The Central Government of Russia: From Gorbachev to Putin by Iulia s> Shevchenko (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
i86 SEER, 85, I, 2007 Crosston's book constitutes one of very few works to provide a crossregional comparative analysis. The author does a good job of explaining his case selection as well as how he designed and carriedout his research. He is right to point out that his third case study, Lipetsk, has received virtually no scholarly attention. Consequently this chapter is the most original and empirically rich of the book. Although it is clear the chapters on Tatarstan and Sverdlovskare also based upon exhaustivefield research and interviews, readers more familiar with these cases may be disappointed by the lack of a similar degree of detail. Moreover, the book does not include a list of interviewsconducted by the author. The author is very critical of the role of bilateral treaties, particularly in compromising the unity and stability of democratic federal governance. But while his theoretical frameworkgives us insight into how the practice of bilateral treaties may have undermined federalism, it does not adequately address whythis happened. While Crosston demonstratesthat the practice of treaties in Russia's regions had a negative effect on stabilityand democracy, he gives too little considerationin his theoreticalchapters of whether treaties per se are nefarious. The book provides too little contrast between different theories of multi-level governance and devolution and the practice as it evolved in the Russian Federation: is Russian federalism undermined by the use and abuse of bilateral treaties by regional leaders or by recourse to bilateralismand devolution altogether?Furthermore,by concentratingon the use of treatiesby regionalleaders, Crosstonabstractsthe federalgovernment's role in bilateralism.While regionalgovernmentsmay have providedthe impetus , the centre's decision to pursue bilateral accommodation as well as its inability or unwillingness to sanction abuses of power in the regions also impacts the stability of Russia's federalism. The book would have been strengthenedby furtherexamination of such issues. Notwithstanding these criticisms,Matthew Crosston's ShadowSeparatism is a useful addition to the literature on federalism and regional politics in post-Soviet Russia. His cross-regionalcomparative research design is a good example of the benefit and necessityof adopting such approachesin the study of contemporaryRussia. Universiy of Ottawa DAVID CASHABACK Shevchenko, Julia. 7he CentralGovernment of Russia:FromGorbachev to Putin. Post-Soviet Politics. Ashgate, Aldershot and Burlington,VT, 2004. xi + I99 pp. Tables. Notes. Bibliography.Index. ?49.95. THEpendulum swing of weak government to stronger government to weak government in Russia has been frequently remarked upon and often explained in terms of presidential preferences to cut potential competitors down to size. JuliaShevchenko'smonographpenetratesmuch deeper into the ebbs and flows of government autonomy to explain this dynamic in terms of alternationsin the nature of the principal-agentrelationshipand relates this REVIEWS I87 to the incentives for delegating policy-making power to the government. Shevchenko's central argument is that where the government is delegated policy-makingpowers in addition to its regulatoryrole of implementingpolicy made elsewhere, then government organization and efficiency improves. This is likely to happen where the government is subject to two principals (presidentand parliament)and/or where policy goals are highly uncertain.In such circumstances,the principalswill seek to shirk responsibilityfor policy by delegating policy-making powers to the government. In situationswhere government faces only one principal (usuallythe president)and policy goals are more certain, there is a tendency for the government to perform a purely regulatoryrole of implementingpolicy made elsewhere. This shiftis reflected in the degradation of its internal organization as Soviet-era practices re-emerge and parallel structuresproliferate. In the first chapter, Shevchenko elaborates this nuanced theory based on the growingprincipal-agentliteratureand then proceeds in the subsequentsix chronologically-organizedempiricalchaptersto convincinglydemonstratethe utility of this approach for explaining the dramatic changes in government organization since the late I98os. While the theoretical argument is parsimonious and thoroughlyintegratedthroughoutthe book, the empiricalanalysisis well-structuredand extremelydetailed. At the startof each empiricalchapter, Shevchenko offers an impassive analytical-narrativeoverview that neatly conveys the rapidly-changingbroad sweep of events while maintaining the focus on the central government's position within the separation of powers. Then the chapters are organized thematically, examining in turn the ever-changing structureof the executive branch, the internal organization of the Council/Cabinet of Ministers,Cabinet-levelbodies and staffservice.The empirical chapters are based on a scrupulous study of...
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».