Local voting in Russia: a spatial-econometric approach

The article presents theoretical and methodological foundations for the application of the spatial-econometric approach in electoral processes. The analysis based on spatial-econometric approach that underlies an assumption about interdepen- dence of processes occurring in adjacent objects. Theoretical framework of research is devoted to social-political assumptions that allow to explore the existence of interdependence of political processes occurring in neighboring objects. Empirical research is accomplished on local constituencies data from all parliamentary elections that took place in Russia in 1995-2016. The research involves addressing the concept of spatial autocorrelations - Moran, Geary and Getis - Ord indices. The research focuses on issue about the degree of spatial differences between regional and local voting. The results of research demonstrate that there is a high spatial interdependence in local voting in Russia. A comparative analysis of spatial autocorrelation on local and regional levels demonstrates that the municipal districts are most prone to spatial interdependence. This finding allows to trace a hidden tendences on local level of elections. Such differences between local and regional spatial autocorrelation identify that regional political regime can be an obstacle on the way of restraining the territorial distribution of local communities with similar electoral behavior. Finally, the research proves that the role of place is significant in Russian electoral space.

1. Agnew J. Place and politics: the geographical mediation of state and society. Boston; London: Allen; Unwin, 1987, 267 p.

2. Beck N., Gleditsch K., Beardsley K. Space is more than geography: using spatial econometrics in the study of political economy. International studies quarterly. 2006, Vol. 50, N 1, P. 27-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2006.00391.x

3. Cox R. The voting decision in a spatial context. Progress in geography. 1969, Vol. 1, P. 81-117.

4. Cutts D., Webber D., Widdop P., Johnston R., Pattie C. With a little help from my neighbours: a spatial analysis of the impact of local campaigns at the 2010 British general election. Electoral studies. 2014, Vol. 34, P. 216-231. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2013.12.001

5. Gaivoronsky Y. The dual logic of Russia's party system nationalization. Communist and post-communist studies. 2019, Vol. 52, N 4, P. 323-330. DOI: 10.1016/j.postcomstud.2019.10.003 EDN: JILGXK

6. Gasparyan О. Application of spatial econometric methods in applied policy researches. Politicheskaia kontseptologiia. 2017, N 1, P. 41-48. (In Russ.).

7. Guardo M., Marrocu E., Paci R. The concurrent impact of cultural, political, and spatial distances on international mergers and acquisitions. Working Paper CRENoS 201308. Centre for north south economic research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia, 2013, 30 p.

8. Hägerstrand T. Innovation diffusion as a spatial process. Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1967, 334 p.

9. Handbook of spatial analysis theory and application with r. Insee Méthodes, N 131. Montrouge: Institute national de la statistique et des études économiques, 2018, 377 p.

10. Miller H.J. Tobler's first law and spatial analysis. Annals of the association of American geographers. 2004, Vol. 94, N 2, P. 284-289. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09402005.x EDN: FOYVTB

11. Jeans D. Some literary examples of humanistic descriptions of place. Australian geographer. 1979, Vol. 14, N 4, P. 207-214. DOI: 10.1080/00049187908702764

12. Kim J., Elliott E., Wang D. A Spatial analysis of county-level outcomes in US Presidential elections: 1988-2000. Electoral studies. 2003, Vol. 22, N 4, P. 741-761. DOI: 10.1016/S0261-3794(02)00008-2 EDN: ERURPT

13. Lugovoy О., Dashkeyev V., Mazayev I., Fomchenko D., Polyakov E., Hecht A. Analysis of economic growth in regions: geographical and institutional aspect. Moscow: SEPRA, 2007, 164 p. (In Russ.).

14. Paelinck J., Klaassen L. Spatial econometrics. Farnborough: Saxon House, 1979, 211 p.

15. Podkolzina E., Demidova O., Kuletskaya L. Spatial modeling of voting preferences in Russian federation. Spatial economics. 2020, Vol. 16, N 2, P. 70-100. 10.14530/se.2020.2.070-100 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.14530/se.2020.2.070-100(InRuss.) EDN: VLGLSI

16. Samsonov T. Visualization and analysis of geographical data in R. Moscow:Geographical faculty of MSU, 2021. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.901911

17. Semerikova E., Demidova O. Interaction of regional labour markets in Russia: spatial econometric analysis. Spatial Economics. 2016, N 3, P. 57-80. 10.14530/se.2016.3.057-080 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.14530/se.2016.3.057-080(InRuss.) EDN: WMRCPB

18. Taylor J., Johnston R. Geography of elections. London: Routledge, 1979, 530 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781315747613

19. Tobler W. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic geography. 1970, Vol. 46, P. 234-240. DOI: 10.2307/143141

20. Turovsky R. Geo-space and meta-space: geographical methods in political science. Method: Moscow yearbook of proceedings from social science disciplines. INION RAN, 2015, Vol. 5, P. 71-89. (In Russ.).

21. Turovsky R. Regional dimension of electoral process: conceptual basis for research. Social sciences and contemporary world. 2006, N 5, P. 5-19. (In Russ.). EDN: HVARJF

22. Turovsky R. Settlement as a subject of local policy: theoretical background of research. Political science (RU). 2019, N 2, P. 13-30. DOI: 10.31249/poln/2019.02.01 EDN: WXXSAC

23. Turovsky R., Sukhova M. Contemporary developments in Russia's federal and local elections: on the way to a cohesive party system? Moscow: NRU Higher School of Economics. Series PS "Political Science", 2018, 40 p.