Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines a conspicuous disconnect between the prevalent Russian and European narratives on the costs and benefits of federalism. The observed variation in dominant discursive frameworks can be attributed to distinct historical experiences, especially in the area of centralization and power-sharing. Attitudes toward federalism have also been affected by the trajectory of institutional development. In the EU case, federalism implies a qualitative institutional transformation, entailing political unification and the surrender of national sovereignty to an external, supra-national formation. To individual member-states, federalism is a challenge from above, which may make the government less responsive and exacerbate the already existing democratic deficit. In contrast, Russian federalism has been a question of dividing power and autonomy between the central and regional governments, rather than an external challenge to national sovereignty. Correspondingly, post-communist federalization has become associated with ad hoc bargaining, fragmentation, abuse of power, and encroachments on the national jurisdiction – all emanating from below. The contrasting nature of prior and ongoing federalist projects in the EU and Russia matters: the Western perspective is less sympathetic to the priorities of Russia’s centralization reforms, because they are viewed as amplifying democratic deficit in the regions without enhancing democracy at the national level. Key words: federalism; decentralization; democracy; Russia; European Union Resume: Cet article examine un decalage apparent entre les recits repandus russes et europeens sur les couts et les avantages du federalisme. La variation observee dans les cadres discursifs dominants peut etre attribuee a des experiences historiques distinctes, en particulier dans le domaine de la centralisation et du partage du pouvoir. Les attitudes a l'egard du federalisme ont egalement ete affectees par la trajectoire du developpement institutionnel. Dans le cas de l'UE, le federalisme implique une transformation institutionnelle qualitative, en imposant l'unification politique et l'abandon de la souverainete nationale a un organisme supra-national exterieur. Pour chaque etat membre, le federalisme est une defi venat du haut, qui pourrait rendre le gouvernement moins reactif et exacerbe le deficit democratique qui existe deja. En revanche, le federalisme russe a ete une question du partage de pouvoir et d'autonomie entre les gouvernements centraux et regionaux, plutot qu’ un defit externe a l’egard de la souverainete nationale. De meme, la federalisation post-communiste est devenue associee a la negociation ad hoc, a la fragmentation, a l'abus de pouvoir, ainsi qu’aux empietements sur la juridiction nationale - tout emanant de dessous. La nature contrastee des projets federalistes anterieurs et actuels dans l'UE et en Russie contraste: les perspectives occidentales sont moins sensibles aux priorites des reformes de la centralisation de la Russie, parce qu'elles sont considerees comme une ampliation du deficit democratique dans les regions sans renforcer la democratie au niveau national. Mots-cles : federalisme; decentalisation; democratie; Russie;Union europeenne
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".