EXPLANING SUBNATIONAL BICAMERALISM IN RUSSIA (EXEMPLIFIED BY THE SVERDLOVSK REGION)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/2304-3369-2022-6-5-21Keywords:
бикамерализм, парламент, анализ соответствия, Свердловская область, неоинституционализм, теория рационального выбора, диффузная теория, исторический институционализм, «критические моменты», Эдуард РоссельAbstract
The issue of bicameralism is one of the main research areas in the framework of legislative studies due to the spread of bicameral national parliaments in the world. Despite bicameralism at the subnational level in in- dividual countries, political scientists underestimate this topic. How can we explain the creation of regional bicameral assemblies? This article is devoted to the search for an answer to this question. Post-Soviet Russia with its nine subjects, where the second chambers of legislative assemblies were established, is a kind of nat- ural laboratory to analyze the reasons of subnational bicameralism. To achieve this goal, the author chose the congruence analysis as part of the case study. The congruence analysis involves performing several steps:
- consideration of several theories explaining the creation of political institutions; 2) selection of a case for studying; 3) verification of the explanatory power of theoretical The conceptual basis of the research was neo-institutionalism and its main directions – rational choice theory, sociological institution-
alism and diffusion theory in particular. The region with a bicameral legislature, which became the object of the research, was the Sverdlovsk region. The article examines the origin of the idea of bicameralism and the establishment of a second chamber in the region. As a result of the conducted research, the author came to the conclusion that the rational choice theory has a weak force in explaining subnational bicameralism. It is shown that the creation of a bicameral regional legislature is the result of the consequences of national historical processes and circumstances. The idea of creating a second chamber was taken from the constitu- tional projects of 1992-1993 and/or foreign practice of state power organization.
References
1. Campion L. (1953). Second Chamber in The- ory and Practice, Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 7, no. 1, рр. 17–32.
2. Levmore S. (1992). Bicameralism: When are two Decisions better than One? International Review of Law and Economics, vol. 12, no. 2, рр. 145–162.
3. Smith D.E. (2003). The Canadian Senate in Bicameral Perspective. Toronto: University of Toron- to Press. 263 р. DOI: 10.3138/9781442680609.
4. Uhr J. (2006). Bicameralism. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pр. 474–494.
5. Diermbier D., Feddersen T. (1998). Cohe- sion in legislatures and the vote of confidence pro- cedure, American Political Science Review, vol. 92, no. 3, рр. 611–621. DOI: 10.2307/2585484.
6. Tsebelis G., Money J. (1997). Bicameralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 250 р.
7. Aroney N. (2008). Four Reasons for an Upper House: Representative Democracy, Public Deliber- ation, Legislative Outputs and Executive Account- ability, Adelaide Law Review, vol. 29, рр. 205–246.
8. Patterson S.C., Mughan А.С. (2001). Funda- mentals of Institutional Design: The functions and powers of Parliamentary Second Chambers, The Journal of legislative Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, рр. 39–60. DOI: 10.1080/714003851.
9. Riker W.H. (1992). The Justification of Bicam- eralism, International Political Science Review, no. 13, рр. 101–116. DOI: 10.1177/019251219201300107.
10. Russell M. (2001). What are Second Cham- bers for? Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 54, no. 3, рр. 442–458. DOI: 10.1093/parlij/54.3.442.
11. Myers A.S. (2018). The Failed Diffusion of the Unicameral State Legislature, 1934–1944, Amer- ican Political Development, vol. 32, no. 2, рр. 217–
235. DOI: 10.1017/S0898588X18000135.
12. Автономов А.С. Региональные парламенты в современной России. М. : Московский общественный научный фонд, 2000. 88 с.
13. Заславский С.Е. Российский бикамерализм в региональном измерении // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 12: Политические науки. 2000. № 3. С. 37–52.
14. Gerring J. (2004). What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for? American Political Sci- ence Review, vol. 98, no. 2, рр. 341–354. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055404001182.
15. Blatter J., Haverland M. (2012). Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 262 р.
16. Blatter J., Blume T. (2008). In Search of Co- variance, Causal Mechanisms or Congruence? To- wards a Plural Understanding of Case Studies, Swiss Political Science Review, vol. 14, no. 2, рр. 315–356. DOI: 10.1002/j.1662-6370.2008.tb00105.x.
17. George A.L., Bennett A. (2005). Case Stud- ies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. 331 р.
18. Beach D., Pedersen R.B. (2016). Causal Case Study Methods: Foundations and Guidelines for Comparing, Matching, and Tracing. University of Michigan Press. 416 р.
19. Wauters B., Beach D. (2018). Process trac- ing and congruence analysis to support theory based impact evaluation? Evaluation, vol. 24, no. 3, рр. 284–305. DOI: 10.1177/1356389018786081.
20. Moller J. (2017). A framework for congru- ence analysis in comparative historical analysis of political change, Quality & Quantity, vol. 51, no. 5, рр. 2337–2355. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-016-0391-5.
21. Yin R.K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sixth Edition. Sage Publications. 240 р.
22. Аллисон Г. Квинтэссенция решения: на примере Карибского кризиса 1962 г. М. : URSS ; Либроком, 2011. 526 с.
23. Schimmelfennig F. (2003). The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 323 р.
24. March J.G., Olsen J.P. (1984). The New In- stitutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life, American Political Science Review, vol. 78, no. 3, рр. 734–749.
25. Hall P.A., Taylor R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms, Political stud- ies, vol. 44, no. 5, рр. 936–957. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x.
26. Питерс Б.Г. Политические институты: вчера и сегодня // Политическая наука: новые направления. М. : Вече, 1999. С. 218–231.
27. Тамбовцев В. Теоретические вопросы институционального проектирования // Вопросы экономики. 1997. № 3. С. 82–94.
28. Бруннер К. Представление о человеке и концепция социума: два подхода к пониманию общества // THESIS. 1993. Т. 1. Вып. 3. С. 55–58.
29. Эрроу К. Коллективный выбор и индивидуальные ценности. М. : Издательский дом ГУ ВШЭ, 2004. 201 с.
30. Уильямсон О.И. Экономические институты капитализма: Фирмы, рынки, «отношенческая» контрактация. СПб. : Лениздат, 1996. 260 с.
31. Thelen K. (2003). How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In: Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pр. 208–240.
32. Pierson Р. (2004). Politics In Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Prince- ton University Press. 108 р.
33. Tsebelis G. (2011). Veto Players: How Po- litical Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton Uni- versity Press. 317 р. DOI: 10.1515/9781400831456.
34. Selznick P. (1948). Foundations of the The- ory of Organization, American Sociological Review, vol. 13, no. 1, рр. 25–35.
35. Thoenig J.-C. (2003). Institutional Theories and Public Institutions: Traditions and Appropri- ateness. In: Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage. Pр. 127–148.
36. Farrell H. (2018). The Shared Challenges of Institutional Theories: Rational Choice, Histor- ical Institutionalism, and Sociological Institution- alism. In: Knowledge and Space. Vol. 13. Pр. 23–44. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-75328-7_2.
37. Starr H. (1991). Democratic Dominoes: Diffusion Approaches to the Spread of Democracy in the International System, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 35, no. 2, рр. 356–381. DOI: 10.1177/0022002791035002010.
38. Тард Г. Законы подражания. М. : Академический проект, 2011. 260 с.
39. Rogers E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innova- tions. New York: Free Press; London: Collier Mac- millan. 453 р.
40. Beissinger M.R. (2007). Structure and Ex- ample in Modular Political Phenomena: The Diffu- sion of Bulldozer/Rose/Orange/Tulip Revolutions,
Perspectives on Politics, vol. 5, no. 2, рр. 259–276. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592707070776.
41. Midlarsky M.I. (1975). On war. New York: Free Press. 229 р.
42. Elkins Z., Simmons B. (2005). On Waves, Clusters, and Diffusion: A Conceptual Framework, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 598, no. 1, рр. 33–51. DOI: 10.1177/0002716204272516.
43. DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, Amer- ican Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 2, рр. 147–160. DOI: 10.17323/1726-3247-2010-1-34-56.
44. Strang D., Meyer J.W. (1993). Institutional Conditions for Diffusion, Theory and Society, vol. 22, рр. 487–511. DOI: 10.1007/BF00993595.
45. Капогузов Е.А., Левин С.Н., Саблин К.С. Что понимается под импортом институтов // Журнал экономической теории. 2019. № 3. С. 480–487. DOI: 10.31063/2073-6517/2019.16-3.15. EDN: NBFPBG.
46. Полтерович В.М. Трансплантация экономических институтов// экономическая наука современной России. 2001. № 3. С. 24–50. EDN: IBAKRX.
47. Рождественская И.А., Тамбовцев В.Л. Импорт институтов и диффузия идей // Жур- нал экономической теории. 2019. Т. 16. № 3. С. 468–479. DOI: 10.31063/2073-6517/2019.16-3.14. EDN: WLWUPR.
48. Олейник А.Н. Институциональная экономика. М. : ИНФРА-М, 2002. 416 с.49. Thelen K. (1999). Historical Institutional- ism in comparative politics, Annual Review of Po- litical Science, vol. 2, no. 1, рр. 369–404. DOI: 10.1146/ annurev.polisci.2.1.369.
50. David P.A. (2007). Path Dependence: A Foundational Concept for Historical Social Sci- ence, Cliometrica, vol. 1, no. 2, рр. 91–114. DOI: 10.1007/s11698-006-0005-x.
51. Дэвид П. КЛИО и экономическая теория QWERTY // Истоки: из опыта изучения экономики как структуры и как процесса. М. : Издательском дом ГУ ВШЭ, 2007. С. 139–150.
52. Sewell W. H. Jr. (1996). Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology, The Historic turn in the Human Sciences. Ann Arbor: University of Michi- gan Press. Pр. 245–280.
53. Levi M. (1997). A Model, a Method, and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and Histor- ical Analysis. In: Comparative Politics: Rationality,
Culture, and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Pр. 19–41.
54. Mahoney J. (2000). Path Dependence in His- torical Sociology, Theory and Society, vol. 29, no. 4, рр. 507–548. DOI: 10.1023/A:1007113830879.
55. Thelen K. (2004). How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 333 р. DOI: 10.1017/ CBO9780511790997.
56. Capoccia G., Kelemen R.D. (2007). The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism, World Politics, vol. 59, no. 3, рр. 341–369. DOI: 10.1017/S0043887100020852.
57. Талеб Н. Черный лебедь. Под знаком непредсказуемости. М. : КоЛибри, 2011. 528 с.
58. Herron M.C., Quinn K.M. (2016). A Care- ful Look at Modern Case Selection Methods, Soci- ological Methods & Research, vol. 45, no. 3, рр. 458–492. DOI: 10.1177/0049124114547053.
59. Gerring J., Cojocaru L. (2016). Selecting cases for intensive analysis: A diversity of goals and methods, Sociological Methods & Research, vol. 45, no. 3, рр. 392–423. DOI: 10.1177/0049124116631692.
60. Seawright J., Gerring J. (2006). Case Selec- tion Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options, Political Research Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2, рр. 294–308. DOI: 10.1177/1065912907313077.
61. Shakir M. (2002). The selection of case stud- ies: Strategies and their applications to IS imple- mentation cases studies, Research Letters in the In- formationand Mathematical Sciences, no. 3, рр. 191–198.
62. Федералист. Политические эссе А. Гамильтона, Дж. Мэдисона и Дж. Джея / Под общ. ред. Н. Н. Яковлева. М. : Издательская группа «Прогресс» – «Литера», 1994. 592 с.
63. Иванченко А.В., Любарев А.Е. Российские выборы от перестройки до суверенной демократии. М. : Аспект Пресс, 2006. 221 с.
64. Кынев А.В. Губернаторы в России: между выборами и назначениями. М. : Фонд «Либеральная миссия», 2020. 1030 с.
65. Левин А.Ю. Феномен. Штрихи к портрету Эдуарда Росселя. Екатеринбург : Банк культурной информации, 2007. 317 с.
66. Россель Э.Э. Публично о личном. Записки на полях моей жизни. М. : Международный Демидовский Фонд, 2017. 287 с.
REFERENCES
1. Campion L. (1953). Second Chamber in The- ory and Practice, Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 7, no. 1, рр. 17–32.
2. Levmore S. (1992). Bicameralism: When are two Decisions better than One? International Review of Law and Economics, vol. 12, no. 2, рр. 145–162.
3. Smith D.E. (2003). The Canadian Senate in Bicameral Perspective. Toronto: University of Toron- to Press. 263 р. DOI: 10.3138/9781442680609.
4. Uhr J. (2006). Bicameralism. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pр. 474–494.
5. Diermbier D., Feddersen T. (1998). Cohe- sion in legislatures and the vote of confidence pro- cedure, American Political Science Review, vol. 92, no. 3, рр. 611–621. DOI: 10.2307/2585484.
6. Tsebelis G., Money J. (1997). Bicameralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 250 р.
7. Aroney N. (2008). Four Reasons for an Upper House: Representative Democracy, Public Deliber- ation, Legislative Outputs and Executive Account- ability, Adelaide Law Review, vol. 29, рр. 205–246.
8. Patterson S.C., Mughan А.С. (2001). Funda- mentals of Institutional Design: The functions and powers of Parliamentary Second Chambers, The Journal of legislative Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, рр. 39–60. DOI: 10.1080/714003851.
9. Riker W.H. (1992). The Justification of Bi- cameralism, International Political Science Review, no. 13, рр. 101–116. DOI: 10.1177/019251219201300107.
10. Russell M. (2001). What are Second Cham- bers for? Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 54, no. 3, рр. 442–458. DOI: 10.1093/parlij/54.3.442.
11. Myers A.S. (2018). The Failed Diffusion of the Unicameral State Legislature, 1934–1944, Amer- ican Political Development, vol. 32, no. 2, рр. 217–235. DOI: 10.1017/S0898588X18000135.
12. Avtonomov A.S. (2000). Regional parlia- ments in modern Russia. Moscow: Moscow Public Scientific Fund. 88 p.
13. Zaslavsky S.E. (2000). Russian bicameralism in the regional dimension, Moscow University Bul- letin. Series 12. Political Science, no. 3, pp. 37–52.
14. Gerring J. (2004). What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for? American Political Sci- ence Review, vol. 98, no. 2, рр. 341–354. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055404001182.
15. Blatter J., Haverland M. (2012). Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 262 р.
16. Blatter J., Blume T. (2008). In Search of Co- variance, Causal Mechanisms or Congruence? To- wards a Plural Understanding of Case Studies, Swiss Political Science Review, vol. 14, no. 2, рр. 315–356. DOI: 10.1002/j.1662-6370.2008.tb00105.x.
17. George A.L., Bennett A. (2005). Case Stud- ies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. 331 р.
18. Beach D., Pedersen R.B. (2016). Causal Case Study Methods: Foundations and Guidelines for Comparing, Matching, and Tracing. University of Michigan Press. 416 р.
19. Wauters B., Beach D. (2018). Process trac- ing and congruence analysis to support theory based impact evaluation? Evaluation, vol. 24, no. 3, рр. 284–305. DOI: 10.1177/1356389018786081.
20. Moller J. (2017). A framework for congru- ence analysis in comparative historical analysis of political change, Quality & Quantity, vol. 51, no. 5, рр. 2337–2355. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-016-0391-5.
21. Yin R.K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sixth Edition. Sage Publications. 240 р.
22. Allison G. (2011). Quintessence of the so- lution: on the example of the Caribbean crisis of 1962. Moscow: URSS; Librokom. 526 p.
23. Schimmelfennig F. (2003). The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 323 р.
24. March J.G., Olsen J.P. (1984). The New In- stitutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life, American Political Science Review, vol. 78, no. 3, рр. 734–749.
25. Hall P.A., Taylor R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms, Political stud- ies, vol. 44, no. 5, рр. 936–957. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- 9248.1996.tb00343.x.
26. Peters B.G. (1999). Political institutions: yes- terday and today. In: Political Science: New direc- tions. Moscow: Veche. Pp. 218–231.
27. Tambovtsev V. (1997). Theoretical issues of in- stitutional design, Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 3, pp. 82–94.
28. Brunner K. (1993). The idea of a person and the concept of society: two approaches to un- derstanding society, THESIS, vol. 1. no. 3, pp. 55–58.
29. Errow K. (2004). Collective choice and in- dividual values. Moscow: Publishing House of the HSE. 201 p.
30. Williamson O.I. (1996). Economic institu- tions of capitalism: firms, markets, “attributed” con- tracting. Saint-Petersburg: Lenizdat. 260 p.
31. Thelen K. (2003). How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In: Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pр. 208–240.
32. Pierson Р. (2004). Politics In Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Prince- ton University Press. 108 р.
33. Tsebelis G. (2011). Veto Players: How Po- litical Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton Uni- versity Press. 317 р. DOI: 10.1515/9781400831456.
34. Selznick P. (1948). Foundations of the The- ory of Organization, American Sociological Review, vol. 13, no. 1, рр. 25–35.
35. Thoenig J.-C. (2003). Institutional Theories and Public Institutions: Traditions and Appropri- ateness. In: Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage. Pр. 127–148.
36. Farrell H. (2018). The Shared Challenges of Institutional Theories: Rational Choice, Histor- ical Institutionalism, and Sociological Institution- alism. In: Knowledge and Space. Vol. 13. Pр. 23–44. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-75328-7_2.
37. Starr H. (1991). Democratic Dominoes: Diffusion Approaches to the Spread of Democracy in the International System, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 35, no. 2, рр. 356–381. DOI: 10.1177/0022002791035002010.
38. Tard G. (2011). Laws of imitation. Moscow: Academicheskiy proekt. 260 p.
39. Rogers E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innova- tions. New York: Free Press; London: Collier Mac- millan. 453 р.
40. Beissinger M.R. (2007). Structure and Ex- ample in Modular Political Phenomena: The Diffu- sion of Bulldozer/Rose/Orange/Tulip Revolutions, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 5, no. 2, рр. 259–276. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592707070776.
41. Midlarsky M.I. (1975). On war. New York: Free Press. 229 р.
42. Elkins Z., Simmons B. (2005). On Waves, Clusters, and Diffusion: A Conceptual Framework, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 598, no. 1, рр. 33–51. DOI: 10.1177/0002716204272516.
43. DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, Amer- ican Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 2, рр. 147–160. DOI: 10.17323/1726-3247-2010-1-34-56.
44. Strang D., Meyer J.W. (1993). Institutional Conditions for Diffusion, Theory and Society, vol. 22, рр. 487–511. DOI: 10.1007/BF00993595.
45. Kapoguzov E.A., Levin S.N., Sablin K.S. (2019). What is meant by the import of institutions, Russian Journal of Economic Theory, no. 3, pp. 480–
487. DOI: 10.31063/2073-6517/2019.16-3.15. EDN: NBFPBG.
46. Polterovich V.M. (2001). Transplantation of economic institutions, Economics of Contempo- rary Russia, no. 3, pp. 24–50. EDN: IBAKRX.
47. Rozhdestvenskaya I.A., Tambovtsev V.L. (2019). Import of institutions and diffusion of ideas, Russian Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 16, no. 3,
pp. 468–479. DOI: 10.31063/2073-6517/2019.16-3.14. EDN: WLWUPR.
48. Oleinik A.N. (2002). Institutional economy. Moscow: INFRA-M. 416 p.
49. Thelen K. (1999). Historical Institutional- ism in comparative politics, Annual Review of Po- litical Science, vol. 2, no. 1, рр. 369–404. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.369.
50. David P.A. (2007). Path Dependence: A Foundational Concept for Historical Social Sci- ence, Cliometrica, vol. 1, no. 2, рр. 91–114. DOI: 10.1007/s11698-006-0005-x.
51. David P. (2007). CLIO and the economic theory of QWERTY. In: Origins: from the experience of studying the economy as a structure and as a pro- cess. Moscow: Publishing House of HSE. Pp. 139–150.
52. Sewell W. H. Jr. (1996). Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology, The Historic turn in the Human Sciences. Ann Arbor: University of Michi- gan Press. Pр. 245–280.
53. Levi M. (1997). A Model, a Method, and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and Histor- ical Analysis. In: Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Pр. 19–41.
54. Mahoney J. (2000). Path Dependence in His- torical Sociology, Theory and Society, vol. 29, no. 4, рр. 507–548. DOI: 10.1023/A:1007113830879.
55. Thelen K. (2004). How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 333 р. DOI: 10.1017/ CBO9780511790997.
56. Capoccia G., Kelemen R.D. (2007). The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism, World Politics, vol. 59, no. 3, рр. 341–369. DOI: 10.1017/S0043887100020852.
57. Taleb N. (2011). Black Swan. Under the sign of unpredictability. Moscow: KoLibri. 528 p.
58. Herron M.C., Quinn K.M. (2016). A Care- ful Look at Modern Case Selection Methods, Soci- ological Methods & Research, vol. 45, no. 3, рр. 458–492. DOI: 10.1177/0049124114547053.
59. Gerring J., Cojocaru L. (2016). Selecting cases for intensive analysis: A diversity of goals and methods, Sociological Methods & Research, vol. 45, no. 3, рр. 392–423. DOI: 10.1177/0049124116631692.
60. Seawright J., Gerring J. (2006). Case Selec- tion Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options, Political Research Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2, рр. 294–308. DOI: 10.1177/1065912907313077.
61. Shakir M. (2002). The selection of case stud- ies: Strategies and their applications to IS imple- mentation cases studies, Research Letters in the In- formationand Mathematical Sciences, no. 3, рр. 191–198.
62. Yakovlev N.N. (ed.) (1994). Federalist. Po- litical essays by A. Hamilton, J. Madison and J. Jay. Moscow: Publishinggroup“Progress”–“Literal”. 592 p.
63. Ivanchenko A.V., Lyubarev A.E. (2006). Rus- sian elections from perestroika to sovereign democ- racy. Moscow: Aspect Press. 221 p.
64. Kynev A.V. (2020). Governors in Russia: be- tween elections and appointments. Moscow: Foun- dation “Liberal Mission”. 1030 p.
65. Levin A.Yu. (2007). Phenomenon. Strokes to the portrait of Eduard Rossel. Ekaterinburg : Cultural Information Bank. 317 p.
66. Rossel E.E. (2017). Publicly about per- sonal. Notes on the fields of my life. Moscow: In- ternational Demidov Fund. 287 p.
