ABSTRACT
The use of bilateral autonomy treaties in more than half of the federation subjects neither constrained politically deviant behavior nor encouraged greater center-periphery cooperation. Comparing Sverdlovsk and Tatarstan with Lipetsk revealed significant variation in democratic maturity and center-periphery integration. Power between the executive and legislative branches in Lipetsk, however, more closely resembled a legitimate system of checks and balances. Lipetsk again contrasted with Tatarstan and Sverdlovsk. Lipetsk consistently heightened transparency between respective regional agencies and their federal counterparts and developed a communication network with the federal government that was more effective achieving ‘focused autonomy’ and access. In contrast, federal agencies strengthened their presence in Lipetsk by securing channels of communication and interaction. Lipetsk was able to maintain greater economic diversity and suffered less from endemic corruption. The most successful democratic institutions are considered ones that provide both economic growth and the ability to regulate and absorb conflict effectively.
