MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W340958467

Russian Federalism: Continuing Myth or Political Salvation?

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

Bibliographic record

VenueDemokratizatsiya The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRussia and Soviet political economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsTerritorial integrityIndependence (probability theory)SovereigntyState (computer science)LawPolitical economyFederalismPolitical scienceDeclaration of independenceSuccessor cardinalEthnic groupSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDemokratizatsiya The Journal of Post-Soviet DemocratizationSame topicRussia and Soviet political economyFrench-language works237,207