Regional disparities and economic growth in Russia: new growth patterns and catching up

The regional disparities in Russia are increasing since transition started in the 1990s, as result of the structural processes of reorganisation and reallocations of resources taking place in the territory. The scopes of this contribution are two folds: to clarify the theoretical and policy background in analysing regional development in the transition and in particular in Russia, and to analyse the specificity of the spatial development and the regional disparities patterns in Russia. The economic geography is recognised among the different theories, very useful for helping to understand in particular the recent phenomena of new concentration pattern in Russia, giving a key of analysis of new polarisation trends: new trends toward urban concentrations in the Western regions, de-population of the Eastern regions, rural decline in those regions faraway from large urban agglomerations. In fact the empirical analysis indicates two dominant phenomena in the up-surging of regional disparities: the increasing weight of the capital city, Moscow as agglomeration effects brings the polarisation phenomena; and the strengthening of the natural resources and energy endowed regions. There is the question whether Russia, at this stage of development, can pursue an active regional policy toward equity targets or whether, for the target of sustaining macro-economic growth, there is the urgency to keep selected priorities based on the best performing poles. A difficult balance between the two targets would be the most suitable answer.     

Testing Explanations of Strategic Voting in Legislatures: A Reexamination of the Compromise of 1790

A difficult yet prevalent problem in legislative politics is how to assess explanations when observable actions may not represent true (and unobserved) legislator preferences. We present a method for analyzing the validity of theoretical/historical accounts that unifies theory, history, and measurement. We argue that approaches to testing accounts of legislative behavior which are theoretically and historically agnostic are not always best and present an approach which: (1) forms an explicit explanation of behavior (here a simple dynamic voting game) that yields estimable parameter constraints, and (2) tests these constraints using a customized empirical model that is as consistent as possible with the explanation. We demonstrate the method using legislative voting data from the first Congress (1789–1791). Using the idea of sophisticated equivalents from voting theory we subject the traditional account of the “Compromise of 1790” to a statistical test and find that there is reason to doubt the claim that legislators of the time believed the specified log roll was taking place. The results suggest that the capital location and assumption issues were resolved independently.     

Inter-parliamentary relations in the United Kingdom: devolution’s undiscovered country?

Since 1997, the United Kingdom’s territorial constitution has undergone an immense process of change and has resulted in the establishment of separate legislatures and governments for the peoples of Scotland, Wales and, when Stormont is operational, Northern Ireland. These changes have spawned a whole series of relationships between the institutions of the devolved UK, at executive, legislature and civil service levels. However, while intergovernmental relations has been the subject of repeated debate, there has been little attempt to document and examine the way in which the UK’s four legislatures interact with one another, post-devolution. To the extent that these interactions, otherwise known as inter-parliamentary relations (IPR), have been the subject of scrutiny, it has been largely to bemoan their modest state and/or to suggest that stronger, albeit occasionally rather unelaborated, mechanisms be established. This article seeks to correct this deficit and provide a first step towards a clearer understanding of IPR in the UK, post-devolution. The article breaks the different levels of IPR down into three main strands: (1) parliament-parliament, (2) committee-committee and (3) official-official, and suggests that the main interactions that take place at each of these levels. Following this audit, the article concludes by highlighting the role that shared policy competence (a field that is set to grow with the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union) has played in driving IPR in the UK, post-devolution, and suggests some steps that may be taken to enhance IPR in the future.