СМИ об исследованиях

| 02 июня, 2014

New Rating on the Efficacy of Governors is Published.

Konstantin Kostin, head of the Foundation for Civil Society Development (FCSD) has said that those governors who are running in the early elections have strengthened their positions.

‘The Rating continues to be of a conservative character’ says Kostin. ‘On the whole, if one does not consider Kovalev (who dropped in the rankings by 16 points), then we can see that all movements in the rankings are of a slight and corrective nature. The most important trend is that the group at the top of the rating sets a very high bar for the others. In fact, to rephrase the quote from Lewis Carroll’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’: you must run as fast as you can, just to keep your position. And if you wish to improve your position you must run twice as fast as that.’

Kostin added that many governors who had the same number of points this time round as in the last ratings slipped in the ranking by several places.

‘In order to maintain one’s ranking’ he said ‘one must work harder and get a higher rating from the people. The maximum score in this ranking and aggregate score in each group has gone up. Previously the highest score was 95 and now it is 98 (this is what the leader in the ratings, Dmitry Kobilkin, head of the Yamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous Region received)’.

Another important trend according to Kostin is that an electoral campaign is underway which will have a marked effect rankings of regional leaders in the rating. Those who are running in the elections are either maintaining or improving their positions. This contributes not only to preparations for the elections but also support for the President of Russia who approved the decision to re-elect the governors.

When assessing the efficacy of governors, data was used from various sources including sociological and economic surveys in the regions, the reports in national and local media outlets on the performance of governors and also the opinion of experts in the field. The FCSD was assisted in its preparation of the ratings by the ‘Public Opinion’ Foundation, the Federal State Statistics Service and the National Monitoring Service. As in previous studies, the governors were divided into four groups according to their performance: ‘Very highly rated’, ‘highly rated’, ‘average’ and ‘below average’.