McLaurin 1

MKhayla McLaurin
Profesor Johnson
Comparative Politics
December 14, 2014
The Rise of Putin and the Rise of Russias Economy
After the Soviet Union fell Boris Yeltsin came into office. Under Yeltsin the economy in
Russia suffered greatly and the country suffered internal turmoil because of Yeltsins failed
attempt at democracy. Yeltsin left office and Vladimir Putin was voted into office in 2000.
Drogus and Orvis describes Putins rise to power as fully transforming, Russia from a weak but
fledging democracy to a semi-authoritarian regime. (2012, 468) Under Putin Yeltsins attempts
at democracy have slowly unraveled leaving Russia in its current semi-authoritarian state.
Thanks to increases in oil prices Russia has had a relatively stable and flourishing economy.
Making Vladimir Putin and his supporters wealthy because of his nationalization of previously
private resources, including oil. Leading to the focus of this essay, How has the economy
influenced Putins rise and control of power in Russia?. Reviewing the works of M. Steven
Fish, Stephen White and Ian McAllister, Sergei Khrushchev, and Richard Sakwa will show how
oil prices, influence of the oligarchs, the middle and working class, and oil have influenced
Putins rise and ability to maintain power in Russia.
M. Steven Fishs book Democracy Derailed in Russia (2005) argues that Putin maintains
his power by monopolizing Russias resources and making sure a strong middle class and an
independent business class does not form. In their article Putin and His Supports Stephen
White and Ian McAllister (2003) explain that Putin has power because the economy is strong and

McLaurin 2
people view him as strong competent leader. Sergei Khrushchevs article Russia after
Yeltsin (2000) attributes Putins rise to power to a poor Russian economy and oligarchs
stepping in because of concerns. He further explains that Putin is now in power because
oligarchs want him to be power. Richard Sakwa argues in his article Putin's Leadership:
Character and Consequences (2008) that Putin came into power because of a double
movement (Karl Polany ) against Yeltsin and oligarchs and that oil and Putins ability to unite
middle and working class are why he still in power.
Most scholars agree that Putins rise into power can be attributed to the oligarchs. In his
article Sergei Khrushchev focuses on the power of the oligarchs and their influence in politics.
Khrushchev argues that the oligarchs came into power through a monopoly over natural
resources which made them rich and became concerned when Russias economy was doing
poorly so they decided they must step in to changed who was in power. Khrushchev differs from
other authors such as, Stephen White and Ian McAllister, who believe that Putin came into power
because the Yeltsin family handpicked him as successor. Khrushchev argues that Berezovsky,
who he considers the most influential oligarch at the time chose Putin, and convicted Yeltsin
family to pick Putin also.
Richard Sakwa has a completely different argument in his essay. Sakwa argues that Putin
came into power because of peoples unhappiness with the oligarchs, not because of the
oligarchs themselves putting him into power. Richard Sakwa uses Karl Polanyis views on the
economy and society to explain Putins rise to power:
Polanyis key argument, however, was that the aspiration to create a self-regulating
market creates a counter-movement in which peoples resist, what he called the double
movement: the principle of market liberalism is countered by the principle of self-

McLaurin 3
protection, which once again begins to embed the economy within a framework that
allows society itself to survive (Polanyi 2001, p. 138) (Sakaw 2008, 881)
Based off Polanyis argument Putin was able to rise to power because the economy did poorly
under Yeltsin and the oligarchs. People then wanted to distance themselves from the oligarchs
and Yeltsin and were happy to accept Putin as a leader because it distanced themselves from the
previous people in power.
Polanyi believes that the economy has a major influence on how we make decisions,
which is a view point shared by many authors. Stephen White and Ian McAllister and Richard
Sakwa make the argument that strong oil prices and a strong economy are the reasons why Putin
is in power today. M. Steven Fish argues that Putins control of the economy is the reason why
he is still in power. Sergei Khrushchev completely disagrees with the other authors and believes
Putin is only in power because the oligarchs want him in power. However Khrushchevs article
was written in 2000 before Putins team dismantled the network of business and regional
relationships that had developed under Yeltsin (Sakwa 2008, 883), disproving his original
belief that Putin was in power because of the puppeteers behind him (Khrushchev 2000, 1) and
was completely in the oligarchs control.
Stephen White and Ian McAllister found in studies that, Putin supporters were also
distributed across all levels of income (Stephen White and Ian McAllister 2003, 384) and that
they viewed him as, intelligent, competent, physically and psychologically healthy, a man who
kept himself to himself, and who was honest and respected abroad (385). Stephen White and Ian
McAllister also argue that people are happy with the economy and therefore have no reason to
question or go against Putins leadership. Richard Sakwa views differs from Stephen White and
Ian McAllister in that he cites the middle class as the main reason that Putin is in power, not

McLaurin 4
people of all levels of income, however he does agree that a strong economy is why he is still in
power. Sakwa attributes Putins high approval rating despite the fact he does not have much a
political platform on his ability to, reconcile policies and groups that in an earlier era would
have been in conflict, notably the working class and the aspirational middle class. (2008, 882)
Sakwa believes that Putin appeals to all voters but his ability to untie the working and middle
class is his strongest accomplishment.
M. Steven Fish argues that Putin maintains power not because he was able to woe the
middle class but because he prevented a strong one from ever forming. Fish explains that the
predatory regulatory environment has slowed the growth of the entrepreneurial class and the
middle class ( 2005, 248), and without a strong and thriving middle and entrepreneurial class
people are reliant on the government. Putin was able to do this because, resource abundance has
also encouraged economic statism, and it lead to state officials with opportunities and
incentives to maintain a controlling, or at least meddling, hand in production, distribution, and
finance (Fish 2005, 247-248). The better the economy did the more Putin took state control over
resources, making the Russian people and oligarchs more dependent on him. Richard Sakwa
agrees with Fish but instead of focusing on how state statism affected the middle class Sakwa
focuses on how:
the natural resource curse allowed the regime, buoyed by energy rents, to become ever
more insulated from society and accountability mechanisms. Stephen Fish (2005) on this
basis has argued that democracy in Russia became derailed. (Sakwa 2008, 882-883)
Using Fish to support his argument Sakwa explains that because the economy did well and the
state controlled the economy, the state did not need support from the people to function. Putins
control of the economy allows him act independently and force others to rely on him.

McLaurin 5
Putins rise to power can be attributed to the oligarchs, Yeltsin, and a poor
economy. According to Sergei Khrushchev the poor economy concerned oligarchs and lead to an
oligarch hand selecting Putin and persuading the Yeltsin family to choose Putin as Yeltsins
successor as a puppet. Richard Sakwa disagrees and believes that Putin came into power because
people were unhappy with the poor economy, Yeltsin, and the oligarchs. People chose Putin
because they wanted to distance themselves from the bad economy they suffered under Yeltsin
and the oligarchs. During Putins reign oil prices rose significantly and the economy has been
strong and stable. Stephen White and Ian McAllister and Richard Sakwa attribute this to Putins
success. People are happy with the economy and therefore have no reason to question Putins
leadership or wish to change it. Stephen White and Ian McAllister also make the argument that
Putin appeals to people of all income levels and people view Putin as a strong competent leader.
Richard Sakwa disagrees with this and believes that Putins ability to unite the working and
middle class are significant, and the reason he has strong support. M. Steven Fish attributes
Putins power to his control of state resources making people dependent on him, and preventing a
strong independent middle class from forming. Richard Sakwa agrees with Fish and believes that
Putins control over resources allows for Putin to act independently and force others to be
dependent on him. In the future authors should focus on Russian peoples low expectation for
democracy and how it has influenced peoples acceptance of Putins rule. More recent studies
concerning Putins decline in popularity and how it relates to the economy should also be
explored.

McLaurin 6
Works Cited
Drogus and Orvis .2012. Introducing Comparative Politics. Washington DC: CQ Press, 468
Fish, M. Steven. 2005. Democracy Derailed in Russia. New York: Cambridge Press Sergei
Khrushchev, Sergei. 2000. Russia after Yeltsin. Mediterranean Quarterly 11 (3); 1-29
Sakwa, Richard. 2008. Putin's Leadership: Character and Consequences. Europe- Asia Studies
60 (6); 879-897
White, Stephen and McAllister, Ian. 2003. Putin and His Supports Europe-Asia Studies 55 (3);
383-399