MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W340958467

Russian Federalism: Continuing Myth or Political Salvation?

2001· article· en· W340958467 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel R. Kempton

Notice bibliographique

RevueDemokratizatsiya The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueRussia and Soviet political economy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPoliticsTerritorial integrityIndependence (probability theory)SovereigntyState (computer science)LawPolitical economyFederalismPolitical scienceDeclaration of independenceSuccessor cardinalEthnic groupSociology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Like its Soviet predecessor, Russia is the world's largest state and one of its most diverse. Historically, great size and diversity have intensified a number of challenges that all states face. The more diverse the state, the greater the potential sources of religious, ethnic, or racial separatism. Larger states also face greater challenges with such mundane tasks as collecting taxes, building transportation and communication networks, and maintaining educational facilities throughout the state. Thus, the threat of disintegration is generally greater for large, diverse states such as the current Russian Federation. At independence in 1991, the further disintegration of Russia appeared inevitable. The dismemberment of the Soviet Union unleashed the centrifugal forces of ethnic nationalism, religious animosity, and regional self-interest. Once the principles of centralized rule and the immutability of borders were abandoned, a Pandora's box had been opened. The resulting centrifugal forces had predetermined or natural endpoint. From within the fifteen designated successor states numerous ethnonationalist groups made varied claims for sovereignty, autonomy, or complete independence. The validity of the successor states' claims to independence rested not on any objective criteria but on the sometimes whimsical Soviet system of rewarding and punishing ethnic groups as they historically fell into or out of favor with Moscow. Not surprisingly, therefore, Russia faced a number of early challenges to its territorial integrity, Chechnya and Tatarstan being the most serious. Despite numerous dire predictions, Russia has survived its first decade since the collapse of the Soviet Union. One obvious explanation is that Russia is smaller and considerably more homogeneous than was the Soviet Union. While the Soviet Union was only 50 percent Russian, Russia is more than 83 percent Russian. Russians are an outfight majority in more than half of its components (known as subekty in the 1993 constitution). However, size and homogeneity alone cannot explain Russia's survival. Smaller and more homogenous states are regularly torn apart by their diversity. Thus, if we are to fully explain Russia's survival, serious consideration must be given to Russia's creation of a federal political system. At first glance, Russia's adoption of federalism may seem less a conscious choice than a part of the Soviet legacy. The Soviet Union was officially a complex and multitiered federal state. Major Soviet ethnic groups were typically given their own territory, in which they lived as the privileged titular population. However, Soviet federalism was at best a myth and at worst a fraud. The federal components never had real power. In practice the Soviet Union was one of the most centralized states in history. Therefore, although Russia inherited a federal structure, it did not inherit a federal tradition. Russia's adoption of federalism should instead be conceived as a conscious effort to deal with its postindependence dilemmas. Russia's choice of federalism was not unusual. A century ago, federalism was seen as a weak and inherently temporary form of government. English constitutional authorities such as Lord Bryce characterized federalism as no more than a transitory step on the way to constitutional-governmental unity.(1) In the 1930s, Laski saw federalism as a pragmatic but temporary way for Britain and other colonial authorities to shift power to more local authorities within their empires. Friedrich believed the process more frequently moved in the opposite direction, but portrayed federalism in a similar fashion. Federalism arose when a group of previously autonomous states, typically driven by the defense imperative, formed a single central government. All three saw federalism as a transitory step rather than as an end goal.(2) Today, however, federalism is considered the hallmark of a stable, diverse state. It is a feature of many modern democracies including Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,701
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,308
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDemokratizatsiya The Journal of Post-Soviet DemocratizationMême sujetRussia and Soviet political economyTravaux en français237 207