Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Empirical research conducted in four small Russian towns over the period 2011-2015 and 2018-2020, discovered different patterns of power and leadership despite the centralization policy pursued by the federal center. Not all the heads of towns were the most influential figures/leaders in the urban communities, although they have the most significant formal resources of power. Major differences between the heads of the towns were due to the personal factor, support from a team of followers, and relationships with regional authorities. Despite the completion of the "power vertical" down to the municipal level, the patterns of power and leadership of the heads of small towns are dynamic and vary significantly. The most important changes are often caused by change of the heads of towns. Although leaders are unable to completely reverse negative tendencies in the social and economic spheres of local communities, they can mitigate their consequences. Therefore, when difficulties arise, a demand for leadership is formed.

This article presents the outcomes of a research project conducted in five small Russian towns. Different coalitions between local actors take place in all communities. However, coalitions that meet the criteria of the urban regime (in Stone's classical interpretation) have been discovered, with certain reservations, only in two towns. For a number of characteristics, these coalitions differed from regimes in American and European towns: often not quite voluntary nature of coalitions, prevalence of egoistic motives in the coalition–building, strong dependence of the regimes on the personal factor (personal qualities and resources of local administrators, their experience, relations with regional elites, etc.), absence of formal organizations able to coordinate the interests of coalition members, etc. In the three other local communities, urban regimes have not been built due to personal factors, frequent changes in the local government leadership, or the role of external factors (the nature of the relationship of local elites with regional and federal authorities, methods of influence of regional authorities on local politics). In the public agenda of the regimes (quasi–regimes), the elements of the status quo and, to a lesser extent, growth, prevail. The outcomes of study allow us to conclude that despite the authoritarian nature of the Russian politics and the differences between Russian and American contexts, urban regimes analysis is quite applicable for the study of power in Russian local communities.

Using data collected in seven local Russian communities in 2011–2015, we discovered several kinds of relationships between legislative and executive branches of local government. In most cases, the executive branches clearly dominate over the legislative ones. The ratio of resources and the politics of federal and regional authorities allow us to consider this pattern of relationship as a norm, while other types of relationships are exceptions. Configurations of power resources and instruments of influence used to exercise control over the legislative bodies significantly vary and provide different variations of local government interactions: "domination based on coercion," "bargaining from the position of strength," "domination based on persuasion," "domination under confrontation." Alternative forms of relationships ("quasi-domination of local legislature," "temporary parity under confrontation," "alliance in the face of 'external threat'") occur when the executive bodies are headed by inadequate and/or inexperienced leaders unable to realize the high power potential of their position. This reflects the important role of personalism and the relative weakness of the institutional framework in Russia's urban politics.