Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

52 Michael Burgess30 Riker, p. 39. For further details about the federal bargain, see Chp. 2, pp. 11–16.There is a critique of Riker’s federal bargain in Burgess, pp. 76–101.31 Riker, p. 40.32 Ibid., pp. 14 and 38.33 Smith, pp. 157 and 167.34 Riker, ‘Federalism’ in F. I. Greenstein and N. W. Polsby, (eds), The Handbook ofPolitical Science: Governmental Institutions and Processes, Vol. 5, Reading, MA:Addison Wesley, 1975, p. 113.35 Heinemann-Grüder, p. 153.36 A. Stepan, ‘Federalism and democracy: beyond the US model’, Journal ofDemocracy, Vol. 10, No. 4, October 1999, pp. 19-34. Stepan uses India as his briefcase study but he also refers to Belgium (1993) and Spain (1978) in this categoryalthough the latter is not formally a federation.37 See Birch, pp. 22–33.38 See L. J. Cohen, ‘Fabricating federalism in “Dayton Bosnia”: recent politicaldevelopment and future options’, in A. Heinemann-Grüder (ed.), pp. 116–45.39 Bermeo claims to have identified a new kind of federation that she calls ‘forcedtogether federalism’ which is characterized by ‘outside actors and relates explicitlyto system frailty’. She regards this as ‘a slightly different concept’ from Stepan’s‘putting-together’ federalism based upon coercion by a ‘nondemocratic centralizingpower’. See Bermeo, p. 108 and fn. 27, p. 110, and Stepan, p. 23.40 Heinemann-Grüder, p. 155.41 Ibid., p. 15642 H. Klatt, ‘Forty years of German federalism: past trends and new developments’,Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Special Issue, titled ‘Federalism andIntergovernmental Relations in West Germany: A Fortieth Year Appraisal’, Vol.19, No. 4, Fall 1989, pp. 186–7. See also his ‘Decentralising trends in WestGerman federalism, 1949–89’, inC.Jeffery (ed.), Recasting German Federalism:The Legacies of Unification, London: Pinter, 1999, pp. 40–57.43 A. Benz, ‘From unitary to asymmetric federalism in Germany: taking stock after50 years’, Publius, Vol. 29, No. 4, Fall 1999, pp. 55–78.44 For a detailed summary of these considerations, see Burgess, pp. 88–90.45 K. C. Wheare, Federal Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4nd edition1963, p. 27.46 See I. Bakar, ‘Multinational federation: the case of Malaysia’, in Burgess andPinder, pp. 68–85.47 H. P. Lee, Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1995, p. 120.48 R. Suberu, Federalism and Ethnic Conflict in Nigeria, Washington, DC: UnitedStates Institute of Peace Press, 2001, pp. 173 and 197.49 The Russian Constitution lists 89 federal subjects but in 2005 a process of mergingfederal subjects was implemented. There are now 85 federal subjects. Seechapter 4.50 Heinemann-Grüder, pp. 158–9.51 Ibid., pp. 149–50.52 See Ross, ‘Russia’s multinational federation’, in Burgess and Pinder, p. 117.53 Heinemann-Grüder, pp. 150–1.54 Smith, p. 167.55 See J. McGarry and B. O’Leary, ‘Federation and managing nations’, in Burgessand Pinder, pp. 180–211.56 For a summary of the characteristics of the Belgian federation related to multinationalism,see Burgess, Comparative Federalism, pp. 115–17.57 For a summary of the federal characteristics of India related to multi-nationalism,see Burgess, Comparative Federalism, pp.88–90 and 123–5.