| Summary: | Tony Walter once presented his own models to describe the differences between the national institutional models of the burial industry. He combined two approaches – infrastructure and regulatory. He revealed a correlation between the state regulation of funeral infrastructure and institutional models. There are three ideal models (highlighted based upon who the respective infrastructure belongs to): state, church, private, as well as variations of a mixed model. However, Walter`s models relate only to the experience of Western Europe and the United States. The author of this article attempts to address this omission. The author tries to incorporate the experience of Russia’s modern burial industry into Walter`s typology.This article has several objectives. First of all, to introduce Russian readers to the context of burial industry development. Such information has not yet been published in Russian. Secondly, presenting attempts to interpret the differences in the formation of national funeral service markets using Walter’s model. Third, trying to expose the serious limitations of the proposed model when attempting to apply it to the situation in Russia.The author argues that the Soviet model can be described as an institutional autonomy which came to be within the context of rural traditional cultural development. Modern Russia has inherited that old institutional model and enforces it under federal law, delegating all activities to the local authorities, who use government infrastructure to generate profit, while restricting access to such services for consumers. Therefore, state funeral infrastructure has led not to the emergence and development of private companies which provide burial services, but has rather relegated the private sector to becoming an intermediary. Tony Walter’s models, working within the regulatory context, were loosely applied to the case of the Russian burial industry.
|
|---|
