From local elections to appointments : how has municipal reform changed vote delivery in Russian municipalities?

Abstract

Authoritarian regimes broadly rely on sub-national elections to sustain political support and uphold legitimacy. Strong political machines are known for strengthening the capacity of an authoritarian regime to increase vote share cast for the incumbent and demonstrate high turnout. However, some autocracies rely on appointed mayors. Russia exemplifies a paradigmatic case of an autocracy that made a transition from elected mayors to appointees as a result of the last municipal reform in 2014–2015. Do elected mayors deliver votes better than appointees? We argue that appointed mayors unequivocally deliver votes better at the national elections than elected mayors. We rely on the difference-in-difference quasi-experimental design of the lower-tier municipal data of 637 cities and municipal districts over two presidential campaigns.