Abstract
Questions of centre-periphery relations in modern states and related institutional arrangements have been among the key questions of political science.1 Most advocates of democratization in Central and Eastern Europe have emphasized that decentralization is a key issue.2 Centre-periphery relations have been central in many studies of both post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, albeit with somewhat different foci.3 So far, however, there has been surprisingly little comparative scholarly work on the systems of regional governance in Russia and Ukraine.4 This seems logical only if one pays attention to the formal regulations: Russia is a federation while Ukraine is a unitary state. For that reason, one might assume that there is little to compare. However there are several underlying similarities that make the two systems remarkably well suited for comparative analysis. Once one includes the dominant political culture and the informal logic of political action that exists in both countries, the case for comparison is clear: an authoritarian and pragmatic political culture and specific forms of clientelism dominate both polities and manifest themselves in electoral and budget politics regulating the relationship between the centre and the regions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For a discussion of various western states, see Yves Mény and Vincent Wright, Centre-Periphery Relations in Western Europe (London: Allen & Unwin, 1985)
Michael Keating, State and Regional Nationalism: Territorial Politics and the European State (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1988)
Robert J. Bennett (ed.), Territory and Administration in Europe (London: Pinter, 1989)
For a more general discussion, especially on federalism, see Alfred Stepan, “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model”, Journal of Democracy 10, 4, 1999, pp. 19–34.
Melanie Tatur, “Introduction: Conceptualising the Analysis of ‘Making Regions’ in Post-Socialist Europe”, Melanie Tatur (ed.), The Making of Regions in Post-Socialist Europe — the Impact of History, Economic Structure and Institutions. Case Studies from Poland, Hungary, Romania and Ukraine (Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2004), pp. 317–18.
The Russian case has mainly been analyzed from the angle of the political system. There are many case studies and some abstract analyses. In contrast, the Ukrainian case has mostly been analyzed with reference to ethno-linguistic differences and identities. On ethnolinguistic differences, see Dominique Arel, “Language Politics in Independent Ukraine: Towards One or Two State Languages?”, Nationalities Papers, 23, 3, 1995, pp. 597–622
Andrew Wilson and Valeri Khmelko, “Regionalism and Ethnic and Linguistic Cleavages in Ukraine”, in Taras Kuzio (ed.), Contemporary Ukraine: Dynamics of Post-Soviet Transformation (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 1998), pp. 60–80
Andrew Wilson, “Elements of a Theory of Ukrainian Ethno-National Identities”, Nations and Nationalism 8, 1, 2002, pp. 31–54.
On identities, see Stephen Shulman, “Competing Versus Complementary Identities: Ukrainian-Russian Relations and the Loyalties of Russians in Ukraine”, Nationalities Papers, 26, 4, 1998, pp. 615–32
Stephen Shulman, “Asymmetrical International Integration and Ukrainian National Disunity”, Political Geography 18, 8, 1999, pp. 913–39
Stephen Shulman, “The Contours of Civic and Ethnic National Identification in Ukraine”, Europe-Asia Studies 56, 1, 2004, pp. 35–56. Administrative and political differences have played a minor role and there are fewer case studies.
Since intra-state comparisons prevail, both countries remain by and large remarkably underutilized in comparative political studies. A notable exception is Andrew Konitzer-Smirnov who compares the logic of incumbents remaining in their positions. Andrew Konitzer-Smirnov, “Serving Different Masters: Regional Executives and Accountability in Ukraine and Russia”, Europe-Asia Studies, 57, 1, 2005, pp. 3–34.
Kimitaka Matsuzato’s work implicitly compares Russia and Ukraine applying the concept of machine politics. Kimitaka Matsuzato, “From Communist Boss Politics to Post-Communist Caciquismo — the Meso-Elite and Meso-Governments in Post-Communist Countries”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 34, 2, 2001, pp. 175–201
Kimitaka Matsuzato, “From Ethno-Bonapartism to Centralized Caciquismo: Characteristics and Origins of the Tatarstan Political Regime, 1990–2000”, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 17, 4, 2001, pp. 43–77.
Jeffrey Sachs, “My Plan for Poland”, The International Economy, 3, 6, 1989, pp. 24–29.
For a discussion of the usefulness of the “transition paradigm”, see Thomas Carothers, “The End of the Transition Paradigm”, Journal of Democracy, 13, 1, 2002, pp. 5–21.
David Stark, “Nicht nach Design: Rekombiniertes Eigentum im osteuropäischen Kapitalismus”, Prokla 24, 1, 1994, pp. 127–42.
For the concept of path dependence in economic history, see Douglass C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
Jadwiga Staniszkis, Chester A. Kisiel and Ivan Szelenyi, The Dynamics of the Breakthrough in Eastern Europe: The Polish Experience (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991)
David Stark, “Path Dependence and Privatization Strategies in East Central Europe”, East European Politics and Societies, 6, 1, 1992, pp. 17–54.
Jadwiga Staniszkis, “Postkommunismus — Versuch einer soziologischen Analyse”, Prokla, 112, 3, 1998, pp. 375–94, and Tatur, “Introduction”.
Fernand Braudel, “Geschichte und Sozialwissenschaft. Die Lange Dauer”, in Fernand Braudel (ed.), Schriften zur Geschichte 1. Gesellschaften und Zeit (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1992), pp. 49–87.
Mikhail Filippov and Olga Shvetsova, “Asymmetric Bilateral Bargaining in the New Russian Federation. A Path-Dependence Explanation”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 32, 1, 1999, pp. 61–76.
Andreas Kappeier, Russische Geschichte (München: Beck, 2002), pp. 47–8.
Habsburg rule introduced civil rights and minority rights. The region gained some experience in self-government and inherited specific legal traditions such as the Magdeburg Code. Claudia Šabić, “The Ukrainian Piedmont: The L’viv Region”, Tatur, The Making of Regions, pp. 135–229. It is not clear, how powerful the mentioned traditions are and whether they are presently translated into political action. Martin Aberg, “Putnam’s Social Capital Theory Goes East: A Case Study of Western Ukraine and L’viv”, Europe-Asia Studies 52, 2, 2000, pp. 295–317; and Šabić (The Ukrainian Piedmont).
S. N. Eisenstadt and Luis Roniger, Patrons, Clients, and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
Gerald Easter, “Networks, Bureaucracies and the Russian State”, Klaus Segbers (ed.), Explaining Post-Soviet Patchworks, vol. 2: Pathways from the Past to the Global (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), p. 47.
T.H. Rigby, “Early Provincial Cliques and the Rise of Stalin”, Soviet Studies, 33, 1, 1981, pp.3–28
Günther Roth, Politische Herrschaft und persönliche Freiheit (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1987)
James Hughes, “Patrimonialism and the Stalinist System. The Case of S. I. Syrtsov”, Europe-Asia Studies 48, 4, 1996, pp. 551–68.
They were responsible for the political and economic control of the region and for the performance of regional enterprises. Therefore, they acted as coordinators and made sure that the regional companies were adequately provided with inputs and workforce. See Jerry F. Hough, The Soviet Prefects: The Local Party Organs in Industrial Decision-Making (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969).
Peter Rutland argues that the economic role of regional party functionaries decreased after the abandonment of Khrushchev’s reforms, because from then on the industrial ministries in Moscow and their local agencies assumed controlling and guiding functions. Thus, for the enterprise directors, their relationships with the central ministries regained importance, while involving informal aspects as well. Peter Rutland, The Politics of Economic Stagnation in the Soviet Union: The Role of Local Party Organs in Economic Management (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
Melanie Tatur, “Interessen und Norm. Politischer Kapitalismus und die Transformation des Staates in Polen und Rußland”, Hellmut Wollmann, Helmut Wiesenthal and Frank Bönker (eds), Transformation sozialistischer Gesellschaften. Am Ende des Anfangs. Leviathan Sonderheft 15 (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1995), pp. 93–116.
Herbert Kitschelt and Regina Smyth, “Programmatic Party Cohesion in Emerging Postcommunist Democracies: Russia in Comparative Context”, Comparative Political Studies 35, 10, 2002, p. 1234.
Steven L. Solnick, Stealing the State: Control and Collapse in Soviet Institutions (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp. 26–9.
Donald A. Filtzer, “The Contradictions of the Marketless Market: Self-Financing in the Soviet Industrial Enterprise, 1986–90”, Soviet Studies 43, 6, 1991, pp. 989–1009.
Lev Freinkman, “Financial-Industrial Groups in Russia: Emergence of Large Diversified Private Companies”, Communist Economies and Economic Transformation 7, 1, 1995, p. 53.
Jadwiga Staniszkis, “‘Political Capitalism’ in Poland”, East European Politics and Societies, 5, 1, 1991, pp. 127–41.
Andrei Ryabov, “‘Partiya vlasti’ v politicheskoi sisteme sovremennoi Rossii”, in Michael McFaul, Sergei Markarov and Andrei Ryabov (eds), Pormirovanie Partiino-Politicheskoi Sistemy v Rossii (Moscow: Carnegie Centre, 1998), pp. 80–96.
Richard Sakwa, Putin: Russia’s Choice (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 132.
Edward C. Banfield and James Q. Wilson, City Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 115.
James C. Scott, Comparative Political Corruption (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972).
Kerstin Zimmer, “The Comparative Failure of Machine Politics, Administrative Resources and Fraud”, Canadian Slavonic Papers 47, 1–2, 2005, pp. 361–84.
Henry E. Hale, “Why Not Parties? Electoral Markets, Party Substitutes, and Stalled Democratization in Russia”, Comparative Politics 37, 2, 2005, pp. 147–66.
Henry E Hale, “Explaining Machine Politics in Russia’s Regions: Economy, Ethnicity, and Legacy”, Post-Soviet Affairs 19, 3, 2003, pp. 228–63.
Jeronim Perovic, Die Regionen Russlands als neue politische Kraft. Chancen und Gefahren des Regionalismus für Russland (Bern: Lang, 2001), p. 116.
Peter Kirkow, “Im Labyrinth russischer Regionalpolitik: Ausgehandelter Föderalismus und institutionelle Veränderungen”, Osteuropa 47, 1, 1997, pp. 38–51.
Peter Reddaway, “Historical and Political Context”, Peter Reddaway and Robert W. Orttung (eds), Dynamics of Russian Politics: Putin’s Tederal-Regional Reforms (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, 2003), pp. 1–18.
Richard Sakwa, “Federalism, Sovereignty and Democracy”, in Cameron Ross (ed.): Regional Politics in Russia (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), p. 1.
Some observers termed this development the “medievalization” of politics to depict the fragmented administrative and legal space. Vladimir Shlapentokh, “Early Feudalism — the Best Parallel for Contemporary Russia”, Europe-Asia Studies, 48, 3, 1996, pp. 393–411, and Sakwa, “Federalism, Sovereignty and Democracy”, p. 2.
Jeronim Perovic, “Regionalisierung unter Putin. Alte Muster und neue Trends”, Osteuropa 52, 4, 2002, pp. 427–42.
Christopher Marsh, Helen Albert and James W. Warhola, “The Political Geography of Russia’s 2004 Presidential Election”, Eurasian Geography and Economics, 45, 4, 2004, p. 199.
For studies of this type, which often focus upon the political attitudes of the population, see Paul Kubicek, “Regional Polarisation in Ukraine: Public Opinion, Voting and Legislative Behaviour”, Europe-Asia Studies 52, 2, 2000, pp. 273–294
Taras Kuzio, “National Identity in Independent Ukraine: An Identity in Transition”, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 2, 4, 1996, pp. 582–608
Taras Kuzio, Ukraine: State and Nation Building (London: Routledge, 1998)
John O’Loughlin and James Bell, “The Political Geography of Civic Engagement in Ukraine”, Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, 40, 4, 1999, pp. 233–66
Stephen Shulman, “The Cultural Foundations of Ukrainian National Identity”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22, 6, 1999, pp. 1011–36
William Zimmermann, “Is Ukraine a Political Community?”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 31, 1, 1998, pp. 43–55.
Lowell W Barrington, “Examining Rival Theories of Demographic Influences on Political Support: The Power of Regional, Ethnic, and Linguistic Divisions in Ukraine”, European Journal of Political Research, 41, 4, 2002, pp. 455–91
Lowell W. Barrington, “Region, Language and Nationality: Rethinking Support in Ukraine for Maintaining Distance from Russia”, in Paul D’Anieri and Taras Kuzio (eds), Dilemmas of State-Led Nation Building in Ukraine (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002), pp. 131–46. In this approach, Ukraine can be subdivided into some four to nine distinctive regions.
Hans van Zon, “Neo-Patrimonialism as an Impediment to Economic Development: The Case of Ukraine”, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 17, 3, 2001, pp. 71–95. Claudia Šabić and Kerstin Zimmer, “Ukraine: The Genesis of a Captured State”, in Tatur, The Making of Regions, pp. 107–30.
This notion has its roots in Max Weber who discussed patrimonialism. For an analysis of neo-patrimonialism see Eisenstadt. Engel and Erdmann applied the concept to African states while Roth (1987) used it to analyze the Soviet Union. Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie (Tübingen: Mohr, 1980)
S. N. Eisenstadt, Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neopatrimonialism (Beverley Hills: Sage, 1973); Ulf Engel and Gero Erdmann. Eisenstadt, Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neopatrimonialism (Beverley Hills: Sage, 1973); Ulf Engel and Gero Erdmann, “Neopatrimonialism Reconsidered — Critical Review and Elaboration of an Elusive Concept”, Conlerence Paper 45th Annual Meeting of the African Studies Association, Washington DC, 4–8, December 2002.
UNDP/Institute of Politics, Ukraine — 1998: Summary of the Year (Kyiv, 1999).
USAID, “Democratic Local Governance”; Nina Bubnova and Lucan Way, Trends in Financing Regional Expenditures in Transition Economies: The Case of Ukraine (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1998)
Aleksandr Lyakh, “The Economic, Social and Political Situation in the Donbas Region and the Aims of National Policy”, in Aleksandr Lyakh and Wlodzimierz Pankow (eds), The Future of Old Industrial Regions in Europe. The Case of Donetsk Region in Ukraine (Warsaw: Foundation for Economic Education, 1998), pp. 13–21
Ellen Bos, “Das politische System der Ukraine”, in Wolfgang Ismayr (ed.), Die politischen Systeme Osteuropas (Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 2004), pp. 469–514.
Kimitaka Matsuzato, “All Kuchma’s Men: The Reshuffling of Ukrainian Governors and the Presidential Election of 1999”, Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, 42, 6, 2001, p. 427.
Oleksiy Haran’, “Ukraine”, Adrian Karatnycky Alexander Motyl and Amanda Schnetzer (eds), Nations in Transit: Civil Society, Democracy, and Markets in East Central Europe and the Newly Independent States (Washington, DC: Freedom House, 2001), pp. 392–404, and Matsuzato, “All Kuchma’s Men”. Konitzer-Smirnov, “Serving Different Masters” confirms this through regression analysis, showing that electoral performance is more important than economic success or failure in decisions about the dismissal of officials.
Matsuzato analyzes the interesting case of Zakarpattya oblast, which the Social Democratic Party of Ukraine (United) had selected as its electoral principality. Directed from Kyiv, the region actually became a bastion of the party and its central leaders. This was a rare case of creating a machine from above, while most other political machines emerged from an informal interplay of central and regional forces. Kimitaka Matsuzato, “Elites and the Party System of Zakarpattya Oblast: Relations among Levels of Party System in Ukraine”, Europe-Asia Studies 54, 8, 2002, pp. 1267–99.
Eberhard Schneider, Das politische System der Ukraine. Eine Einführung (Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2005), pp. 76–7.
Henry E. Hale, “Machine Politics and Institutionalized Electorates: A Comparative Analysis of Six Duma Elections in Bashkortostan”, Journal of Communist Studies and Fransition Politics, 15, 4, 1999, pp. 70–110.
John W. Meyer, John Boli, George M Thomas and Franciso O. Ramirez, “World Society and the Nation-State”, American Journal of Sociology, 103, 1, 1997, pp. 144–81.
Joel Hellman, “Winners Take All: The Politics of Partial Reform in Postcommunist Nations”, World Politics, 50, 2, 1998, pp. 203–34.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2007 Kerstin Zimmer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zimmer, K. (2007). Not So Different After All? Centre-Region Relations: a Ukrainian Comparison. In: Gill, G. (eds) Politics in the Russian Regions. Studies in Central and Eastern Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230597280_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230597280_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-35466-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-59728-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)