In search of local autonomy: the politics of big cities in Russia's transition

Abstract

Despite a series of local government reforms in the 1990s, Russia's localities still lack serious autonomy. Only big cities maintain hopes for the emergence of local autonomy and local democracy. City politics has produced multiple conflicts between regional and local authorities; however, regional-local relations merely reflect fundamental center-periphery controversies on a smaller territorial scale. While big cities and their metropolitan areas serve as centers of political, economic and social modernization, other regional areas are lost in the peripheries. During Russia's transition period, some large cities acquired more political and economic autonomy from regions than others did. This article concentrates on the crucial role of (1) political opportunities inherited from the late-Soviet period; and (2) strategic choices of political actors in the post-Soviet period. The constellation of initial conditions and outcomes of political conflicts have contributed greatly to the diversity of city politics and urban autonomy in Russia's cities. Finally, the article considers the possible impact of local autonomy in Russia's cities on national social, economic and political developments. Copyright Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003.

Federalism, gubernatorial power and the incorporation of subnational authoritarianism in Russia: A theory-testing empirical inquiry

“…A more nuanced vision of the interplay between the ongoing authoritarian turn and federal dynamics has been exposed in a number of publications that analyze in-depth the structures of incentives in Russia's regional and local politics (Gel'man, 2003(Gel'man, , 2009Gel'man and Lankina, 2008;Sharafutdinova, 2010;Gel'man and Ryzhenkov, 2011). Golosov (2011a, b) builds on these analyses when proposing a model of Russia's authoritarian transformation that includes the incorporation of subnational authoritarianism as an intrinsic -perhaps, even crucial -component in the formation of a national dictatorial political order.…”

State Dirigisme in Megaprojects: Governing the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi

“…This regulation was to give municipalities greater autonomy in resolving issues of local importance, veering away from what Golubchikov (2010, page 630) calls the``rigid scalar etiquette of administrative subordination and redistribution'' (see also Gel'man, 2003;Golubchikov, 2004). Yet the devolution of central power and planning competencies failed to deliver what it had promised, partly because it was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in the budget available to local municipalities (Gel'man, 2009).…”