stimulated the development of the economy and trade, streamlined the nature of the duties of the population, determined the legal status of various categories of the population of the region (indigenous peoples, peasants, Cossacks, exiles, etc.). Together, these 10 acts were combined and received a common name - “Institution for the management of the Siberian provinces” in 1822. An analysis of the main provisions of the “Institution for the management of the Siberian provinces” allows us to highlight the principles of the proposed reforms, in particular: strengthening supervision over the actions of local authorities management by transferring supervisory functions to one of the central executive authorities; ensuring uniformity in the activities of various administrative bodies with a clear delineation of their competencies; transfer of a certain amount of autonomy in resolving affairs to each local authority; taking into account by local authorities the specifics of specific Siberian regions in which they operate; taking into account the “variegated” social composition of the Siberian population in the activities of management structures at various levels; creation of a low-cost and efficient management apparatus that combines the activities of the state administration with the inclusion in the implementation of its competence of local self-government of various categories of the population of the region and, especially, the clan administration of indigenous Siberian peoples. In accordance with the “Siberian Establishment” of 1822, the region was divided into Western and Eastern Siberia. Western Siberia consisted of the provinces: Tobolsk and Tomsk, as well as the Omsk region; Eastern Siberia - the provinces: Irkutsk and Yenisei, the Yakut region, and the Primorsky departments also belonged to the Irkutsk region, including: Okhotsk and Kamchatka, and the Trinity-Sava border department. Governorates and regions were divided into districts, and those, in turn, into volosts and foreign councils. The administration of Siberia, in accordance with this division, had four links (degrees): 1) Main Directorate; 2) Provincial Administration; 3) District administration; 4) Volost and foreign administration. The main administration consisted of the Governor General and the Council. The establishment of Soviets became an important feature of the ongoing reform. Speransky's main task was to establish legality in management. The reformer saw its solution in the creation of a management and legislative system that would put an end to abuses and arbitrariness. At the same time, the governor general's power was supposed to become, first of all, a supervisory body. At the provincial level, a “main provincial department” was formed, headed by the governor, under which a Council was formed with the competence to exercise general supervision over the actions of lower, district, management structures. Institution for the management of the Siberian provinces" included sections regulating the competence of the governor-general to manage various categories of the region's population, and provided for the creation of an appropriate system of administrative bodies. The development of imperial trends in state building at the beginning of the 19th century. led to the creation of new governing bodies of the Siberian city, while at the same time management was improved within the existing links of the administrative apparatus. Cities became the place for organizing social control over the population of the area: in the office work of public places, comprehensive information about the life of the village was concentrated, complaints and requests of peasants were sorted out in the offices, sentences of provincial and district courts were carried out in the squares, punishments for violations were carried out feudal law and order.

Conclusion The formation of the public administration system in Siberia took place along the path of using general imperial principles and the beginning of managerial influence on life processes in Siberia, but on the basis of the flexible application of national approaches and political and legal institutions, combining them with Siberian geopolitical features, taking into account the established systems of traditional governance and customary law of local peoples in order to incorporate the outlying territory into the state and ensure the geopolitical stability of the state. The main trends in the development of public administration in Siberia are the centralization and localization of power in the region while modeling a unified model of power relations characteristic of an empire, during the building of which the “center-region” relationship developed, where the central authority is the government, and its local level and representative on the territory of Siberia - the Main Directorate, headed by the Governor-General of Siberia as a whole, and after 1822 by the Governors-General of Western and Eastern Siberia. The system of government bodies in Siberia was built on the basis of the experience of institutions that had proven viability in the central part of the country, but taking into account the characteristics of the region, which was ensured by legislative consolidation of the exceptions of their imperial legalization without violating the general principles of focusing on the formation of a centralized management system from the level of the imperial center to the level of the Siberian region with the inclusion of all levels of management of Siberia. In the XVIII - first half of the XIX centuries. The supreme power consciously took into account the regional characteristics of Siberia, giving them the status of system-forming factors when developing legislation in the field of public administration of the region, although a clearly expressed concept and policy of regional administration was not developed. Public administration in Siberia and local Siberian self-government were built taking into account the need for managerial influence and legal regulation of social relations among various categories of the Siberian population, formed during the free peasant colonization in conditions of predominance already at the beginning of the 18th century. and the constant growth of the Russian tax-paying population. Of great importance in the management of Siberia was the localization of management through the self-government of various social categories of the population within Siberian society, which made it possible, in conditions of compact residence of individual groups of the population, to ensure the managerial influence of the state on them through the appointment or approval of the leaders of self-governing communities. In the organization of the Siberian public administration system, the spatial and geographical features of the region were taken into account, associated with the presence of territories with an undeveloped communications system and posing the problem of complex localization of management functions at various levels of intra-Siberian public administration structures, which ensured the management of remote territories, but reduced the level and the possibilities of governor-general control and supervision of central government bodies over the activities of officials of the Siberian administration.

Political view of Siberia at the beginning of the 19th century. was determined by three main objectives: the profitability of the region, the convenience of its administration and the protection of the eastern and southern Asian borders of the empire. The complication of any of these tasks, and most often at the same time, forced the supreme power to carry out measures that could, if not improve, then at least stabilize the situation. This approach in government policy at the beginning of the 19th century. in relation to Siberia, he gave Siberian legislation an inconsistent, uncoordinated, and largely situational character.

There is no doubt that the lack of organizational and managerial foundations in Siberian government and the responsibility of local officials was not compensated by attempts to improve and increase the responsibility of central government bodies. The establishment of ministries in 1802 not only did not improve the management in this regard according to the Provincial institution of 1775, but rather strengthened the shortcomings inherent in Catherine’s local government. The inconsistency of the principles inherent in its provisions affected the practice of public administration. While the Establishment on the Provinces pursued the task of bringing the managers closer to the governed, tried to fill the provincial regulations with people closely familiar with the interests and everyday characteristics of the area, the ministries concentrated power and administrative powers, “pulled” them to the center and gradually subjugated the provincial establishments not only in the order of supervision, but also in the order of management. The provincial regulations assigned to ministries have lost connection with each other to such an extent that there has been a disconnect between the regulations of various departments. Meanwhile, these two systems - central and local government - were not coordinated with each other. Two mutually opposing influences, the phenomenon of centralization and the need to take into account local characteristics in management, should have prompted the supreme power to improve management structures along the “center-region” axis, legislatively reconcile them with each other in order to ensure the existence of everyone, to protect the weakest from being absorbed by the strongest.

Appointment of a new Siberian governor I.O. Selifontov in 1801, the establishment of the General Government in Siberia in 1803, as well as the dispatch of a new ruler to the region, I.B. Pestel in 1806 took place on the basis of principles that included streamlining management and strengthening local authorities. Such a step in the management of Siberia meant that the government followed the previous path, relying on strengthening the power of the governor-general and centralizing the local state apparatus.

The collision of the competence of ministerial departments with the powers of local government urgently required a legislative delimitation of the areas of competence of local and central institutions as a necessary condition for the state to implement administrative functions in relation to Siberia, both at the level of the center and in the region itself.

At the beginning of the 19th century, therefore, the system of public administration developed, subject to multidirectional and largely contradictory trends. In determining the principles of regional policy, the autocracy faced an inevitable choice: to introduce a national system of governance or to grant Siberia some administrative autonomy. Recognition of the special status of Siberia within the empire would lead to the legislative consolidation of the region’s independence and the formation of “Russia-Siberia” relations (center - region). Without fundamentally resolving the question - the colony of Siberia or the outskirts - the supreme power could not develop a strategy for managing this vast territory.

Projects for the territorial and administrative transformation of Siberia at the beginning of the 19th century. were considered by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In October 1818, Minister of Internal Affairs O.P. Kozodavlev presented a note on the management of Siberia to the Committee of Ministers. It proposed removing Pestel from governing the region, appointing a new governor-general and providing him with special instructions. The instructions should be drawn up only after the reasons for the failures of the previous Siberian governors-general have been clarified. Kozodavlev condemned the unrestrained desire to uncontrollably strengthen local power, while, on the contrary, it was necessary to place it under the effective supervision of central institutions. To do this, he proposed to establish a Supreme Council, partly from officials appointed by the government, and partly from Siberian residents elected from different classes. The chairman of the council - the governor-general - was supposed to have an advantage only in case of equality of votes, but he could also suspend the implementation of the council's decision with mandatory notification of this to the interested minister. This structure of Siberian government assumed that the governor-general would be placed under dual control - both from the central government bodies (line ministries) and from representatives of society (estates). Kozodavlev also proposed, relying on the experience of the Baltic magistrates, to strengthen city self-government in Siberia, which would bring undoubted benefits to trade, industry and education. Kozodavlev’s project and the decision of the Committee of Ministers to appoint an audit of the management of Siberia under the leadership of Senator M.M. Speransky marked the beginning of a new stage in the government’s views on the regional governance system. Supreme power by the end of the 1810s. comes to the realization that the shortcomings lie not in individuals, but in the very system of local government in Siberia, the reform of which becomes a problem within the geopolitical order.

Revision by M.M. Speransky found that the reform of Siberian government was complicated by the need to combat abuses, with personal principles, alien and indigenous areas of the Russian state. The activities of a special body to review the results of management audits - the Siberian Committee - were supposed to resolve the issue of placing local government on a clear legislative basis, introduce a system of effective control over the legality of the activities of local officials in conditions of extreme remoteness from the government and the sparsely populated region. It was necessary to harmonize the general rules of government of the empire with the needs, requirements and conditions of the vast Siberian region.

Revision of the management of Siberia and the provisions of the reform of public administration in the region, developed by 1822 by M.M. Speransky, determined the basic principles of the administrative-territorial structure of the Asian region Russian Empire, corresponding to the needs of the time. Speransky’s transformations meant the recognition by the supreme authorities of the need to establish a system of special governance in Siberia, which, in turn, testified to the formation of views on “outskirts”, regional politics. This was the first attempt to approach the management of a huge, resource-rich region in a comprehensive manner, which indicated the emerging desire to develop a government concept of attitude towards Siberia, a holistic program for its administrative and economic development.

Since the 1760s A new round of reform in the management of Siberia begins, further unifying it with Russia and radically changing the entire structure of power from top to bottom.

In 1763, the Siberian Order was finally abolished, and the Siberian province began to be governed on a common basis with other Russian provinces. Siberian affairs are distributed among central government institutions - collegiums, and since 1802 - ministries. However, Siberian governors report directly to the Senate and personally to the monarch.

In 1763, for the first time, states were introduced for Siberian officials of all ranks and positions. The election of administrative servants is abolished.

In 1764, the Irkutsk province was elevated to the rank of a province and included the Irkutsk, Uda and Yakutsk provinces. The Tobolsk province includes the Tobolsk and Yenisei provinces.

Siberia in the regional policy of the Russian state in the 18th century.

The changes that took place in the structure and composition of the administration of Siberia at the end of the 17th-18th centuries began with the reform of the voivodeship administration. The central position in it was occupied by the Siberian Order, the judge of which was the main institution and represented the tsar in governing the region. The competence of governors in Siberia, in contrast to Central Russia, was much wider, because they were in charge of issues of settlement and development of the region, and resolved issues of current diplomatic relations with neighboring peoples and countries. The absence of noble land ownership and the peculiarities of Russian settlement in the vast expanses of Siberia led to developed self-government among the settlers - the service “army”, the “worlds” of townspeople and peasants. The internal administration of yasak "foreigners" was preserved in its traditional form.

The political and legal reforms of Peter I led to fundamental changes in the governance structure of Siberia. Already during the provincial reform of 1711, the Siberian order was actually eliminated and regional administration was united in the hands of the Siberian governor, which strengthened the hierarchical subordination of local government bodies. Since the 1710s ideas emerged for separating the court from the administration, introducing collegial principles in management, and the formation of a permanent supervisory body - the fiscal office.

The provincial reform of 1719 contributed to the isolation of administrative, fiscal and judicial bodies and introduced the collegial principle of decision-making. Management began to be based not on custom, but on legal norms, and acquired a bureaucratic character. These principles were reflected in the organization of government in the city, where from then on class self-government began to develop and the influence of service people decreased. However, no fundamental changes are taking place in the management of the state peasant class; the state still manages this social group through state clerks. It must be emphasized that the transformations of the early 18th century. in Siberia were carried out taking into account the specifics of the region and, as a result, there were deviations in the desire to create a unified system of provincial government in the emerging empire, which was later reflected in the “Instructions” to the Siberian governor in 1741.

A departure from the rational principles of empire-building implemented by Peter I was the restoration in the late 1720s. Siberian order and management procedures of “Moscow antiquity”. Such restorations did not justify themselves in practice, since, in addition to the Siberian order, all-Siberian affairs fell under the competence of the Senate and collegiums, as well as the Siberian governor. During the provincial reform, specialized financial bodies were retained within the framework of regional administration, and a departmental mining department functioned. Fragmentation and uncertainty of administrative functions did not contribute to the incorporation of the region into the empire.

Transformations in the field of regional government of Catherine II, namely the small regional reform of 1764 and the provincial reform of 1775, during the disaggregation of administrative-territorial units, led to the approach of power to society. As a result, the Siberian Order was liquidated, and the Tobolsk and Irkutsk governors became proxies and representatives of the Empress in this huge region. Due to the absence of a noble class in Siberia, it was not possible to strengthen noble self-government, as was the case during the reform in the central part of the empire. The way out of this situation, which was special for Russia, was the replacement of the noble bodies of the court and the management of bureaucratic institutions. An extensive specialized system of administrative, fiscal and judicial bodies was created, and the departmental mining department continued to function in a modified form. During the period under review, city self-government and management were rationalized through the creation of presences that collectively solve city issues. In the 1760-1790s. Measures were taken to reorganize the management of peasants and indigenous populations. Reforming the management of peasants, the state government went to eliminate tithe arable land and state clerks, i.e. the demands they had made over the previous decades were met. With regard to the indigenous population, the government decided to involve clan administration in the system of state administration of the region, approve the court of yasak administration and to more clearly regulate the collection and amount of yasak, which indicates the government’s intentions to specifically deal with issues of managing the indigenous population of the region.

The absence of noble land ownership in Siberia since the beginning of the 18th century. led to the fact that representatives of the top of the service “device” - Siberian nobles and children of boyars - began to be appointed to government positions. The service “device” was the most important source of recruitment for local clerks and clerks. The Siberian bureaucracy can be said to be “all-class” in origin social group, separated by the conditions of service from participation in trade, monetary, economic relations and completely dependent on government salaries. They were obliged to serve the monarch in accordance with the rules of law and strict organizational discipline.

Officials, first of all, took care that the yasak was collected carefully. The contingent of serving people was always the same in the remote province. There was one ordering class, which was constantly shuffled, which led to opportunism and bribery among the local bureaucracy. In Siberia, industrial people created bondage for foreigners, the trading class lived in monopolies. It can be argued that entire classes of the Siberian population were involved in the abuses.

Transformations of Russian statehood in the 18th century. along the path of empire-building were fully extended to Siberia. The main directions of these reforms were to rationalize the organization and activities of the regional management apparatus and the formation civil service, displacement of administrative custom by legislative acts, in the normative regulation of these processes. The social consequence of the transformations was the formation of a patrimonial bureaucracy. In Siberia, the process of its formation took place with some specificity, determined by local conditions: the vast space of the region, which was still poorly populated and developed by Russians, its remoteness from the capital's centers of power; a significant number of indigenous multi-ethnic population, who protected their beliefs and traditional culture and does not have its own statehood before the Russians; the virtual absence of landownership and nobility among Russian settlers. The peculiarities of the region led to the need to create such regional centers of power that could represent the local society and its governing structures before the monarch. They determined the broader competence of the local state apparatus and strengthened the importance of class self-government in Siberia.

The provincial reform of 1775, built on the principle of strengthening local power by introducing into the structure of local government, in addition to the provincial administration and viceroyal power (governors general), was supposed to increase the efficiency of the entire state system. This was a step towards deconcentration of management, indicating an understanding of the need to create a strong and relatively independent regional government. By the end of the 18th century. The need to create a separate system of state administration of the region, taking into account the characteristics of the Siberian territories, is clearly evident.

The year 1775 was marked by the manifestation of one of the largest legislative acts of the reign of Catherine II - “Establishment for the administration of the provinces of the All-Russian Empire.” The “Establishment” was extended to Siberia in 1781-83, when the entire region was divided into three governorships headed by governors general. The Tobolsk governorship included the Tomsk and Tobolsk provinces, the Kolyvan governorship included only one Kolyvan governorate, and the Irkutsk governorship united the Irkutsk province and the Nerchinsk, Yarkut and Okhotsk regions.

According to the “Establishment” in the Russian state. structure at the local government level, the principle of “separation of powers” was introduced. Now general administration was entrusted at the provincial level to the Provincial Board, headed by the governor and vice-governor, at the district level - to the Lower Zemstvo Court, in cities - to the mayor or commandant, magistrates and town halls.

An integral part of Catherine’s reform of government was the “Charter of Deanery” of 1782 and the “Charter of Grant to Cities” of 1785. In accordance with the “Charter”, all cities were divided into parts headed by private bailiffs who had at their disposal special police teams. The units were divided into quarters with quarters by guards. The result of the innovations was a network of police stations thrown over the city, covering every home and every citizen with their surveillance. From the beginning of the 19th century. police chiefs appear in cities.

Public Administration Siberia in the 17th century

After the annexation of Siberia to Russia, a system of governing Siberia gradually emerged.

In the 16th century Siberia like new land obeyed the Ambassadorial order. In 1599, the administration of Siberia was transferred to the Prikaz of the Kazan Palace, which was controlled by the Prikaz of the Kazan Palace, which governed the eastern part of Russia (the former Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates). Soon, the rapid expansion of Russian territory to the east required the creation of a separate governing body for Siberia.

In February 1637, by decree of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, a special central governing body was formed - the Siberian Prikaz, which existed from 1637 to 1708 and from 1730 to 1763. As a rule, it was headed by representatives of noble boyar families close to the tsar. In the 17th century The Siberian order was successively headed by: Prince B. M. Lykov (1637-1643), Prince N. I. Odoevsky (1643-1646), Prince A. N. Trubetskoy (1646-1662), boyar R. M. Streshnev (1663- 1680), Prince I. B. Repnin (1680 – 1697), Duma clerk A. A. Vinius (1697 – 1703).

The Siberian order dealt with issues of administrative management of Siberia (appointment and removal of governors, control over them, judicial functions, etc.), supply of Siberia, its defense, taxation of Siberia, its defense, taxation of Siberia, control of Siberian customs, reception, storage and fur trade, diplomatic relations with China, Dzungaria and the Kazakh hordes.

The Siberian order consisted of territorial discharge tables and chambers. Direct management of Siberian territories was carried out through territorial discharge tables. At the end of the 17th century. in the Siberian order there were four territorial discharge tables - Tobolsk, Tomsk, Yenisei and Lensk. The chambers dealt with financial matters and furs. The Siberian Prikaz had three chambers - the rated chamber, the merchant chamber and the state chamber. The first chamber was responsible for the reception and evaluation of furs and other types of tribute coming from Siberia, the second was responsible for the selection of merchants for the trade in government furs and control over them, and the third was in charge of all financial affairs of the Siberian order. At the head of the tables and chambers were the clerks, to whom the clerks were subordinate.

The territory of Siberia, like the whole of Russia, was divided into districts for ease of administration. Soon, a large territory required the introduction of an additional administrative structure over the counties in Siberia. For this purpose, at the end of the 16th century. The Tobolsk category was formed, uniting all Siberian districts. The Tobolsk governor became the main Siberian governor, to whom the governors of other Siberian forts were subordinate.

The Tobolsk voivode exercised general leadership of the defense and supply of Siberia. He had seniority in resolving foreign policy and foreign trade issues. As a rule, noble people who were close to the king, but who fell out of favor for some reason, were appointed to this post. In the 17th century the most notable Tobolsk governors were Yu. Ya. Suleshev (1623-1625) and P. I. Godunov (1667-1670).

Yu. Ya. Suleshov, who came from a noble family of Crimean Tatar beys who switched to Russian service, during his stay in Siberia carried out a number of significant reforms to improve its situation. He organized the first census of population and arable land, established a firm ratio between the size of the peasant land allotment and the size of the “sovereign arable land” cultivated by him, and unified the salaries of service people.

P. I. Godunov focused on strengthening the defense of Siberia from the threat of raids by nomads from the south. He began building fortifications on the steppe borders Western Siberia and began to organize Cossack settlements there - villages, and also created dragoon regiments. Under his leadership, the “Drawing of Siberia” was compiled - the first known map of Siberia, which summed up Russian geographical information about Siberia at that time and was a significant milestone in the history of Russian geographical science.

Gradually, as Siberia was developed and settled, three more categories were formed - Tomsk (1629), Lensk (1639) and Yenisei (1677) and new districts.

After the formation of other categories, the role of Tobolsk as the main Siberian center was preserved. The Tobolsk voivode appeared as if he were senior over other rank of voivodes.

Rank governors were appointed by the Siberian Order, as a rule, for three years. They supervised the district governors and resolved all issues of discharge management. The discharge voivode had the exclusive right of correspondence with the Siberian order. He managed the discharge through the Order Chamber - the discharge management body. The structure of the chamber copied the Siberian order and included territorial district tables. At the head of the chamber were two clerks appointed by the Siberian order, the tables were headed by clerks.

The districts were led by voivodes, who were also appointed by the Siberian Order, and, as a rule, for three years. The district governor appointed and dismissed clerks, yasak collectors, was responsible for the state of the district, and resolved all issues of district administration. He governed the county through the Moving House, the county governing body. The hut consisted of tables responsible for various areas life of the district - yasak table, bread table, money table, etc. At the head of the hut was a clerk, the tables were headed by clerks.

Siberian counties were divided into Russian prisudki and yasak volosts. The composition of the property included a fort or settlement with adjacent villages. The estates were managed by clerks who were appointed by the governors or elected by the population. The population of the villages united into communities and elected elders. Yasak volosts united local tribes obliged to pay yasak. The yasak volosts were headed by local tribal nobility, who ruled according to local customs and traditions. Russians in the life and way of life of the Siberian peoples in the 17th century. did not interfere except to try to prohibit inter-tribal wars.

In Siberia, unlike in Russia, governors had broader powers. The Siberian order ordered them to manage “according to their own discretion, as it will be useful and as God will instruct.”

The broad powers of the Siberian governors and the remoteness of Moscow created favorable opportunities for various abuses. They were also facilitated by the support system of the Russian administration. In the 17th century In Siberia, a “feeding” system was used. Voivodes and clerks did not receive state salaries. They were strictly prohibited from any commercial activity. They had to live off the offering. As a result, the abuses of the Siberian administration took on a very wide scale. Almost all Siberian governors and clerks of the 17th century. were involved in abuses, the main of which were all kinds of extortions and bribes.

The Russian government tried to somehow limit these abuses of the Siberian administration. His attempts to fight them boiled down to the following:

- “detective” (summoning suspected persons to Moscow, their interrogation and trial);

Removal of persistent violators from office;

Search of governors and clerks at Verkhoturye customs upon returning to Russia and confiscation of part of their property.

However, to any extent noticeable effect These government measures did not work.

The abuses of Siberian governors, clerks and other officials became the cause of private mass unrest and uprisings, in which both Russians and local peoples participated. During the 17th century, several hundred of them occurred. They covered almost the entire territory of Siberia from Verkhoturye to Yakutsk and Nerchinsk. Most often, unrest and uprisings occurred in Tomsk and Yakutsk. The largest uprising occurred in Transbaikalia in 1696, when the rebels marched to Irkutsk and besieged it, outraged by the abuses of the local governor Savelov. The Russian government, as a rule, was forced to tolerate these protests and sought to resolve conflicts peacefully.

Lay self-government in the 17th century

The economic development of Siberian open spaces, the need to interact with state authorities and enter into contacts with the indigenous population forced Russian settlers to organize and reproduce in Siberia the norms of secular (community) self-government, rooted in all-Russian traditions.

The appearance of the peasantry in Siberia entailed the emergence of a peasant community - a peasant “world” arose immediately as soon as several household farmers settled in one place. Likewise, when townspeople appeared in cities, a townsman “world” arose. This was prompted by a number of factors.

Firstly, the need for collective solutions to economic problems and artel organization of labor.

Secondly, the need to regulate relationships between members of the same community and between communities. For this purpose, the townspeople and peasants elected officials from among themselves - elders, sotskys and tens.

Thirdly, the need to fulfill government duties. This function of the community was especially important. The fact is that at that time the state was not able to maintain a large staff of officials who would manage everything and everyone. Therefore, many services that were actually state services were assigned by the authorities to peasant or townspeople. These services were called “secular.” On the other hand, the settlers themselves - immigrants from the free Russian North - brought with them ideas about the traditions of the class organization and its place in the system of local government. Therefore, not only the state obliged the worlds to participate in governance, but the worlds themselves considered such participation to be their right. The community independently decided on the distribution of taxes, duties and secular services among its members.

People who performed secular services were called kissers, because they kissed the cross, pledging to do their work honestly. They were chosen by the community. The townspeople had kissers at customs, taverns, at the fur treasury, at grain and salt barns; among the peasants - granary, mill, field. It is important to note that when choosing a person for secular service, the principle of mutual responsibility was in effect, when in the event of a “disruption” of government interest, not only the kissers, but also their electors were responsible.

We can say that a community is, on the one hand, a social organization that regulates economic, social and family life posad or village on the basis of traditional law, and on the other – the lowest level of government and the tax authority.

Management structure in the first half of the 18th century

The beginning of administrative reforms only touched the surface of Siberia. During the first provincial reform, the entire region was united in 1708 into one Siberian province with its center in Tobolsk. The Siberian order was abolished in 1710, its functions were transferred to the Siberian governor, the governors of the Siberian districts were renamed commandants. Prince M.P. Gagarin was appointed the first Siberian governor.

Second provincial reform of 1719-1724. introduced more radical changes to Siberian administration. A four-degree administrative-territorial division was introduced. The Siberian province was divided into Tobolsk, Yenisei and Irkutsk provinces, headed by vice-governors. The provinces, in turn, were divided into districts headed by zemstvo commissars. However, already at the end of the 1720s. in most of Siberia they returned to the old system of local government: counties headed by voivodes.

In 1730, the Siberian Order was also restored. But the rights were, however, significantly curtailed compared to the 17th century; diplomatic relations, industrial management, command of military commands, and pit service were removed from his jurisdiction.

Unlike the 17th century. strict centralization and subordination were introduced. District governors could no longer communicate with the center, bypassing the vice-governors, and the latter - the Siberian governor. In turn, all government orders first came to Tobolsk, and from there they were sent to the cities. True, for efficiency and convenience of administration, the Irkutsk province received administrative independence in 1736: its vice-governor began to report directly to the government, bypassing Tobolsk. Thus, the beginning of the administrative division of Siberia into Western and Eastern was laid.

At the same time, some people migrated from the last century to the 18th century characteristic features controls:

Firstly, the election of lower administrative servants: clerks, clerks, scribes, and counters were chosen from among their ranks by townspeople and service people.

Secondly, the small size of the Siberian administration.

According to Peter's urban reform, limited self-government was introduced in Siberian cities, as in Russian ones. Citizens received the right to create elected magistrates in large cities, and town halls in others. They consisted of 1 – 3 burgomasters and 2 – 4 ratmans. Magistrates and town halls were in charge of collecting taxes from citizens and duties from merchants and industrialists, performing recruiting, road, and stationary duties, economic affairs and improvement of the city, etc.

In addition to magistrates and town halls, the towns' worlds annually elected zemstvo elders. Zemstvo elders had the right to convene a secular assembly and were responsible executors of its decisions.

Elected bodies of city government were completely under the control of the crown administration.

Since the 1730s in Siberia "for better order“The police began to be established.

Restructuring of management in the second half of the 18th century

Since the 1760s A new round of reform in the management of Siberia begins, further unifying it with Russia and radically changing the entire structure of power from top to bottom.

In 1763, for the first time, states were introduced for Siberian officials of all ranks and positions. The election of administrative servants is abolished.

In 1764, the Irkutsk province was elevated to the rank of a province and included the Irkutsk, Uda and Yakutsk provinces. The Tobolsk province includes the Tobolsk and Yenisei provinces.

According to the “Establishment,” the principle of “separation of powers” was introduced into the Russian state structure at the local government level. Now general administration was entrusted at the provincial level to the Provincial Board, headed by the governor and vice-governor, at the district level - to the Lower Zemstvo Court, in cities - to the mayor or commandant, magistrates and town halls.

The “Charter of Complaint” introduced a number of significant changes to city government. From now on, the bodies of city government in Siberia were:

1. A meeting of the city society, which included merchants and townspeople who had reached the age of 25.

2. The general city duma, which was elected by the townspeople and held elections to the Six-Glass Duma and was responsible for the city economy.

3. The six-vocal city council is the most important body of city government.

4. City magistrate. In addition to judicial functions in the affairs of townspeople, the magistrate was also responsible for the general administration of the city.

5. City artisans received their own separate body - the craft council.

Peasant world

The internal life of the peasant community was determined by the decisions of village and volost assemblies. All male peasants of “perfect age” could be participants in the gathering. Each participant in the secular council had the right to express his opinion; the decision was made by majority vote. “Old men”—people older in age and those who had previously served in elected positions—enjoyed special authority. Although in some communities great influence The rural rich were present at the gathering. The decision of the gathering was recorded in writing - a secular verdict, which was signed by all participants in the gathering.

The gatherings were elected by village and volost boards - secular huts, headed by village elders and volost elders. To resolve the most important issues, the gatherings elected lay attorneys, to whom they handed their orders. The attorney received broad powers from the assembly; in necessary cases, elders and elders were subordinate to him. This structure of peasant self-government remained unchanged until the middle of the 19th century.

Until the beginning of the 20th century. Siberia was understood to mean all the space east of Ural mountains to the Pacific Ocean, that is, this concept covered such regions as Western, Southern, Eastern Siberia and the Far East.
Unlike the European part of Russia, which was strictly subordinated to the central administration, Siberia had a certain administrative autonomy and a more extensive system of governance. Various levels This system, in some of its parts, formally corresponded to the institutions operating in other territories of the empire, but the specifics of the region introduced the necessary changes into each of them.

Regional factors shaping the management features of Siberia

An important role in the formation administrative system Political and geographical factors played a role in Siberia. The vastness of its territory and remoteness from the capitals of the state underlay many of the features of the management of Siberia. Although economic goals(primarily income from furs) were indeed one of the main incentives for the establishment of Russian authorities beyond the Ural ridge, but nevertheless, the organization of administration was directly influenced primarily not by sable “magpies”, but by the desire to prevent separatism and embezzlement on the part of numerous Cossacks and servicemen bosses.
The government decided to establish a special administrative center in Siberia, parallel to the capital of the state, to which local authorities would be subordinate. Tobolsk, founded in 1587, became the residence of the supreme Siberian governors. The Tobolsk governor headed the so-called “discharge” - a large district consisting of several district voivodeships. Subsequently (in the 18th - early 20th centuries), the administration of the region was built on the principle of organizing large districts, governorships and general governorships. The highest administrator of Siberia received a much greater amount of power compared to his colleagues in other parts of the empire.
Severe natural conditions and remoteness from inhabited European Russia prompted the police department to use Siberia as a place of exile and hard labor.
Political and geographical factors undoubtedly included the proximity of Siberia to Central Asian and Pacific countries; The great power of the heads of the Siberian administration contributed to the transfer of diplomatic and trade relations with neighboring states to them. Merchant caravans from China and Mongolia passed through Siberia, so the organization of the customs service became one of the main foreign economic prerogatives of Siberian rulers back in the 17th century. In addition, the Tobolsk discharge voivode received the right to diplomatic relations (sending and receiving embassies) with the Mongols and Kalmyks.
The most important prerequisite for the formation of a management system was the peculiarities of the settlement of the region by Russians. Siberia was populated, on the one hand, by service people who performed the functions of government, defense and “explaining”; on the other hand, Russian peasants crossed the Urals, attracted by the local open spaces, rich lands and the absence of serfdom here. The Siberian authorities could not afford to exceed the measure of tax and political pressure, since their subjects always had the opportunity to move further into the wilderness and be beyond the reach of the government authorities. Peasants formed township and rural communities, different from Russian ones, since they were no longer based on a traditional community.
Posad self-government was practically absent, and the administrative bodies of the posad essentially turned into lower police authorities, while in the European part of the country they stood guard over worldly interests and rights. There was also no organized nobility in Siberia. Representatives of the princely and boyar families, sent to the voivodeship, returned “to Rus'” after serving. Accordingly, it didn’t work out that’s why necessary conditions for the formation of representative bodies of the nobility, which formed the basis of local government in European Russia.
In conditions of personnel shortages, local authorities were forced to replenish their ranks from non-traditional layers for Russia - merchants, industrialists, and sometimes peasants. It was the lack of qualified administrative personnel from the nobility, among other reasons, that forced the government to leave some administrative powers to the aboriginal nobility.
In Siberia there was no serfdom as such and its entire population was “state-owned”; the central government, relying on regional bodies, had the opportunity to carry out any reforms there and change the administrative division of the region - after all, the highest and only authority for all Siberians were state institutions .
The task of converting more and more tribes and territories into citizenship, and then keeping them in subjection, prompted the central government to provide Siberian governors not only civil, but also military power.

So, the main factors that influenced the specifics of the management of Siberia were the following: political-geographical- vastness of the territory, absence of old administrative divisions, proximity to Asian countries; socio-political- lack of corporate class organizations of the nobility and townspeople, shortage of managerial personnel, lack of privately owned lands, military-administrative nature of the organization of settlements, spontaneous resettlement of the peasantry and small population; ethnosocial- the need to involve the native nobility in management.