Asymmetric bilateral bargaining in the new Russian Federation: A path-dependence explanation

In this essay we identify economic and political factors that led both the federal centre and the regions in Russia first to open the process of federal bargaining and then to pursue it in the form of signing bilateral treaties, unique for each region. Many Russian politicians and most scholars of Russian politics view asymmetric bilateral bargaining as a dangerous institutional choice contributing to federal instability and potentially threatening the disintegration of Russia. We offer an alternative view. While the treaty-signing practices are actively maintained by Russian political elites, we argue that the genesis of asymmetric bilateral bargaining in Russia had a strong `path dependence' component. In particular, it was precipitated by the developments of the last period in evolution of the Soviet federalism.     

Budgetary politics in the Russian federation:(1) the case: of sakha (yakutia)

This article traces the evolution of center-periphery relations between the Russian federal government and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) using an institutional framework. During each of three stages the author identifies a distinct set of institutional parameters that, to varying degrees, determined the powers of federal and regional institutions. Each stage is also identified with a unique central institutional conflict that helped shape the rules of the political games played during that period. From this perspective, institutional change is seen as a major determinant of Russian center-periphery relations. The article concludes that Sakha has had remarkable success in extracting budgetary concessions from the federal government. However, Sakha has been unable to force the federal government to implement all the promises it has made.

Nonetheless, the concessions that Sakha and others have received are significant, and prompt the conclusion that Russia has become a federal state. However, Russia is far from an equal federation.     

New federalism and health policy

The making of health policy in the United States is a complex process that involves the private and public sectors, including multiple levels of government. Five characteristics of the policy process are identified, which establish the means by which policies are formulated and which affect the nature of the policies that emerge. These characteristics include (1) the relationship of the government to the private sector; (2) the distribution of authority and responsibility within a federal system of government; (3) the relationship between policy formation and implementation; (4) a pluralistic ideology as the basis of politics; and (5) incrementalism as the strategy for reform. The article focuses on the impact on health policy of the distribution of authority and responsibility within the federal system, particularly the impact of new federalism policies as they emerged during the past decade. The effects of dual federalism, cooperative federalism, creative federalism, and new federalism are examined in relation to health policies. The article concludes with an examination of the challenge to long-established values and health policies posed by new federalism.     

Developments in Indian Federalism: 2005–2007

Abstract

The subject matter of this paper, in general, is federalism in India. Three recent instances of the impact of Article 356—the ‘Emergency Provisions’—are analyzed to study two questions. How is federalism affected when different political parties are in power in the States and at the federal level, and does the current coalition government's experience help or hinder federalism? As to the first question, the two States of Jharkhand and Bihar, with particular emphasis on the latter, in the aftermath of the 2005 elections are examined. In both cases, it was blatant federal intervention that led to the dismissal of the duly elected governments in these States solely on political considerations and the advice of the Governors who were appointed by the federal government. The third is the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh where in 2006–2007 an attempted use of this Article was thwarted by the Election Commission. As to the second question, the use or the very threat of using Article 356 to dismiss duly elected State governments under the pressure of coalition partners at the Centre does not augur well for constitutional government or coalitions, and certainly not for federalism. In any case, Indian federalism lives up to the moniker as pointed out by C. H. Alexandrovictz that it is sue generis.     

Discount Rates for the Evaluation of Public Private Partnerships,by David F. Burgess and Glenn P. Jenkins (Eds.)

This article provides a critical overview of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in Russia and Kazakhstan and examines the rationale underpinning such partnerships. The analysis discusses the reasons why governments in Russia and Kazakhstan focus principally on concessions as a form of PPP and goes on to provide a critical assessment of the key approaches and situational factors relating to concessions in these two countries.

The article finds that external globalization impulses pressed Russia and Kazakhstan to align their policies and institutions with western orthodoxy and perceived international best practice. An ever-increasing emphasis on use of PPPs has been a key feature of this alignment. However, the governments of Russia and Kazakhstan have increasingly resorted to concessions as progress with the development and implementation of Western style PPP models has stalled. This article concludes that the governments of Russia and Kazakhstan have demonstrated an overly optimistic approach to PPP and as a result may have substantially understated their overall concessional risks and costs. Features of Russian and Kazakhstani PPP arrangements such as ambiguity in output specification and extensive reliance on government subsidies, combined with lack of expertise of private partners, may significantly decrease concession benefits.     

The evolution of Russian federalism and its current fiscal dilemmas: an institutional account

In order to make sense of the fiscal component of the emergent federalism in the post-Soviet Russian political system, this article provides an historical-institutional analysis which charts over time the development both of legal frameworks and informal political contexts, thus providing an overview of the changing mix of constraints, resources, and strategic opportunities present to actors occupying various roles within the federal system. Several discrete stages in the evolution of Russian federalism from the late Gorbachev era to the present are identified. According to this analysis, Russia's political system has elements of genuine federalism, but federalization is constrained by specific attributes of the Soviet legacy. Russian federalism is asymmetrical, that is, ethnically defined subunits (the republics) enjoy greater powers than their non-ethnically defined counterparts. This asymmetry may have been a necessary response to the ethnic ambitions of the so- called “autonomous” entities inherited from the Soviet era. At the same time, however, some of the non-ethnic subunits (principally the oblasts, or regions) have demanded similar rights of autonomy, especially with regard to control of natural resources, shared tax revenues, and other economic concerns. Developments since the mid-1990s suggest a modest return of power to the federal center at the expense of the subunits, but the latter still enjoy a degree of independence unheard of during the Soviet period. Meanwhile, there has been a trend toward equalization of economic powers between the republics and oblasts. Still worrisome, however, are the disparities in wealth among the various subunits and the penchant for self-enrichment on the part of leaders of otherwise impoverished regions and republics.     

Coordination and control in Russia’s foreign policy: travails of Putin’s curators in the near abroad

Abstract

This article seeks to challenge the conception of the Russian state as being centred on Vladimir Putin by looking at the actors implementing Russia’s foreign policy in its near abroad. In particular, it explores the activities of curators (kuratory), a term applied in Russia to describe officials tasked with making things work often bypassing, and sometimes competing with, formal institutions. Following the state transformation framework, the argument put forward in the article is that curation (kuratorstvo), as a practice of coordination and control in Russia’s system of governance, can be seen as a manifestation of fragmentation and internationalisation of Russia’s foreign policy making. The empirical basis for this article is a case study of Russia’s policy towards Abkhazia, which Russia officially recognised as a sovereign state in 2008. This article addresses the involvement of curators in their attempts to exert political influence as an expression of fragmentation as well as emerging institutionalised curation in development assistance as a part of internationalisation.     

Federalism and democratization in Russia

The scholarly literature on democratic transitions has largely ignored developments at the local level and the relationship between federalism and democracy. In this work I examine the development of federalism in Russia and I assess the impact of Russia's highly asymmetrical form of federalism on democratisation. The study shows that federalism far from promoting democracy has allowed authoritarianism to flourish in many of Russia's eighty nine regions and republics. Federalism and democratization in Russia exist in contradiction rather than harmony. In a vicious circle, authoritarianism at the centre has been nourished by authoritarianism in the region and vice versa. “Elective dictatorships” and “delegative democracies” are now well entrenched in many republics, and mini-presidential systems are firmly established in a majority of the regions.     

Varieties of Authoritarianism: The Organization of the Military State and its Effects on Federalism in Argentina and Brazil

While much has been written about democracy and democratization, far less attention has been paid to the institutional organization of authoritarian regimes. Scholars have focused on the causes, economic policies, societal support, intra-elite conflicts, or human-rights violations of authoritarian regimes. More recently, political scientists have also studied the role of elections and legislatures on the survival of authoritarian regimes. However, the very different ways in which authoritarian regimes, and military regimes in particular, organize the government, occupy the state apparatus, and modify the country’s political institutions have largely gone under-theorized. This essay contributes to fill in this void by analyzing how the last military regimes of Argentina (1976–1983) and Brazil (1964–1985) organized power within the state and the legacies of such organization on the institutions of federalism. The essay argues that variation in the organization of the state under the military regimes accounts for the divergent origins of post-developmental decentralization, which in turn explains the contrasting evolution of intergovernmental relations in each country. The article contributes to the recent literature on electoral authoritarian regimes by showing that elections and legislatures matter not only to regime survival but also to policy outcomes.     

Russian Regions in Expanding Europe: The Pskov Connection

BARGAINING OVER POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC POWER between the federal government in Moscow and the 89 subjects of the Russian Federation is now widely considered as critical to the success of Russia's democratic and free market reforms, if not to Russia's enduring viability as a state.1 The key challenge to Moscow, and to Russia as a whole, is how to harmonise different levels of political control so that economic growth could be accelerated and social tensions eased in the regions. This challenge is aggravated by the absence of reliable institutions (understood as enforceable rules of the game) regulating centre-periphery relations and the ideological and organisational disarray at the centre itself. In the regions along Russia's post-Soviet borders in particular, this problem is further complicated by a tension between geopolitical insecurity and powerful incentives for trade and economic development coming from outside Russia's borders. Relations between Moscow and the outlying regions thus become a truly 'intermestic' issue, affecting both Russia's internal post-Soviet institution building and the mode of Russia's integration into the global economy. The politics that shape relations between the Russian regions and Moscow are therefore part and parcel of Russia's evolving relations with the outside world, and the policies of regional elites are part and parcel of an increasingly complex fabric of Russia's foreign relations.     

Reform,corruption, and growth: Why corruption is more devastating in Russia than in China

This article explains why massive political corruption appears to be incompatible with economic growth in Russia but compatible with very rapid economic growth in China. The common assumption is that corruption is bad for economic performance. So how can we explain the puzzling contrast between Russia and China? Is Russia being more severely “punished” for its corruption than China? If so, why? This article demonstrates that three intervening factors—comparative advantage, the organization of corruption, and the nature of rents—determines the impact of corruption on economic performance, and that these factors can explain the divergent outcomes. The article thereby offers an alternative to statist explanations of the Russia-China paradox.     

Trust in public institutions in Russia: The lowest in the world

The article's topic is the attitudes of the Russians toward their social institutions. As it will be shown, Russia is a country, much more than any other, that mistrusts its social institutions, political institutions in particular. There is no one institution that can garner more than 40 to 50 percent of the nation's trust. Indeed, in terms of their lack of confidence in social institutions, the Russians are behind not only the most advanced countries in the world, but even countries known for their unstable political systems, such as Colombia or Nigeria.     

Russian Orthodox concordat? Church and state under Medvedev

The literature on church-state relations in post-Soviet Russia has been slowly but steadily expanding over the past two decades. The period since 2008, however, remains underdeveloped, as existing analysis has focused on specific issues rather than attempting an overview of the larger trends since the above-mentioned changes in the leadership of both institutions. Seeking to address this gap, this article explores the implications of the nearly coincidental changeovers in leadership in the Moscow Patriarchate and the secular state for church-state relations in Russia, both near and long-term. The first part of the article sets up the context for understanding the new church-state dynamic, by discussing in some detail the state of the relationship under Patriarch Aleksii II. The conclusions are that, under Aleksii tenure, the church could be considered a relatively weak institution, as it was unable for the most part to strengthen its position in Russia through legislative means. The second part focuses on the process whereby the new patriarch came to be elected in 2009, intending thereby to shed some light on Kirill I's leadership style and political agenda. The third part discusses concrete changes in the church-state relationship that have occurred on the federal level since 2008. The final section proposes some conclusions regarding the importance of the Russian Orthodox Church as a political actor in the contemporary Russian Federation, suggesting that despite the recent gains in the church's political fortunes, the ROC's position in society and particularly vis-à-vis the government remains vulnerable in key respects.     

The Cossacks: A guarantor of peace or a land‐mine in Russia's federalism?

Russia's policy towards the Cossacks may prove detrimental to the development of federalism in Russia. Their rehabilitation is important for the rebirth of Russian culture. Yet, the Cossacks as a social‐military institution, may further harm the relations between ethnic Russians and non‐Russians in the Caucasus, which may revive the dispute over the preservation of the ethnic principle in Russia's federalism.     

Corrupt Intermediaries in Post-Socialist Russia: Mutations of Economic Institutions

Using the example of intermediaries in business–state relations, this essay addresses the evolution of corruption in Russia which has been facilitated by the introduction of a neoliberal system of market relations. Based on empirical studies of small and medium-sized enterprises in Russia, the essay demonstrates how intermediaries (which are also present in Western market economies and serve the function of reducing firms' transaction costs) have adapted to the local system in order to serve as providers of both legal and illegal (corrupt) services. Disputing the pervasive claim that neoliberalism and corruption are mutually exclusive phenomena, we argue that in ‘incoherent’ democracies like Russia, where properly functioning democratic institutions and a developed civil society are lacking, neoliberalism has led to the expansion of corruption.     

National in Form,Putinist in Content: Minority Institutions ‘Outside Politics’

Abstract

Over the past three decades, Russia has developed a set of institutions for the management of ethno-linguistic diversity based on the principle of ‘national cultural autonomy’. This article examines the positioning of these institutions within Russian society, arguing that while state-endorsed discourses locate them within the culture sphere—treated as distinct from political processes—there is in fact an interpenetration of ‘politics’ and ‘culture’. The article identifies why these institutions position themselves within the ‘cultural sphere’ while also supporting the country’s meta-narratives on inter-ethnic tolerance and, effectively, the political status quo. Soviet legacies of inter-ethnic relations continue to be socially embedded, yet within this framework some dissenting voices are also discerned.     

Mogadishu: an economy without a state

When analysing links between conflict, trade and foreign aid in Somalia, it is important to examine the role of the Mogadishu-based business class. Mainly urban-based elites benefit from the profitable business activities, such as the charcoal trade. Nevertheless, potential links between conflict, trade and foreign aid are ambiguous. Whereas trade can trigger conflict in producing areas and along transport routes, it can build trust among the business elite in the urban centres. Today there is a thriving economy largely based on trade and arbitrage, rather than on production, without a functioning state in Somalia. This article argues that, in countries where effective government institutions are absent, security and social services, such as education and health care, are often privatised. However, some individuals have an interest in the continuation of violence to engage in lucrative sectors of the economy which would be regulated or banned under a functioning government.     

The politics of state capitalism in a post-liberal international order: the case of Turkey

Abstract

This article discusses the transformation of the liberal international order, with reference to the ways in which global shifts affect the developmental paradigms among the emerging middle powers. Although it is rarely contested that the liberal order is being severely tested, the dynamics and potential consequences of this transformation are a matter of intense controversy. Also, the debate mainly focuses on great power politics, without paying adequate attention to the ways in which middle powers are influenced by and inform the transition to a post-liberal international order. By focusing on the case of Turkey, this article addresses whether non-Western great powers (Russia and China in particular) are leading the emergence of alternative order(s), and if so, through what mechanisms. Based on the reciprocal interactions between ideas, material capabilities and institutions, I argue that the preferences of the Turkish ruling elite seem to be gradually shifting from a Western-oriented liberal model towards a variety of ‘state capitalism’ as an alternative developmental paradigm in a post-liberal international order.     

Assessing asymmetrical federal design in the Russian federation: A case study of language policy in tatarstan

This article seeks to further the understanding of language policy in Tatarstan by examining the development of language legislation and policies in the republic in the post-Soviet period and by placing the issue of language policy within a federal – republican context. The article finds that asymmetrical federalism is an appropriate and workable response to Tatarstan's demands for policy capacity over issues pertaining to language. It is Russia's federal design itself, and not processes of ad hoc constitutional bargaining, which creates governance capacity in this policy area and provides Tatarstan with the de jure power to implement measures to protect the Tatar language.     

Shading,lines, colors: mapping ethnographic taxonomies of European Russia

This article explores the role of maps in the construction and development of ethnographic taxonomies in the mid-century Russian Empire. A close reading of two ethnographic maps of “European Russia” produced by members of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society, Petr Keppen (1851) and Aleksander Rittikh (1875), is used to shine a spotlight on the cartographical methods and techniques (lines, shading, color, hatching, legends, text, etc.) employed to depict, construct, and communicate these taxonomies. In doing so, this article draws our attention to how maps impacted visual and spatial thinking about the categories of ethnicity and nationality, and their application to specific contexts and political purposes within the Empire. Through an examination of Keppen’s and Rittikh’s maps, this article addresses the broader question of why cartography came to be regarded as such a powerful medium through which to communicate and consolidate particular visions of an ethnographic landscape.