Decentralization versus state collapse: Explaining Russia's endurance

The non-collapse of post-Soviet Russia suggests thar stare disintegration is not a function of the of central control or the balance of power between the center and the periphery, but of the and effectiveness of institutions that mediate center-periphery grievances. The article examines such institutional factors (unavailable under communism) that have enabled the Russian Federation survive socio-economic and political challenges to state integrity in the 1990s: (1) the ability of center to provide selective incentives ro the regions and the regions' ability to engage in strategic gaining; (2) disincentives for external support to regional separatists; (3) diffusion of civic and (4) center-periphery checks and balances. While the balance of power between Moscow and regions is likely to wax and wane, the robustness of these four factors and the commitment of political elites to problem-solving through multilateral compromises and bargaining emerge as indicators of Russia's endurance. Ethnocentric consolidation of central government in Russia is to undermine these four state-preserving factors.