The author gratefully acknowledges funding support from the National Science Foundation, the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research, and the University of Arizona. The Russian collaborator Alexander Gasparishvili deserves great credit for conceptualization of the project as well as making sure it happened. The author also thanks Nir Cohen and James Bell as well as anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. All the usual disclaimers apply.

1 Lynn, Nicholas J., “Geography and Transition: Reconceptualizing Systemic Change in the Former Soviet Union,” Slavic Review 58, no. 4 (Winter 1999): 824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Pred, Allan, Making Histories and Constructing Human Geographies: The Local Transformation of Practice, Power Relations, and Consciousness (Boulder, Colo., 1990), 22.Google Scholar

3 Bahry, Donna, Outside Moscow: Power, Politics, and Budgetary Policy in the Soviet Republics (New York, 1987);Google Scholar Hough, Jerry, Soviet Prefects: The local Parly Organs in Industrial Decision-Making (Cambridge, Mass., 1967);Google Scholar Ruble, Blair, Leningrad: Shaping A Soviet City (Berkeley, 1990).Google Scholar

4 See Stoner-Weiss, Kathryn, local Heroes: The Political Economy of Russian Regional Governance (Princeton, 1997);Google Scholar Gel'man, Vladimir,“In Search of Local Autonomy: The Politics of Big Cities in Russia's Transition,” International fournal of Urban and Regional Research 27, no. 1 (March 2003): 48–61;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Matsuzato, Kimitaka, “Local Elites under Transition: County and City Politics in Russia 1985-1996,” Europe-Asia Studies 51, no. 8 (December 1999): 1367–1400;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Frye, Timothy,“Capture or Exchange? Business Lobbying in Russia,” Europe-Asia Studies 54, no. 7 (November 2002): 1017–36;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Solnick, Steven L.,“The Political Economy of Russian Federalism,” Problems of Post-Communism 43, no. 6 (November-December 1996): 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Buckley, Cynthia,“Ideology, Methodology, and Context: Social Science Surveys in the Russian Federation,” American Behavioral Scientist 42, no. 2 (October 1998): 223–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Alexander, James,“Surveying Attitudes in Russia: A Representation of Formlessness,” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 30, no. 2 (June 1997): 107–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 See for example Gibson, James L., “Political and Economic Markets: Changes in the Connections Between Attitudes Toward Political Democracy and a Market Economy Within the Mass Culture of Russia and Ukraine,” The Journal of Politics 58, no. 4 (November 1996): 954–84;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gibson, James L.,“The Resilience of Mass Support for Democratic Institutions and Processes in the Nascent Russian and Ukrainian Democracies,” in Tismaneanu, V., ed., Political Culture and Civil Society in Russia and the Netv States of Eurasia (Armonk, N.Y., 1995), 53–111.Google Scholar

8 Frye, Timothy,“Markets, Democracy, and New Private Business in Russia,” Post-Soviet Affairs 19, no. 1 (January-March 2003): 24–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Barrington, Lowell W. and Herron, Erik S.,“Understanding Public Opinion in Post-Communist States: The Effects of Statistical Assumptions on Substantive Results,” Europe-Asia Studies 53, no. 4 (June 2001): 573–94;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Mitchneck, Beth,“The Regional Governance Context in Russia: A General Framework,” Urban Geography 22, no. 4 (May-June 2001): 360–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Barrington, Lowell W.,“The Geographic Component of Mass Attitudes in Ukraine,” Post-Soviet Geography andEconomics 38, no. 10 (1997): 601–14.Google Scholar

11 Harvey, David, Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference (Cambridge, Mass., 1996).Google Scholar

12 Pred, Making Histories and Constructing Human Geographies, 14.

13 Cox, Kevin R.,“The Local and the Global in the New Urban Politics: A Critical View,” Environment and PlanningD: Society and Space 11 (1993): 433–48;Google Scholar Cox, K. R. and Mair, A.,“From Localized Social Structures to Localities as Agents,” Environment and Planning A 23 (1991): 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 We attempted to survey up to twelve respondents in all subjects of the Federation, with the exception of the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, including members of both the executive and representative branches of government.

15 Mitchneck,“Regional Governance Context in Russia.”

16 Bahl, Roy, Metropolitan City Expenditures: A Comparative Analysis (Lexington, 1969);Google Scholar Clark, Terry,“Community Structure, Decision-Making, Budget Expenditures, and Urban Renewal in 51 American Cities,” American Sociological Review 33, no. 4 (August 1968): 576–93;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Isserman, Andrew and Rephann, Terance,“The Economic Effects of the Appalachian Regional Commission,” Journal of the American Planning Association 61, no. 3 (Summer 1995): 345–64;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Lineberry, Robert and Sharkansky, Ira, Urban Politics and Public Policy (New York, 1971);Google Scholar Pagano, Michael and Moore, Richard, Cities and Fiscal Choices: A New Model of Urban Public Investment (Durham, 1985);Google Scholar Peterson, Paul, City Limits (Chicago, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Swianiewicz, P., Blaas, G., Illner, M., and Peteri, G.,“Policies: Privatizing, Defending the Local Welfare State, or Wishful Thinking?” in Baldersheim, Harald, Illner, Michael, Offerdal, Audun, Rose, Lawrence, and Swianiewicz, Pawel, eds., Local Democracy and the Processes of Transformation in East-Central Europe (Boulder, Colo., 1996), 161–96.Google Scholar

18 For example, Cox,“The Local and the Global in the New Urban Politics”; Cox and Mair,“From Localized Social Structures to Localities as Agents.”

19 Elkin, Stephen, City and Regime in the American Republic (Chicago, 1987);Google Scholar Logan, John and Molotch, Harvey, Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place (Berkeley, 1987);Google Scholar Stone, Clarence,“Summing Up: Urban Regimes, Development Policy, and Political Arrangements,” in Stone, Clarence and Sanders, Heywood, eds., The Politics of Urban Development (Lawrence, 1987), 269–90.Google Scholar

20 See Putnam, Robert D., Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, 1993)Google Scholar, for a seminal work on social capital, and Stoner-Weiss, Local Heroes, for an example of related research on Russia.

21 Frye,“Capture or Exchange?”

22 James E. Bell, A Place for Community ? Urban Social Movements and the Struggle over the Space of the Public in Moscow (Ph.D. diss., University of Washington, 1997).

23 Pickvance, Chris G.,“Housing Privatization and Housing Protest in the Transition from State Socialism: A Comparative Study of Budapest and Moscow,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 18 (1994): 433–50;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Shomina, E.,“Stanovlenie zhilishchnogo dvizheniia v Rossii,” Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia 22, no. 10 (1995): 78–87.Google Scholar

24 Baldersheim et al., Local Democracy and the Processes of Transformation in East-Central Europe.

25 Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Profile, Russia, 2000 (London, 2000).

26 Ibid.

27 In addition to summary analyses of the survey responses, I employed a standard analytical technique to classify the responses by regions into like groups: cluster analysis. Cluster analysis would group regions by similar responses signifying regional or spatial groups. The cluster analysis resulted in the summation of the data into one cluster and in some cases into two clusters where the second cluster had only a handful of regions in the cluster. These findings suggest that this standard technique to describe regions is not analytically useful in this case.

28 Open-ended questions allow the respondent to identify the important topics rather than choose among those identified by the researcher. This technique is especially useful when the goal of the question is to seek an opinion without constraining the respondent to preconceived responses. The open-ended question reduces the probability of analytical error by allowing the respondent to raise a variety of options that the researcher may not have considered.

29 Spearman's rho suggests a strong association between the executive and representative branches (0.768) and a significant yet weaker association between urban and regional officials (0.439). I used other techniques, like cluster analysis, to group responses by region. All analyses of this sort were unsuccessful and resulted in the identification of only one cluster, supporting the general lack of regional variation.

30 Semiclosed questions include the option of identifying“other” responses not specified by the researcher.

31 Pearson r's, comparing mean responses for demographic and economic factors, are 0.986 for executive versus representative and 0.996 for urban versus regional. Paired t-tests for the hypothesis that the responses are identical across these groups confirms the strong association in that not one t statistic allowed for rejection of the hypothesis. The t statistics are 0.58 for branch and 0.28 for urban versus regional.

32 Pearson r's are 0.974 for executive versus representative and 0.664 for urban versus regional.

33 Pearson r's also are very strong for the influence of participants: 0.983 for executive versus representative and 0.970 for urban versus regional.

34 Frye,“Capture or Exchange?"

35 Clarke, Susan and Gaile, Gary, The Work of Cities (Minneapolis, 1998).Google Scholar

36 Using the dependent variable example of the importance of age structure for identifying policy priorities, the two types of equations follow. The linear trend surface equation is:

The quadratic trend surface equation is:

As with standard regression analysis, I use an F test to evaluate the validity of the model results and t-tests to assess the statistical significance of the regression coefficients.

37 The linear equations had the following results for the question regarding the three most important policy problems. The * indicates that the Model R2 was not statisti-cally significant.

38 Lynn,“Geography and Transition.”

39 The results of the quadratic equations from the trend surface analysis were:

40 The results of the linear equations from the trend surface analysis were:

41 Clarke, Susan and Gaile, Gary,“Moving toward Entrepreneurial Economic Development Policies: Opportunities and Barriers,” Policy Studies Journal 17, no. 2 (Summer 1989): 574–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 The results of the quadratic trend surface analysis equations were:

43 See King, Leslie J., Statistical Analysis in Geography (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1969)Google Scholar, for nearest neighbor analysis. See Ragin, Charles C., Fuzzy-Set Social Science (Chicago, 2000)Google Scholar, and Hoppner, Frank, Klawonn, Frank, Kruse, Rudolf, and Runkler, Thomas, Fuzzy Cluster Analysis: Methods for Classification, Data Analysis, and Image Recognition (Chichester, Eng., 1999)Google Scholar, for fuzzy set analysis. And see Derudder, B. and Witlox, F.,“Classification Techniques in Complex Spatial Databases: On the Assessment of a Network of World Cities,” Solstice: An Electronic Journal of Geography and Mathematics 13, no. 1 (Summer 2002): 1–32 Google Scholar (http://www-personal.umich.edu/∼sarhaus/image/solstice/sum02/derudder.pdf, last consulted 8 April 2005), for a good review of various classification techniques.