Decentralisation, Citizenship and Mobility: Residency Restrictions and Skilled Migration in Moscow BRAD K. BLITZ School of Social Sciences and Law, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK ABSTRACT This study explores the effects of political restructuring on citizenship in contemporary Russia by examining the impact of decentralisation on freedom of movement in Moscow. It seeks to explain why, in spite of the change of regime and delegation of authority from federal to regional government, there has been a marked continuity in the practice of residency controls that restrict freedom of movement. It investigates the conditions for skilled migrants who wish to settle in Moscow and examines how the deconcentration of authority over residency policy has produced new inequalities such as access to essential services, employment, and the property market which have effectively created new classes of citizenship based on differentiated options for mobility. The range of options is determined by geographical location, place of residence, occupational status, and political engagement, and is illustrated by three types of citizenship: (1) full Muscovite status; (2) conditional subjects; and (3) resident participants. The empirical basis for this study draws upon data gathered during field visits to Moscow in January 2005 and winter 2006 when interviews (n ¼ 36) and focus groups (four) were conducted with migrants from other regions and employers. Introduction One of the purported benefits of decentralised governance is that it strengthens the bond between state and citizenry by providing greater opportunities for interest group competition and political participation (Dahl, 1971; Manor, 1996; Crook & Manor, 1998; Blair, 2000). In the case of former Communist states, decentralisation 1 was also endorsed as a means of protecting economic and political freedoms from potential state interference (Hayek, 1945; Berlin, 1969; Nozick, 1974; Sen, 2000). Such arguments were publicised in Russia in the 1990s where the transfer of authority from central government also supported privatisation and anti-corruption programmes. In practice, however, decentralisation did not bring the anticipated benefits described above. Rather, transfers of authority fostered political fragmentation which was most notable at the regional (Oblast) level where a visible cadre of governors challenged the Kremlin over highly sensitive areas of policy (Carothers, 2002; Lokshina, 2002). These developments also promoted new debates over 1362-1025 Print/1469-3593 Online/07/040383-22 q 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13621020701476277 Correspondence Address: Brad K. Blitz, School of Social Sciences and Law, Oxford Brookes University, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK. Email: bblitz@brookes.ac.uk Citizenship Studies, Vol. 11, No. 4, 383–404, September 2007