| Article |
|---|
| Article name |
Index Analysis of Decentralization: Problems of Conceptualization and Measurement |
| Authors |
Zaznaev O.I. Doctor of Law, Professor, Political Science department Institute of Social and Philosophical Sciences and Mass Communications, leg.Zaznaev@kpfu.ruZaripova A.R. Candidate of Political Sciences, Associate Professor, Political Science Department, Institute of Social and Philosophical Sciences and Mass Communications, AjgulRaisZaripova@kpfu.ru |
| Bibliographic description |
Zaznaev OI., Zaripova AR. Index Analysis of Decentralization: Problems of Conceptualization and Measurement. Transbaikal State University Journal. 2026;32(1):75-84. (In Russian). https://www.doi.org/10.21209/2227-9245-2026-32-1-65-84 |
| Category |
Politology |
| DOI |
УДК 323.17 |
| DOI |
https://www.doi.org/10.21209/2227-9245-2026-32-1-75-84 |
| Article type |
|
| Annotation |
The article discusses the challenges of using index analysis to study the decentralization processes in multi-level political systems. Index analysis makes it possible to analyze cases of autonomization in dynamics and identify the areas most susceptible to this process. This issue is particularly relevant today, as unitary states adopt practices of multilevel governance and vertical power division. The object of the study is the decentralization indices in political research. The subject of the research is the problems of conceptualization and measurement in decentralization indexes. The purpose of the article is to identify the problems of conceptualization and evaluate the quality of measurement in decentralization indexes. Within the framework of the study, the following tasks have been performed: the main methods of measuring regional power are characterized, the structure of indicators of decentralization indices is revealed, and the strengths and weaknesses of existing measurement methods are assessed. Сomparative analysis is used as a method to reveal the key characteristics of measurement tools, including the composition of indicators, time coverage and scale. This allowed us to systematize their advantages and limitations. The authors consider decentralization as a multidimensional phenomenon that manifests itself in a political, administrative, and fiscal form through the prism of the limitations of existing conceptualization. Special attention is paid to a critical analysis of the leading decentralization indices existing in political science, their methodological assumptions and areas of insensitivity. The paper provides a detailed analysis of the structure of index indicators, showing their “blind spots” – those aspects of decentralization that are either inadequately measured or do not fall into the field of view of measuring schemes at all. The authors conclude that the existing indexes, despite their wide applicability in comparative studies, have significant conceptual and methodological limitations. These limitations affect the reliability of conclusions about the level and dynamics of decentralization in different countries.
|
| Key words |
decentralization, autonomization, index analysis, operationalization, measurement of autonomy, federalism, multilevel management, separation of powers, conceptualization, indicators of decentralization |
| Article information |
|
| References |
1. Popova OV. “Measuring instrument” in comparative political science: on unresolved problems. Political Expertise: Politex. 2009; 5(1):271-291. (In Russian). EDN: KPNFDD
2. Rondinelli D. Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective: Theory and Practice in Developing Countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 1981;47:133-145.
3. Schneider A. Decentralization: Conceptualization and Measurement. Studies in Comparative International Development. 2003;38(3):32-56. EDN: QMPKVQ. DOI: 10.1007/BF02686198
4. Zaznaev OI. Semi-presidential system (political and legal analysis): doct. law. sci. diss. Kazan; 2006. 401 p. Available at: https://clck.ru/3SiSc9 (accessed 16.11.2025). (In Russian). EDN: NORXZH
5. Ladner A, Keuffer N, Bastianen A. Local autonomy around the world: the updated and extended Local Autonomy Index (LAI 2.0). Regional and Federal Studies. 2025;35:163-185. DOI: 10.1080/13597566.2023.2267990
6. Harguindéguy J, Cole A, Pasquier R. The variety of decentralization indexes: a review of the literature. Regional and Federal Studies. 2021;31:185-208. EDN: WXTOUJ. DOI: 10.1080/13597566.2019.1566126
7. Zaripova AR. The comparative study of ethnic autonomies. In: Farukshin MH. Territorial ethnic autonomies: vertical division of power (power-sharing): a monograph. Moscow: Rusains; 2022. P. 19-41. (In Russian). EDN: GCWUQA
8. Panov PV. The world of ethnic regional autonomies: introducing a new database. Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science. 2016;(4):66-93. (In Russian). EDN: XEPBSD
9. Panov PV. Political-territorial heterogeneity, conflicts, and institutional solutions: the state and prospects for the development of databases for quantitative research. Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science. 2023;17(3):85-95. (In Russian). EDN: IWFYQU. DOI: 10.17072/2218-1067-2023-3-85-95
10. Bird RM, Vaillancourt F (eds). Fiscal Decentralization in Developing Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998. 304 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511559815
11. Swenden W. Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe: A Comparative and Thematic Analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2006. 325 p. DOI: 10.1057/9780230624979
12. Blochliger H. Measuring decentralization: the OECD fiscal decentralization database. In: Measuring fiscal decentralization - concepts and policies. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2013. P. 15-35. DOI: 10.1787/9789264174849-en
13. Schakel AH. Validation of the Regional Authority Index. Regional and Federal Studies. 2008;18(2-3):143-166. EDN: MMXZRZ. DOI: 10.1080/13597560801979498
14. Stegarescu D. Decentralised Government in an Integrating World. Quantitative Studies for OECD Countries. Mannheim: Physica Heidelberg; 2006. 232 p. DOI: 10.1007/3-7908-1670-1
15. Ebel RD, Yilmaz S. On the Measurement and Impact of Fiscal Decentralization. In: Policy Research Working Paper. No. 2809. Washington: World Bank; 2002. Available at: https://clck.ru/3SiSeC (accessed 16.11.2025). DOI: 10.1596/1813-9450-2809
16. Stegarescu D. Public Sector Decentralization: Measurement Concepts and Recent International Trends. Fiscal Studies. 2005;26:301-333. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-5890.2005.00014.x
17. Treisman D. Defining and measuring decentralization: a global perspective. In: Academia: website. Available at: hhttps://clck.ru/3SiSgA (accessed 16.11.2025).
18. Hooghe L, Marks G. Community, Scale, and Regional Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. 212 p.
19. Vampa D, Boni FD, Fiseha A, Kenny M, López-Santana M, Zulianello M. Emerging issues and new frontiers in federalism, regionalism and territorial governance: the role of Regional & Federal Studies in shaping future research agendas. Regional & Federal Studies. 2025;35(4):493-510. EDN: WCZGID. DOI: 10.1080/13597566.2025.2518752
20. Hooghe L, Marks G, Schakel AH, Osterkatz S, Niedzwiecki S, Shair-Rosenfield S. Measuring Regional Authority: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. Vol. 1. 707 p.
21. Dardanelli P. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Mapping State Structures - with an Application to Western Europe, 1950-2015. The Journal of Federalism. 2019;49:271-298. DOI: 10.1093/publius/pjy019
22. Braun D. How centralized federations avoid over-centralization. Regional and Federal Studies. 2011;21:35-54. DOI: 10.1080/13597566.2010.507401
23. Dardanelli P, Kincaid J, Fenna A, Kaiser A, Lecours A, Singh AK. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Theorizing Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations. The Journal of Federalism. 2019;49:1-29. EDN: BZEWDJ. DOI: 10.1093/publius/pjy036
24. Dardanelli P, Wright K. Devometrics: How to Measure Decentralisation? А Review of the Literature. In: LGiU: website. Available at: https://clck.ru/3SiShq (accessed 16.11.2025).
|
| Full article | Index Analysis of Decentralization: Problems of Conceptualization and Measurement |
