Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Not So Different After All? Centre-Region Relations: a Ukrainian Comparison

  • Chapter
Politics in the Russian Regions

Part of the book series: Studies in Central and Eastern Europe ((SCEE))

  • 31 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. For a discussion of various western states, see Yves Mény and Vincent Wright, Centre-Periphery Relations in Western Europe (London: Allen & Unwin, 1985)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Michael Keating, State and Regional Nationalism: Territorial Politics and the European State (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1988)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Robert J. Bennett (ed.), Territory and Administration in Europe (London: Pinter, 1989)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Google Scholar 

  8. Andrew Wilson, “Elements of a Theory of Ukrainian Ethno-National Identities”, Nations and Nationalism 8, 1, 2002, pp. 31–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stephen Shulman, “Asymmetrical International Integration and Ukrainian National Disunity”, Political Geography 18, 8, 1999, pp. 913–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jeffrey Sachs, “My Plan for Poland”, The International Economy, 3, 6, 1989, pp. 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. David Stark, “Nicht nach Design: Rekombiniertes Eigentum im osteuropäischen Kapitalismus”, Prokla 24, 1, 1994, pp. 127–42.

    Google Scholar 

  18. For the concept of path dependence in economic history, see Douglass C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  20. David Stark, “Path Dependence and Privatization Strategies in East Central Europe”, East European Politics and Societies, 6, 1, 1992, pp. 17–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jadwiga Staniszkis, “Postkommunismus — Versuch einer soziologischen Analyse”, Prokla, 112, 3, 1998, pp. 375–94, and Tatur, “Introduction”.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Andreas Kappeier, Russische Geschichte (München: Beck, 2002), pp. 47–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. S. N. Eisenstadt and Luis Roniger, Patrons, Clients, and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  28. T.H. Rigby, “Early Provincial Cliques and the Rise of Stalin”, Soviet Studies, 33, 1, 1981, pp.3–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Günther Roth, Politische Herrschaft und persönliche Freiheit (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1987)

    Google Scholar 

  30. James Hughes, “Patrimonialism and the Stalinist System. The Case of S. I. Syrtsov”, Europe-Asia Studies 48, 4, 1996, pp. 551–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Herbert Kitschelt and Regina Smyth, “Programmatic Party Cohesion in Emerging Postcommunist Democracies: Russia in Comparative Context”, Comparative Political Studies 35, 10, 2002, p. 1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Steven L. Solnick, Stealing the State: Control and Collapse in Soviet Institutions (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp. 26–9.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lev Freinkman, “Financial-Industrial Groups in Russia: Emergence of Large Diversified Private Companies”, Communist Economies and Economic Transformation 7, 1, 1995, p. 53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jadwiga Staniszkis, “‘Political Capitalism’ in Poland”, East European Politics and Societies, 5, 1, 1991, pp. 127–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Richard Sakwa, Putin: Russia’s Choice (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 132.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Edward C. Banfield and James Q. Wilson, City Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 115.

    Google Scholar 

  42. James C. Scott, Comparative Political Corruption (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kerstin Zimmer, “The Comparative Failure of Machine Politics, Administrative Resources and Fraud”, Canadian Slavonic Papers 47, 1–2, 2005, pp. 361–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Henry E. Hale, “Why Not Parties? Electoral Markets, Party Substitutes, and Stalled Democratization in Russia”, Comparative Politics 37, 2, 2005, pp. 147–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Henry E Hale, “Explaining Machine Politics in Russia’s Regions: Economy, Ethnicity, and Legacy”, Post-Soviet Affairs 19, 3, 2003, pp. 228–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jeronim Perovic, Die Regionen Russlands als neue politische Kraft. Chancen und Gefahren des Regionalismus für Russland (Bern: Lang, 2001), p. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Peter Kirkow, “Im Labyrinth russischer Regionalpolitik: Ausgehandelter Föderalismus und institutionelle Veränderungen”, Osteuropa 47, 1, 1997, pp. 38–51.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Richard Sakwa, “Federalism, Sovereignty and Democracy”, in Cameron Ross (ed.): Regional Politics in Russia (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Jeronim Perovic, “Regionalisierung unter Putin. Alte Muster und neue Trends”, Osteuropa 52, 4, 2002, pp. 427–42.

    Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Taras Kuzio, “National Identity in Independent Ukraine: An Identity in Transition”, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 2, 4, 1996, pp. 582–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Taras Kuzio, Ukraine: State and Nation Building (London: Routledge, 1998)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. 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

    Google Scholar 

  57. Stephen Shulman, “The Cultural Foundations of Ukrainian National Identity”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22, 6, 1999, pp. 1011–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. William Zimmermann, “Is Ukraine a Political Community?”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 31, 1, 1998, pp. 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  63. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  64. UNDP/Institute of Politics, Ukraine — 1998: Summary of the Year (Kyiv, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 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)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  66. 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

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ellen Bos, “Das politische System der Ukraine”, in Wolfgang Ismayr (ed.), Die politischen Systeme Osteuropas (Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 2004), pp. 469–514.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  68. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  69. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  70. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Eberhard Schneider, Das politische System der Ukraine. Eine Einführung (Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2005), pp. 76–7.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  72. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Joel Hellman, “Winners Take All: The Politics of Partial Reform in Postcommunist Nations”, World Politics, 50, 2, 1998, pp. 203–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Kerstin Zimmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Government and Public Administration, The University of Sydney, Australia

    Graeme Gill

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation