Field experiments have provided ample evidence of ethnic and racial discrimination in the labour market. Less is known about how discrimination varies in multi-ethnic societies, where the ethnic composition of populations is different across locations. Inter-group contact and institutional arrangements for ethnic minorities can mitigate the sense of group threat and reduce discrimination. To provide empirical evidence of this, we conduct a field experiment of ethnic discrimination in Russia with a sample of over 9,000 job applications. We compare ethnically homogeneous cities and cities with ethnically mixed populations and privileged institutional status of ethnic minorities. We find strong discrimination against visible minorities in the former but much weaker discrimination in the latter. These findings demonstrate how institutions and historical contexts of inter-group relations can affect ethnic prejudice and discrimination.
The essay explores why some socioeconomic reforms are successful and others are not and why and how the political regime and its institutions affect policy outcomes and the implementation of a 'narrow' programme of authoritarian modernisation, characterised by the achievement of socioeconomic growth without full-scale democratisation. It reconsiders the Russian experience of policy reforms in the 2000s as a case of authoritarian modernisation in the context of post-Communist policy changes where less than half of the proposals have been implemented, and only a few have been successful. The essay attempts to explain the factors and mechanisms of the successes and failures of policy reforms, focusing on the one hand, on the impact of electoral authoritarianism and the poor quality of the state on opportunities and constraints for policy changes, and, on the other hand, on the institutional factors which affect the vertical and horizontal fragmentation of the Russian government and the efficiency or inefficiency of its policies.
This study explores relationship between the Internet and the Russian national election of 2011–2012. In contrast to other studies, we focus on the blogosphere as a political factor. Our conclusions are based on a study of the LiveJournal blogging platform represented by a sample of political posts from the top 2000 bloggers for 13-week-long periods. Sampling from the population of about 180,000 posts was performed automatically with a topic modelling algorithm, while the analysis of the resulting 3690 texts was carried out manually by five coders. We found that the most influential Russian blogs perform the role of a media ‘stronghold’ of the political opposition. Moreover, we established a relationship between the weekly pre-election ratings of the opposition parties and presidential candidates and the indicators of political activity in the blogosphere. Our results cautiously suggest that political activity on the Internet is not simply an online projection of offline political activity: it can itself provoke activity in offline political life.
The essay explores why some socioeconomic reforms are successful and others are not and why and how the political regime and its institutions affect policy outcomes and the implementation of a 'narrow' programme of authoritarian modernisation, characterised by the achievement of socioeconomic growth without full-scale democratisation. It reconsiders the Russian experience of policy reforms in the 2000s as a case of authoritarian modernisation in the context of post-Communist policy changes where less than half of the proposals have been implemented, and only a few have been successful. The essay attempts to explain the factors and mechanisms of the successes and failures of policy reforms, focusing on the one hand, on the impact of electoral authoritarianism and the poor quality of the state on opportunities and constraints for policy changes, and, on the other hand, on the institutional factors which affect the vertical and horizontal fragmentation of the Russian government and the efficiency or inefficiency of its policies.
How do Russian leaders balance the need to decentralize governance in a socially and politically complex country with the need to guarantee political control of the state? Since the early 2000s Russian federal authorities have arranged a system of political control on regional elites and their leaders, providing a "police control" of special bodies subordinated by the federal center on policy implementation in the regions. Different mechanisms of fiscal federalism and investment policy have been used to ensure regional elites' loyalty and a politically centralized but administratively decentralized system has been created. Asking clear, direct, and theoretically informed questions about the relationship between federalism, decentralization, and authoritarianism, this book explores the political survival of authoritarian leaders, the determinants of policy formulation, and theories of federalism and decentralization, to reach a new understanding of territorial governance in contemporary Russia. As such, it is an important work for students and researchers in Russian studies and regional and federal studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.