Principal, Agent or Bystander? Governance and Leadership in Chinese and Russian Villages

What does ‘local self-governance’ mean in post-communist Russia and China? In order to answer this question, the article focuses on village-level governance in both countries by employing a four-fold typology of village leadership in public affairs. In both countries, the withdrawal of state power from local communities and the introduction of legislative ‘self-government’ has not brought autonomy to the local and community levels. The findings here suggest that the single ‘state agent’ category of village leadership that emerged under the communist regime is shifting to become one of the remaining three types, ‘principal’, ‘local agent’ and ‘bystander’. There was a growing tendency towards a non-autonomous type of ‘bystander’-style leadership in China and the ‘local agent’ type in Russia. This article suggests that the development of these local governance styles should not be attributed to a common transitional process departing from the communist past, but is the outcome of four factors that influence village leaders in two countries: administrative distance between local and village level, village social structure, fiscal arrangements and electoral relationships.