print

Exploring the causes of gubernatorial resignations in Russia

Turovsky R.F.,

HSE University, Moscow, Russia, rturovsky@hse.ru

elibrary_id: 105249 | ORCID: 0000-0001-8496-3098 | RESEARCHER_ID: J-6842-2015

Luizidis E.M.,

HSE University, Moscow, Russia, e.luizidis@gmail.com

Article received: 2021.01.15. Accepted: 2022.04.01
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2022.04.13

Rubric: Russia today

For citation:

Turovsky R.F., Luizidis E.M. Exploring the causes of gubernatorial resignations in Russia. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 4. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.04.13

The study was implemented in the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University) in 2020. The authors express gratitude for the help in conducting an empirical study to the HSE post-graduate student E. Korneeva and HSE master student A. Lyutikova.

Abstract

The issue of the principles and consequences of gubernatorial changes in Russia is a subject of academic interest. In the existing literature, special attention is paid to the responsibility of governors for certain areas of their activities, which can be a basis for resignations. The problem of this study is that the principles guiding the rotation of governors in Russia remain unexplored. Firstly, we shed some light on how they have evolved in the long historical context. Secondly, we use a more extensive series of variables covering various aspects of the personnel policy of the federal center to compare all five periods of gubernatorial appointments in post-Soviet Russia. The analysis of political history reveals the undulating nature of the process, which is associated both with natural causes of the cycles of gubernatorial appointments, and with presidential elections and their political consequences for intraelite relations. The regression analysis took into account “natural” rotation (age, term of office), electoral efficiency (results of federal elections), the political influence of governors at the federal level, the managerial efficiency of regional authorities (based on expert evaluations) and criteria that characterize the financial and socio-economic well-being of the territory. The results of the analysis showed the changing nature of criteria affecting gubernatorial resignations in the post-Soviet period. In contrast to previous studies, this paper shows a significant, but irregular, importance of certain socio-economic indicators and criteria for managerial efficiency. In reverse, the study reveals that the influence of political criteria was not statistically significant. One exception is the governor’s influence in the federal center, which is related to a denser integration into the network of patron-client relations. As evidenced by our political-historical and case analysis, the struggle of various federal groups of influence and the policy of balance and compensation undermines the possibility of creating a system of gubernatorial appointments that follows certain measurable criteria and such a system may not even be required.

Keywords

vertical of power, bureaucratic appointments, governors, efficiency assessment, competence, loyalty, federal center.

 Full Text

Baranov, A., Malkov, E., Polishchuk, L., Rochlitz, M., & Syunyaev, G. (2015). How (not) to measure Russian regional institutions. Russian Journal of Economics, 1(2), 154-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ruje.2015.11.005

Bo, Z. (2002). Chinese provincial leaders: economic performance and political mobility since 1949. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Buckley, N., Garifullina, G., & Reuter, O.J. (2012). Bureaucratic appointments in hybrid regimes. Working Paper. Series PS “Political Science”, 11. Moscow: HSE Publishing House.

Buckley, N., & Reuter, O.J. (2015). Performance incentives under autocracy: evidence from Russia’s regions. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2903789

Buckley, N., Reuter, O.J., Garifullina, G., & Shubenkova, A. (2016). Local elections in authoritarian regimes: An elite-based theory with evidence from Russian mayoral elections. Comparative Political Studies, 49(5), 662-697.

Egorov, G., & Sonin, K. (2011). Dictators and their viziers: endogenizing the loyalty-competence tradeoff. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(5), 903‑930.

Goode, J. (2007). The puzzle of Putin’s gubernatorial appointments. Europe-Asia Studies, 59(3), 365-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130701239799

Hale, H. (2003). Explaining machine politics in Russia’s regions: economy, ethnicity, and legacy. Post-Soviet Affairs, 19(3), 228-263. https://doi.org/10.2747/1060-586X.19.3.228

Hale, H. (2017). Russian patronal politics beyond Putin. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 146(2), 30-41.

Jia, R., Kudamatsu, M., & Seim, D. (2013). Complementary roles of connections and performance in political selection in China. CEPR Discussion Paper.

Kotchegura, A., Demchenko, A., & Kim, P. (2020). Performance evaluation of regional governors: the case of the Russian Federation. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(6), 477-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1658772

Kryshtanovskaya, O., & White, S. (2009). The sovietization of Russian politics. Post-Soviet Affairs, 25(4), 283-309. https://doi.org/10.2747/1060-586X.24.4.283

Landry, P. (2008). Decentralized authoritarianism in China: the communist party’s control of local elites in the post-Mao era. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Landry, P., Lu, X., & Duan, H. (2018). Does performance matter? Evaluating political selection along the Chinese administrative ladder. Comparative Political Studies, 51(8), 1074-1105. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0010414017730078

Li, H. & Zhou, L. (2003). Political turnover and economic performance: the incentive role of personnel control in China. Journal of Public Economics, 89 (9-10), 1743-1762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.06.009

Maskin, E., Qian, Y., & Xu, C. (2000). Incentives, information, and organizational form. The Review of Economic Studies, 67(2), 359-378.

Reisinger, W.M., & Moraski, B.J. (2013). Deference or governance? A survival analysis of Russia’s governors under presidential control. In W.M. Reisinger (Ed.), Russia’s Regions and Comparative Subnational Politics (pp. 40-62). New York, NY: Routledge.

Reuter, O.J., & Robertson, G. (2012). Subnational appointments in authoritarian regimes: evidence from Russian gubernatorial appointments. Journal of Politics, 74(2), 1023-1037. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381612000631

Rivera, S., & Rivera, D. (2006). The Russian elite under Putin: militocratic or bourgeois? Post-Soviet Affairs, 22(2), 125-144. https://doi.org/10.2747/1060-586X.22.2.125

Rochlitz, M. (2016). Political loyalty vs economic performance: evidence from machine politics in Russia’s regions. Working Paper. Moscow: Higher School of Economics.

Rochlitz, M., Kulpina, V., Remington, T., & Yakovlev, A. (2015). Performance incentives and economic growth: regional officials in Russia and China. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 56(4), 421-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2015.1089411

Sharafutdinova, G. (2010). Subnational governance in Russia: how Putin changed the contract with his agents and the problems it created for Medvedev. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 40(4), 672-696. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjp036

Sheng, Y. (2009). Career incentives and political control under authoritarianism: explaining the political fortunes of subnational leaders in China. Working Paper. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.

Shih, V., Adolph, C., & Liu, M. (2012). Getting ahead in the communist party: explaining the advancement of central committee members in China. American Political Science Review, 106(1), 166-187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000566

Afanasyev, M.N. (1996). Clientelism: a historic-sociological outline. Polis. Political Studies, 6, 97-108. (In Russ.)

Ivanov, V. (2010). Glava sub”ekta Rossiiskoi Federatsii: politicheskaya i yuridicheskaya istoriya instituta [The head of the region of the Russian Federation: political and legal story of the institution]. Moscow: Praxis. (In Russ.)

Kynev, A.V. (2019). Phenomenon of governors-“outsiders” as an indicator of recentralization. Experience of 1991-2018 years. Politeia, 2, 125-150. (In Russ.) https://www.doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2019-93-2-125-150

Mukhametov, R.S. (2020). Kremlin and governors’ re-election: support factors. Politeia, 4, 137-152. (In Russ.) https://www.doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2020-99-4-137-152

Petrov, N. (2006). Governors’ appointments: the results of the first year. Briefing of Moscow Carnegie Center, 8(3). (In Russ.)

Petrov, N., & Titkov, A. (2010). Vlast’, biznes, obshchestvo v regionakh: nepravil’nyi treugol’nik [Power, business, and society in the regions: irregular triangle]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.)

Turovsky, R.F. (2009). Practices of appointing the governors: inertia and radicalism in the centre’s policy. Politeia, 2, 72-89. (In Russ.)

Turovsky, R.F., & Dzhavatova, K.Yu. (2019). Regional disparity in Russia: Can centralization become a remedy? Political Science (RU), 2, 48-73. (In Russ.) https://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2019.02.03 

See also: