The impact of private philanthropy on cultural policy at the local level in Russia

Nowadays the majority of large enterprises, as well as a growing number of medium-sized and small companies are the actors of the social policy. Its content differs from the policy of the Soviet period. It is reflected in the business striving for greater control over the cost-effectiveness. Business brings of project lending methods into its social policies, implementing social investment programs, and does not carry out the replacement of budget expenditures. Under the conditions of inadequate budget funding and weak developed civil society, the state turns to business, in fact, imposing additional social tax on activities of business (Polishchuk, 2009; Spring, 2010).

More often, the business is committed to partnership relations with the government, a clear division of responsibilities (S. Peregudov, I. Semenenko, 2009). Partnerships involve mutually beneficial exchange: companies commit themselves on building the social infrastructure in the region, and government agencies, the heads of administration help organizations in addressing the economic and production issues. However, a partnership with the state in Russia is only at the beginning of development, and it is a complicated process.

In terms of cultural policy in Russia, here not so many actors from the state which take part in the decision making process. The main one is the Ministry of Culture of Russian Federation. In addition, the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation sometimes interacts with the Foundation for the Development of Philanthropy. Often a lot of projects initiated by business are held under the guise of or in cooperation with Ministry of culture of Russian Federation or the ministries in regions.

2.5 Political environment for philanthropy (Why funds are public policy actors)

If we take two particular funds - Potanin's and Timchenko's, we cannot but raise the issue of political aspect. This aspect usually keeps in the background but here we state that it is one of the key aspects which influence the implementation and outcomes of the projects.

Under the charity development programs, the Foundation conducted a large-scale search for partners and support groups. The Foundation cooperates with such serious institutions as the New Economic School and the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation (the official web-site of Potanin's Fund).

Personally, Former Director General Larisa Zelkova was a member of Russian Public Chamber till 2014 and Vladimir Potanin has been being a member of this Chamber since 2006. They both was working in the Commission of Volunteering Development. The Commission has made and put forward proposals to improve the regulatory framework for the development of philanthropy and civil society in Russia (Интеррос). An important result of this work was the 2006 law concerning endowments which ensures the principle of tax incentives to create a non-profit endowment organizations (ФЗ «О порядке формирования и использования целевого капитала некоммерческих организаций»). In January 2012 tax incentives for individual donors had been introduced (Российский доклад Coutts 2014).

Potanin's participation in political process gives us the ground to raise the topic of lobbying in Russia. If we turn to theory of special interest corporatism. Corporate representative is organized as a special system of people officially acknowledged or permitted by the government. So, the government endues them “sole right” to represent their specific sphere in return of control their activity. The state acknowledges the right of this group to evince the interest of particular group of people/citizens in exchange to determine this interest, selection of leaders, formation of the dialogue, etc.

So, a lot of projects were held under the guise or in partnership with the state. What is more, corporate institutions combine two functions - administration and representation. Finally, in this theory, the state is the most important instrument of interest pinpointing the main interests and jointing significant public groups (P. Schmitter).

Lubimov A. classified the types of lobbying and in the case of corporate philanthropy we can distinguish two types of lobbying. “Oblique lobbying” (the companies are organized in order to support one or another solution without mentioning the concrete addressee) and “inner lobbying” - when any faction being inside particular state body strives for defined solution (А. Любимов).

We came to such conclusion because the activity of this particular fund is encouraged while the similar Zimin's Fund “Dynasty” was proclaimed “foreign agent” and further eliminated by its founder Dmitry Zimin.

The second Fund - Timchenko's is less politicized. The term “politicized” is used intentionallty to estimate the level of political participation of funds' founders. As for political participation of Gennadiy Timchenko, as far he is interested in sport, in 2014, Timchenko became a chairman of the Russian part of the Russian-Chinese Business Council (Forbes), in the same year he was elected vice-president of the Russian Olympic Committee (sports.ru). So, the outcomes of implemented projects here are wider in terms of types of organizations - they provide the opportunity also for private organizations, unions, etc.

The factors presented above enable us to tell about corporate political philanthropy. We would provide the existence of “political philanthropy” with the case from international experience. G. J. Fooks and A. B. Gilmore had investigated political philanthropy using the case of “American Tobacco Company”. Their analysis is based on investigation of previously confidential documents of industrial activities, company's social and stakeholder dialogue reports and existing other studies of American Tobacco's philanthropy. They came to conclusions that tobacco companies used philanthropy politically. They defined six ways of such usage. (The data of Research in Appendix 1).

3. The impact of corporate philanthropy in cultural sphere on the regional level

3.1 Potanin's Fund

Potanin has always surrounded himself with highly qualified people: his Foundation is run by professionals, and the work is based on the expert support. Its strategy is to create a legacy, representing a new generation of leaders in Russia. In particular, Potanin and his Foundation have focused on creating opportunities for students and university professors, heads of training institutions of culture and enhancing the role of museums as well as the development of the sphere of charity in Russia. The information about the quality of the activity within the Fund is a feedback from grantees, 250 experts in the field of art and culture, and more than 500 experts in education support programs. Another feature of the Fund is the ability to listen to the experts and help "to mature" program, and then adjust programs to the changing conditions. In the field of culture and art there were implemented 206 museum projects in the framework of the program "Changing Museum in a Changing World". Such project is aimed at doing the culture more accessible to audiences in Russia and abroad. Investments in the arts and culture have a multiple effect by stimulating the growth of the local economy. They have helped to create at least five new social initiatives.

Leadership of this Foundation in philanthropic sphere helps the Russian third sector to grow after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to take on much greater responsibility to support charitable and social initiatives. The Vladimir Potanin's Foundation donates in average of $ 10 million a year.

An example of the Vladimir Potanin's Foundation and work to improve the regulatory framework of charity for many years encouraged other business people with higher income pay more attention to philanthropy. In 2013, for example, Russia donors (including corporate) spent on the charity more than $ 1 billion, donating an average of more than a million dollars each. Compared to the US, where 16.9 billion dollars have been donated in the same year, or even with China ($ 2.6 billion) (Coutts, Million dollar report 2016). The volume of donations in Russia remains relatively small. But given that during most of the XX century philanthropy in Russia was driven out of the Soviet system, now the charity sector is developing rapidly (Isabel Gorst, Financial Times).

The Potanin's Foundation also collaborates with the Foundation Charities Aid, Foundation Russia (CAF Russia), the Forum of donors and other partners to promote regulatory reforms that stimulate the creation of endowment funds. Currently, there are 136 such funds in institutions such as universities, community foundations and other non-governmental organizations (Donors' Forum: special-purpose capitals).

From 2005 to 2016 Vladimir Potanin made a 100 million dollar endowment to the Fund established by him in the UK, which is controlled through the Charities Aid Foundation. Potanin also personally invested more than 733 thousand dollars to the trust capital to ten organizations that participated in the program of the Fund "Target capital: growth strategy." More than 5 million dollars have been invested in the entrepreneur world's largest endowment fund of the Hermitage Museum.

These are some of the achievements of the Potanin's Fund - they are just part of the whole picture. Behind the numbers, it is important to consider real examples of transformations in the field, achieved through the Fund's investment.

Potanin's fund has chosen the strategy of grant giving. Its priorities are education and culture. They clearly formulated their mission, principles and mechanisms of work. The fund is interested in social impact and public benefit, it is not only concreted on people and organizations as the beneficiaries, but on the society as a whole.

3.2 Timchenko's Fund

Charitable foundation named in honor to its owners - Elena and Gennadiy Timchenko. Nowadays, Gennadiy is the owner of private investment company “Volgagroup”. Over 20 years, Timchenko family is engaged in charity, both in Russia and abroad. In order to achieve long-term results in the field of philanthropy, in late 2010, a charity fund was established in Moscow, and by the end of August 2013 it was called "Ladoga". Today it acts under a new name - the Charity Fund of Elena and Gennady Timchenko (abbreviated as the "Timchenko Foundation"), having united in its program portfolio all the directions of family charity. The activities of the Foundation are aimed at supporting active longevity, developing sport and culture, helping families and children. These strategic directions are aimed at the systematic solution of social problems in Russia.

According to the “Forbes” data, it is the one of the biggest Russian charitable foundations (Forbes, 2015).

Talking about their initiatives in cultural sphere, we would like to highlight their project “Cultural mosaic” - Russian-wide competition for cultural projects of towns and villages. This contest is designed to promote the development of small towns and Russian villages through the launching and implementation of long-term sociocultural projects aimed at activating civic society groups and integrating local people into initiatives for the development of small territories by means of culture. In the information prospect concerning this competition it is proclaimed that “Local civic society groups are the main force of positive changes in small towns and villages. Only with their participation the processes of transition from "survival" to "development" of territories can be launched. This requires strengthening the role that civic society groups play in the lives of their settlements, and involves stimulating the participation of residents in various projects and initiatives aimed at transforming the means of culture” (Prospect of “Cultural mosaic” competition). Thus, the main purpose of this project is to support of projects in the field of culture aimed at the consolidation and activation of local civil society active groups in small towns and villages of Russia in order to develop their settlements and having the opportunity to form "centers of attraction" of socio-cultural activity by their own for the long-term development of their territory in future.

The total budget of the project is not published but there is information that 700000 rubles is maximum sum which can be donated for one project.

3.3 Gridchinhall fund and residence

It is private gallery and at the same time residence for regional artists who want to develop their skills in Moscow and abroad. The second activity of this residence is philanthropic one. The owner Sergey Gridtchin established the “Fund” for cultural development. He is a businessman, has got a huge construction business, so it enables him to donate money for artistic projects. But further after the artist finishes to work in this residence, they start several pr-actions and other activities in order to make the artists from regions popular and gain more money for their works. If not talk in terms of money, they really paving the way for young (not always) artists which further in mostly cases become popular and sought after professionals.

They practice two ways of communication - our artists go to Western art residences, and the residence accommodates foreign artists as well.

But there is no particular system for choosing artists to which they donate money. Each artist can call to Gridchinhall and ask to be a resident.

But it is very complicated issue because the residence cannot accommodate a lot of people. Sometimes the owner discusses the future projects with experts. More often he is interested in some regional projects and invites artists by himself. It depends on the situation. Each case is unique. But it gives us the important point that there is no exact system or procedure of giving grants for private foundations.

While answering the question about legal framework for his activity, he is honest and tells that “You know, we live in Russia. Juridical base here is not developed at all. So, our organization is not an exclusion”.

As for their practical activities in the field of culture, the fund and residence are more than welcome regional artists to live and work in their residence in Moscow. Now two regional artists are working here - Oleg Khvostov from Saint Petersburg and Ksenia Kudrina from Yakutia. Over a distance of years, they accommodated artists from different regions among which are Yakutia, Perm, Izhevsk, Saint Petersburg, Tomsk also Dagestan. What is more, they accommodated and made joint projects with artists from London and New York. One of the artists had won a grant of “Fullbright” was working here for two months doing her artistic project.

The gallery organized mutual project with the museum of modern art “Permm” once. The other initiatives are more “individually oriented” - they do not try to influence the regional development, they help individual artists to develop. The future development of artist is different. Some of them stay in Moscow, some go abroad, others return to their own regions in order to influence the cultural situation there. So, there is no clear evidence how “Gridchinhall fund” influences local development.

The last point is the financial support and connection with the state. Gridchin told they have never had any mutual projects supported by Ministry of culture of RF or other bodies. Also they didn't win any grants but what is important they do not rely on governmental support.

3.4 Mechanisms of interaction between the state and philanthropic actors within cultural sphere

Several regions were taken intentionally. The method of the selection is as following. According to rating of private-social partnership in cultural sphere, these regions are pioneers and leaders in this process. Their local bodies managed to develop bilateral business-state relations. If we consider another logic, we can classify the most developed regions in terms of philanthropy by the laws on charitable activities they adopted locally. The last but not least point of taking these particular regions is that these regions were winners and active participants of sponsorship programs of both Potanin's and Timchenko's funds.

It is supposed to get information about the level of development in several regions, what is more, to investigate the mechanisms of interaction between state and local bodies.

There are several limitations of this research. There is no exact data on the structure and number of subjects of charitable activities in the regions. The lack of particular set of characteristics of philanthropy in regions which accurately describes this activity. The investigation of all the regions of RF needs long time research. The lack of information. Supposedly a vast array of information lies beyond public sphere so it is impossible to get this piece of information. The research is based on expert's estimation and secondary information using. So, it was decided to take only 10 “model regions” in which the corporate philanthropy is more developed.

Factors to reveal the development of philanthropy in regions in order to find out the mechanisms of interaction between state and business structure.

As we mentioned previously, several determinants influence the development of philanthropy. Among them are economic, governmental (managerial) and civic (the activity of citizens and public organizations) constituents. Accordingly, the following factors were determined to reveal the development of philanthropy on the regional level.

Factor

Index of economic freedom 2016 (rating of administrative territories for lack of administrative interference)

Quality of public administration (combined indicator in various areas of public administration - Public opinion and accountability of government bodies, Political stability and lack of violence, Government performance, Quality of legislation, Rule of law, Deterrence of corruption

The performance of constant donors in the region

Performance in the region of huge private and corporate funds

The activity of non-profit organizations and engaging people into voluntary projects

The activity of regional mass media to cover social problems

State support of philanthropic initiatives

Readiness of the political circles of the region to cooperate with the non-profit sector

Subsidies for regions from a state budget

The presence of an institution for the coordination of charitable activities in the region (NGOs, a gubernatorial council, etc.)

The presence of city-forming enterprises with a developed system of corporate responsibility

State support of non-profit organizations and initiatives within cultural sphere

The existence of a law or Concept of charity development in the region

Public recognition of the merits of philanthropists by the state

Number of working mechanisms of intersectoral social partnership (Youth Parliament, Public Hearings, Public Councils under, Human Rights Institutions Public Chambers, Foundations of local communities)

Preliminary data results

(We didn't estimate the particular level of development in each region, we took key indicators, so the place of the region in the table does show whether this or that region is more developed, it only shows that particular factor is present in such regions)

Table 1

Data about development of public-private partnership	Laws concerning charitable activities which were adopted in regions independently
1.Saratov	Samara
2.Nizhniy Novgorod	Chelyabinsk
3.Samara	Bryansk
4.Altai	Voronezh
5.Tatarstan	Volgograd
6.Voronezh	Altai
7.Volgograd	Tomsk
8.Perm	Yakutia
9.St. Petersburg	Ivanovo
10. Bryansk	Perm
11.Khabarovsk	-
12.Omsk	-
13.Chita	-
14.Tambov	-
15.Ulianovsk	-
16.Yaroslavl	-
The implementation of Potanin's Fund projects
Grants for the project “Changing museum in the changing world”	Scholarships for museum specialists
1.Samara	Voronezh
2.Vologda	Rostov
3.Yaroslavl	Perm
4.Nizhniy Novgorod	Penza
5.Perm	Samara
6.Kaliningrad	Lipetsk
7.Penza	Ivanovo
8.Krasnoyarsk	Saratov
9.Tomsk	Tomsk
10.Khabarovsk	Saratov
11.Vologda	Kaliningrad
12.Ekaterinburg	Irkutsk
13.Irkutsk	Krasnoyarsk
14.Kaliningrad	Arkhangelsk
15.Murom	St. Petersburg
16.Omsk	Tula
17.Krasnoyarsk	-
The implementation of Timchenko's Fund projects
The project “Cultural mosaic” of Russian regions	Internships for museum specialists
1.Kirov	Togliatti
2.Saratov	Saratov
3.Tatarstan	Samara
4.Perm	Perm
5.Yaroslavl	Ekaterinburg
6.Irkutsk	Arkhangelsk
7.Voronezh	Petrozavodsk
8.Omsk	Krasnoyarsk
9.Tomsk	Novosibirsk
10.Krasnodar	Tomsk
11.Irkutsk	Omsk
12.Novosibirsk	St. Petersburg
13.Krasnodar	Arkhangelsk
14.Karelia	Irkutsk

After analysis of information presented above and the statics mentioned in the first table, we chose 8 model regions

Table 2

№	Region
1	Altai
2	Arkhangelsk
3	Bryansk
4	Chelyabinsk
5	Chita
6	Ekaterinburg
7	Irkutsk
8	Ivanovo
9	Karelia
10	Khabarovsk
11	Kirov
12	Krasnoyarsk
13	Lipetsk
14	Nizhniy Novgorod
15	Novosibirsk
16	Omsk
17	Penza
18	Perm
19	Petrozavodsk
20	Samara
21	Saratov
22	S. Petersburg
23	Tambov
24	Tatarstan
25	Togliatti
26	Tomsk
27	Tula
28	Ulyanovsk
29	Volgograd
30	Vologda
31	Voronezh
32	Yaroslavl

From these 32 we chose 8 model regions. Then we narrowed down the model regions according to “best practices”. We came to conclusion that two model regions we will investigate will be Samara and Perm regions.

Further we apply stakeholder theory in general, then we reveal the stakeholders of corporate philanthropy in cultural sphere.

Pic. 2 Stakeholders of corporate philanthropy (general scheme)

These figures enabled us to reveal firstly the main stakeholders of corporate philanthropy in cultural sphere. Secondly, we managed to see that corporate philanthropy is closely connected with governmental structures and state what is impossible to say about private funds. Thirdly, we conclude that if some of the stakeholders of corporate philanthropy in cultural sphere are governmental bodies, thus corporate philanthropy is a part of public policy.



Pic 3 Stakeholders of corporate philanthropy in cultural sphere

Pic 4 Stakeholders of corporate philanthropy in cultural sphere (Potanin's and Timchenko's funds)

Pic 5 Stakeholders of philanthropy in cultural sphere (private fund Gridchinhall)

3.4.1 The impact of cultural philanthropy in cultural sphere on the regional level

While starting to describe the impact of corporate funds project implementation on regional level, we firstly need to clarify the aspects which are developing thanks to the donations from corporate funds.

Economy and market sphere embraces transparency and accountability. In terms of territorial development, these are extra money flows to the region.

External link and positive environment sphere includes relations with governmental bodies and state, working with mass media and impact on public opinion, development of competences and strategies. (For instance, in February 2017, Oksana Oracheva, the Director General of Potanin's fund proclaimed the new strategy of the fund). It means that strategies and competencies are being changed due to new challenges and times.

Pic 6

Local development. We named this sphere in a broad sense. Primarily it includes two main points - local activist groups (third sector) development and territorial development. Here is the partnership of the funds with activist groups - NGOs, NPOs, private and public museums, local charitable funds, etc. what is more, volunteering can be included into this sphere.

In this sense, we would cover a topic of territorial development and provide it with the particular case of Perm region.

Mechanisms of interaction between corporate funds and their stakeholders in the regions.

3.4.2 The background of cultural policy and corporate philanthropy in Perm

It was decided to take Perm region because firstly it is one of the regions which was revealed as the most developed in terms of corporate philanthropy and public-private partnership. Secondly, the case of Perm “cultural revolution” was widely discussed within and outside Russia for quite a long period (2008-2014). Thirdly, the research “Factors of formation of corporate responsibility of business” showed that in Perm the greatest number of respondents, rather than in other cities, pointed the positive experience of joint participation with the administration in social programs and actions (by Institute of urban economics). The fourth reason is that the same research by “Institute of urban economics” stated that in general in Perm region corporate responsibility is at the transition from traditional type of philanthropy to the strategic one with the elements of investment approach.

In this region except Timchenko's and Potanin's funds, also “Lukoil fund Perm” operates. The history of corporate giving by Lukoil in Perm started in 2000. For the first time, while operated in the form of private limited company "Lukoil-Perm" took part in the Perm city competition of social and cultural projects in 2000, supporting 9 projects worth 131 thousand rubles, in 2001 - 8 projects worth 150 thousand rubles, in 2002, 6 projects for a total of 180 thousand rubles were supported in the 4th city competition. All these grants were won by the most efficient public organizations of the Kirov district of the city of Perm. In 2002 "Lukoil-Perm" established a nominal grant within the framework of the second regional competition of social and cultural projects. Moreover, “Lukoil-Perm” not only established the competition, but also took an active part in its preparation and conduction. They held seminars in the territories allowed to take part in the competition. The number of projects for competition was 56.

Another initiative was when the company conducted the third corporate competition in March-April 2004 aimed at solving social problems in the territories of its activities, with amount of grant in total was 10 million rubles. As a result of the competition, 84 social projects were supported. In comparison with the competition which was held in May-July 2002, the amount of grant in total was 2 million rubles. As the result 33 projects were supported. Essential criteria for selecting winners is the social and economic efficiency of the project, the availability of an innovative approach to the solution of the problem, as well as the involvement of additional funds by the participants in the competition From the report “Corporate philanthropy and social responsibility in Perm”, 2010 (P. Blus).

In terms of relations between this fund and the heads of municipals, there are several contracts have been signed among these two sides. “Lukoil-Perm” carries out an active social policy aimed at achieving social partnership both inside the company and outside it. As a priority, they interact with regional and local authorities of those territories on which the company's production activities are directly situated.

“Lukoil-Perm” is the largest taxpayer in the Perm region, providing about 20% of total payments to the regional budget and extra-budgetary social funds. The company pays all taxes through local budgets according to the location of its production units.

"Lukoil fund" actively participates in regional social and economic programs. Today the company officially established its relations with 18 regions of the Perm Region and the Komi-Permyak area. The essence of the agreements is the company, producing oil, contributes to the socio-economic development of the mining areas. In turn, the heads of local self-government, within the framework of Russian legislation, provide the company with comprehensive support.

As for Timchenko's and Potanin's funds, they have implemented several projects in Perm region. Potanin's fund holds conferences, round tables, etc. here. During last years, projects of the development of Perm library, state galleries, museum of modern art “Perm” and the development of rural areas near the city were implemented (the data from official web-site of Potanin's fund). Timchenko's fund has the same activities in this region. The set of conferences and round tables were supported under the guise of project “Cultural mosaic: partnership network in Perm”. Other state and private organizations like recreation and cultural centers, small museums, non-profit organizations which develop cultural projects were financed by Timchenko's fund (the data from official web-site of Timchenko's fund).

3.4.3 Culture as an instrument of policy

The “local cultural revolution” has started in Perm region since 2008. Governor Oleg Chirkunov, political consultant Marat Gelman and the Minister of Culture of Perm region (currently theatrical director) Boris Milgram started the implementation of a new project - the creation of a cultural oasis in the Ural area. Firstly, the museum of modern art “Permm” was opened. Then drama theatre was given a new name “Theatre-theatre”. Later “Perm design center” occurred. Art object started to appear on the streets of the city. So, the authorities used culture as a political instrument of territorial branding.

The new cultural policy assumed reformatting the cultural space of a number of large provincial cities, turning them into centers of modern culture ("cultural capitals"). Museums of contemporary art were opening, festivals were holding, publishing projects were launching, urban space was being transformed.

Perm cultural project is a landmark event and to some extent a test as no one city or town in Russia has not experienced such practices. In fact, this is one of the most vivid and high-profile attempts to transfer to Russian realities modern technologies of the territorial development in Europe using culture as an instrument.

Perm project was one of the huge project “Cultural alliance” which was confirmed by “United Russia party” in 2010. Marat Gelman and Vladislav Surkov worked on this project. The project was supposed to export the experience of Perm cultural revolution to other regions like Tver, Izhevsk, Ulianovsk and other. This cultural alliance was supported by Russian ex-president Dmitriy Medvedev and Perm deputy corps (Kommersant).

In the documents and projects of the Perm cultural project, a new role of the cultural policy of the region was identified like a change of the image of the territory. It is not accidentally that the first presentations of the image projects "Perm - the cultural capital of Russia" (2009) and "Perm - the cultural capital of Europe" (2011) were made by the Ministers of Culture of the Perm region - B. Milgram and A. Protasevich.

The very concept of the Perm cultural policy (2010) contained numerous socio-economic indicators as criteria for assessing success. Among indicators are reducing the outflow of population and increasing the index of human capital development, changing the structure of the economy in the province, including creating new jobs in the culture and creative sector. The development of small business, the development of services and tourism (Concept of cultural policy of Perm region).

From the point of view of the city's recognition, Perm cultural project fulfilled its task - the city appeared on the map not in the physical, of course, but in a symbolic sense. Many residents and guests of the city noted that since the beginning of the project, Perm has become more interesting, modern, that wanted to come to this city.

It should be mentioned that the initiators of the updated model of cultural policy, despite a rather short period of its implementation, were able to achieve certain results:

· the growth of cultural activity in Perm and other municipalities: many territories with the representatives of the most diverse cultural communities and population groups of the Perm region were involved in cultural events;

· the cultural attractiveness of Perm and other municipalities increased, which led to an increase in the flow of tourists coming here, cultural figures, representatives of the expert community;

· reduction of the number of people leaving the region and the growth of the population of Perm. According to “Permstat”, on January 1^st, 2012, the number of residents of the capital of the region reached 1,000 679 people, which restored the city-millionaire status which was lost in 2003 (U. Tavrizyan, 2011)

Thus, the model of cultural policy used in Perm, which main goal was to renew and modernize of the region by means of culture could be recognized successful at that stage. It used a set goals and instruments for increasing the attractiveness of the city and the region in general.

3.4.4 Case of Perm State Art Gallery

In light of this we decided to take the case of Perm State Art Gallery. In 2015 the project named “More vozmozhnostei/ample of opportunities” initiated by Vladimir Beresnev who only wanted to tell about the situation occurred with the gallery. Together with the head of the gallery they decided to participate in Potanin's competition and finally had won the grant of Potanin's fund. Since that time the gallery had finally moved to another building, they developed several initiatives in cultural sphere and are still developing.

The prehistory of the development of this gallery is similar to other one hundred or more public galleries in Russia. By 2015 it was more than 40 years since the time it was decided to move the gallery to a new location. 22 addresses were considered as optional. But the gallery for various reasons remained in the old building. The author of the project "The Ample of Opportunities" decided to use the long history of crossings in order to initiate a public discussion about the place of the gallery in the city, and in more broad sense - about the role of art in life. Together with the staff of the gallery they decided to hold the exhibition devoted to the shifting of the gallery in the Cathedral square - the main one and central square in Perm. In the end, they managed to attract people's attention and got help in organizing the long-awaited housewarming, by making it a common deal both for the gallery and active citizens.

In 2016 a new stage of the project was initiated. “This new stage was connected with Vladimir Potanin Charitable Foundation, which supported the gallery” said Julia Tavrizyan, director of the Perm Art Gallery, at the opening of the exhibition. “There were many attempts to transport the gallery, fortunately, everything came to the end. Also, a lot of contemporary artists who live in Perm responded to the proposal of gallery staff to create works dedicated to this or that stage of thinking about possible gallery moves. Not only artists took part in this project but also volunteers, local activists, etc.

Oksana Oracheva, Director General of the Potanin's Fund talking about this project mentioned that this project is not accidental for both the gallery and the Foundation. She told that “We often talk about success, about leaders. If you think about it, so every failed attempt is a new step towards the new possibilities. This is not the only museum in Russia that moves, and I am sure that the Perm Art Gallery is a leader: it showed how to do it correctly, beautifully and successfully” (The Diary of the project on official web-site of Potanin's foundation).

The exhibition was opened every day. Each visitor had the opportunity to contribute to the exposition: as the author of the project Vladimir Beresnev explained, "in each box there was a card with the histories of the failed removals - if you knew unknown details, you could attach your information".

In addition, Vladimir Bersenev and two local histoians Vladimir Gladyshev and Milana Fedorova elaborated the touristic route of the removals of gallery.

While preparing and implementing this project, several aspects of communication with local groups were included - collection of information about the previously attempted removals of the museum, creation of the web-site, crowdfunding, board of trustees, the final exhibition and actions on the Cathedral square. The important part of such project was interaction with local people. There was created special “Corps for volunteers” - the community of those who cares about the future of the gallery. Volunteers helped at the time of removal. The implementation of this project supposed involving of all the politicians, public figures, architects and other people who contributed to this project.

Term: from 2015 till nowadays

The aim of the project: the development of territory and mobilizing of local activist groups

Author: Vladimir Beresnev, head of Museum of photography (a branch of Perm State Gallery)

Recipients: local activist groups, volunteers and Perm citizens

Support for the project (partners):

From business: Publishing house “Companion”, “Rifey” - television company, “Nashe radio/our radio Perm”, “New city” media partner.

From State: “Internet government” - internet portal, web-portal “Fight corruption”, web-site “Government procurement”.

Outcomes:

1) The leader of the project managed to involve workers from cultural sphere, local activists and volunteers. They together implemented this project. By the way, it was nominated to the prize “Innovation” for summer 2017.

2) They showed the history of 22 removals of gallery in the main square in Perm.

3) The most important outcome is that this project enabled to gain the attention of the local authorities and they finally bought the new building for gallery and at the end the gallery could move.

Pic 7 The pyramid of community involvement

1. Citizens do not know about the project, there is no contact between the citizens and the leader with the team of project.

2. Citizens start to know about the project and get the general information about it.

3. Citizens show their initial interest in the cooperation with the project

4. Citizens start to be actively engaged into the project by leader's and its team's invitation

5. Citizens start to feel themselves participating in the project. They demonstrate interest and readiness to take responsibilities for each part of the project.

6. Citizens continue with managing the project or its part. Members of local activist groups involve other people feeling responsible for their work and delegating responsibilities between other participants.

This case enables to conclude that local communities (local activists and activist groups) can be and they are the drivers of development in the cities and towns. Mostly the authorities of cities and towns are not ready to start the process of change, they cannot move from a survival strategy to a development strategy. Citizens can themselves take initiatives to implement projects, to achieve their goals and to change the situation to the better. The means of manifestation in cultural sphere are rather softer than the means of politics as itself. The driver for changes can be launched from outside - by any person or organization or as a reaction to the emergence of the problem or opportunity. In this case two drivers were included - the leader of the project specified the problem and activists reacted and felt the opportunity to change the situation.

Sociocultural projects play an important role in the formation and strengthening of urban and rural communities. They can facilitate the movement of residents along the pyramid of involvement: from ignorance and the passive role of the observer to the leading role, when members of the community take responsibility for decision-making and implementation of projects.

3.5 Mechanisms of interaction between philanthropic actors and their stakeholders

The above mentioned case is used intentionally. It helps to reveal the mechanisms of interaction between corporate funds and their stakeholders at the regional level. The process of giving grants and donations is similar in different regions. It only can include or not include more stakeholders of the project.

It is necessary to clarify the notion of mechanisms which we are to reveal. Mechanisms are the set of rules, methods, technologies and even documents between three actors - power, business and society. These mechanisms provide resources and help to implement joint works like projects which is based on several schemes of functioning of social sphere in a given territory. They are aimed at solving socially significant problem taking into account existing regulatory and legal acts.

We should start from the process of the development of grant programs by corporate funds.

Pic 8

The Fund of Vladimir Potanin uses the strategy of leadership. They need only leaders of projects to develop this particular projects. In light of this allow bids directly on their website. Timchenko's Fund uses the other strategy - they have several representatives in regions through which participants (organization or institutions) can fill the application. Such bodies are named curators of the projects among them are mostly local charitable funds, association (for instance of cultural managers), and other NPOs and NGOs. In our opinion, leadership strategy is more effective and enables to form a team which will further develop the project. Also, the leader can form other teams later and continue other projects. The type of “straight” application helps to avoid bureaucratic procedures and it helps the process.

Talking about particular mechanisms of interaction in regions, the first and foremost here is competitive (grant giving). This group includes the mechanisms of social order of the Russian Federation regions. Potanin's fund tends to use this mechanism.

The next one is institutionally-structural mechanism - when the local authorities together with NGOs and / or businesses operating in the same territory, form a new organizational structure (usually a legal entity), which is delegated some of the functions to solve socially significant tasks through involving citizens and public associations with financial support from the authorities and / or business. This approach is used by Timchenko's fund.

It is necessary to mention that both of these funds use the third mechanism - procedural or consulting (holding negotiation, meetings, conferences, round tables, etc.). Rules of cooperation of NGOs, business and authorities in solving (as a rule, not for permanent project but for one-time) a certain scope of tasks (without special procedure for grants giving, without creating new organizational structures). They are formed during a joint discussion. For instance, these are conferences held by Potanin's and Timchenko's funds or only with their participation and financial support. Mostly the funds provide financial assistance for projects' leaders or team members in order they participate in discussions or undertake an internship.

To show the difference of which organizations and which projects (state or private) are supported more by each fund, we illustrate the following data.

Table 3 The comparison of the activities in cultural sphere of two funds

Potanin's Fund	Timchenko's Fund
Strategy
Leadership (aimed at the leader of the project which manages all the team)	Aimed at organizations or enterprises
Grants
For a leader or team by a direct application on the web-site	For organization by the application to the curate-centers like local funds, associations and NPOs and NGOs
The priorities of giving donations
Mostly state museums and galleries	Mostly private galleries and museums
Participation of state bodies
The Public Chamber of RF, Ministry of culture of RF and local ministers of culture	The Public Chamber of RF, Ministry of culture of RF and local ministers of culture

Pic 9 Potanin's Fund distribution of grants

Pic 10 Timchenko's Fund distribution of grants

Each project in cultural sphere cannot appear occasionally. Some prepossessing factors or situations have to exist. In this sense it is necessary to look at the factors which play the role of drivers to develop the projects.

Table 4 The drivers of cultural projects

Request from the community for transparent procedures of giving finances	State, donors, social investors provide it
Young philanthropy and social investors	Culture as a way of social problem solving
Creative, innovative economy; digital technologies	Involving of recipients into planning and estimation processes
The impact on the local community (activist groups, NGOs, NPOs and territories)	Only in the last decades cultural projects are seen as the instrument of impact on the community

Taking into account the fact that corporate philanthropy aimed at satisfaction of public interests and inquires, it is supposed that implemented projects will have social impacts.

Table 5 Social impact of cultural projects implementation

Values	Recipients
Public values
Expansion of participation Preserving of heritage Strengthening of social capital Assistance to social changes Providing public identity and image	Community, civil society, general public
Private values
Contribution to economy Contribution to the development of interaction within particular community	Business-community, government, economic entities, corporations
Personal values
Contribution to personal enhancement	Certain persons; leaders
Institutional values
Assistance to maintenance of operating performance of museums, gallery, art centers, etc. Building museum capitals	Museums, galleries, art centers by themselves with their aspirations to serve public interests and operate sustainably

In this chapter we analyzed main initiatives in cultural sphere of Potanin's, Timchenko's and Gridchinhall funds. We compared their initiatives and revealed which projects they finance more - governmental or private. Timchenko's and Gridchinhall funds are focused mostly on private initiatives and Potanin's fund works mostly with state institutions.

The stakeholders of corporate philanthropy in cultural sphere are investigated there. Among them are governmental structures in cultural sphere, business structures, civic organizations and public in general.

Talking about the regional level, we managed to reveal 10 model regions in which corporate philanthropy is more developed. Further we analyze the impact of projects in cultural sphere on governmental and non-governmental institutions and public in general. What is more, we revealed the drivers of sociocultural projects and the social impact of implemented projects.

Conclusion

In this paper the attempt to research the correlation of state and non-state actors (corporate funds) within cultural sphere was undertaken. We determined the main notions which concern philanthropy, applied stakeholder's and Carroll's pyramid of SCR theories, revealed legal framework for philanthropic activity on the federal and regional levels.

The impact of the philanthropic foundations was assessed and we can declare that the last influence the outcomes of projects in cultural sphere. They do not really influence the outcomes, they influence in general - such foundations like Timchenko's and Potanin's help to implement one or another project providing them with necessary financial support.

Main mechanisms of interaction between corporate funds and state bodies were revealed. Development and implementation of the social program more often show the result of joint work of the funds, state authorities and local government. In the examples above, the pooling of interests and resources contributes to the development of a coordinated strategy of government and business in solving social problems, attracting experts to the sphere of municipal management and socio-economic development contributed to the introduction of innovative approaches in the development and implementation of projects and programs. So, the main mechanism is cooperation between private and state actors, we named it institutionally-structural. The next one is usage of modern management mechanisms, primarily competitive allocation of funds (grant programs), equity financing, monitoring and evaluation of social and economic results, allowed to select the most effective and relevant projects, increase the participants' motivation by attracting their own funds, and monitor the planned progress of the project and the results. It is necessary to mention the changes are impossible without the participation of third sector - civic activists, members of NGOs, NPOs and volunteers. So, the Perm case shows that the third sector can be a driver or initiator of changes if it manages to consolidate with leaders, appropriate fund and in the end form a great team and achieve their final goal. It is necessary to mention that both of these funds use the third mechanism - procedural or consulting mechanism which is characterized by holding negotiation, meetings, conferences, round tables, organized by funds with the participation of state representatives.

We proved that corporate giving is becoming widespread in Russia and it is of regional character. In our country business allocates significant amounts of money to support social and charitable projects, development of territories and communities.

The obstacles which business meets on its way to financial giving are legal. There is no clear division of responsibilities of business or corporate fund and the state. Very often the relations between state and corporates fund are not based on any legal basis. If they are regulated, there are several loopholes in the Russian legislation concerning philanthropic activities. It gives the evidence of not really effectiveness of cooperation between state and charitable funds.

In the end, it is possible to state that support of cultural initiatives as a political instrument is a working mechanism. At the same time, the third sector can be a driver of changes including cultural sphere.

Sociocultural projects play an important role in the formation and strengthening of urban and rural communities. They can facilitate the movement of residents along the pyramid of involvement: from ignorance and the passive role of the observer to the leading role, when members of the community take responsibility for decision-making and implementation of projects. Successful sociocultural projects with a high degree of public participation contribute to solving typical problems of local communities of cities, towns and villages. More and more often sociocultural projects become the drivers of the processes of improving the social and spatial environment. They are able to pave the way for more complex and costly changes, as well as to identify development resources. Often such projects help citizens to acquire new skil...