Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

282 Vertical or triangle?szelenyi60/lever-tracy.html for the view that in China Gemeinschaft has been thedriver of development.28 We may note that the Kozak Commission sought to integrate the Federationprimarily through judicial means. The Commission did not appear to regard thefederal districts as having a key role in federal–regional relations and did not seekto strengthen their role. Following Kozak’s appointment as head of the SouthernFederal District his approach to this institution may be seen to have changed.29 See G. Hahn, ‘Putin’s “federal revolution”: the administrative and judicial reformof Russian federalism’, East European Constitutional Review, Vol. 10, No. 1,Winter 2001.30 See H. Wollmann and N. Butusowa, ‘Local self-government in Russia: precarioustrajectory between power and law’, in Harold Baldersheim, Michal Illner andHellmut Wollmann (eds), Local Democracy in Post-Communist Europe,Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2003, pp. 211–240.31 A. Ryabov, ‘Feudal pluralism’, http://www.gazeta.ru/comments/2006/12/19_a_1170672.shtml.32 http://gazeta.ru/comments/2006/12/20_e_1173210.shtml.33 C. Kwa, ‘Romantic and baroque conceptions of complex wholes in the sciences’,in A. Mol and J. Law (eds), Complexities, Duke University Press, 2002, pp. 23–52.See also J. Law, ‘And if the global were small and incoherent: method, complexityand the baroque’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 22, 2004,pp. 13-26.34 Presentation by pro-Kremlin political analyst Vladimir Markov, EuropeanUniversity Institute, Florence, 23 April 2004. The term ‘St Petersburg lawyers’may be taken as a reference to Dmitri Kozak, among others.35 A. Campbell, ‘Local government policymaking and management in Russia: thecase of St. Petersburg (Leningrad)’, Policy Studies Journal, 21 January 1993,pp. 133–42. For the re-emergence of strong executive rule, see: A. Campbell,‘Democracy versus efficiency? The conflict between representative and executiverule in Russian local government 1991–2’, Administrative Studies, No. 4, 1991,pp. 210–18, and A. Campbell, ‘The restructuring of local government in Russia’,Public Money and Management, October–December 1992, pp. 19–25.36 See V. Gel'man, ‘Federal policies towards Local government in Russia’, inA.B.Evans Jr. and Vladimir Gel'man (eds), The Politics of Local Government inRussia, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004, pp. 85–103. Gel'man distinguishesbetween managerial pragmatists (with a state-oriented view of local government)and self-governmentalists (samoupravlentsy) who see local autonomy asa social (political) rather than state institution.37 Comment by Sergei Samoilov, presidential administration, working group meetingon Novosoibirsk regional laws, 5 February 2005. The Russian phrase meaning‘to live by unwritten rules’ –zhit' po ponyatiyam, has negative, underworld connotations.38 See Tomila Lankina, Governing the Locals, Lanham, MD: Rowman andLittlefield, 2004.39 Comment by senior federal official at working group meeting, Moscow,December 2001.40 See D. Slider, ‘Governors versus Mayors: the regional dimension of Russian localgovernment’, in Evans and Gelman, pp. 145–68.41 G. Easter, ‘Re-defining centre-regional relations in the Russian Federation:Sverdlovsk Oblast’, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 4, 1999, pp. 617–35.42 V. Gel'man, ‘The politics of local government in Russia: the neglected side of thestory’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2002, p. 502;also, K. Matsuzato, 2004, cited in A. Campbell, ‘State versus society: local