376 SEER, 79, 2, 2001 domination, the domination of Serbia and the Yugoslavarmy. According to thisinterpretation favouredboth by Meier and the Slovenianand Croatian pro-independence politicians- any attempt to hold Yugoslaviatogetherin a form unacceptableto the pro-independence politicianswas also an attemptto deprivethe two chosen peoples of theirsovereignliberty.Accordingly,Meier's narrativeis primarilyan account of the 'machinations', 'manipulations'and 'provocations'by the three main culprits,primarilythe Serbs, who sought to deny liberty both to the Slovenians, a Central European nation, and to the Croatianswho aspireto that status(inthe early I990S Croatiastill'verymuch belonged' to the Balkans, p. 157). In doing this the Serbs continued their traditionof hegemonismandmessianismwhich, inMeier'sview, characterizes theirBalkanhistoryand mentality. SeveralyearsaftersecuringSlovenia'sindependence, the Slovenianforeign minister at the time, Rupel, wrote that the Slovenian government knew in advance that the EC would intervene in supportof Slovenia only if an armed conflict broke out; and the defence minister at the time, Jansa, described, in his memoirs, his detailed plans to attackthe Yugoslavarmyunits stationedin Slovenia once they moved out of their barracks. This suggests that the Slovenian government planned an armed conflict with the Yugoslavarmy in June I99I in orderto secure an EC interventionand its defacto recognition of Slovenia's independence. This, far from being a 'machination', would, on Meier's account, be perfectly legitimate: in their struggle for independence, the Slovenian people and politicians (unlikethe Croatian ones), could do no wrong. The Yugoslavdrama is thus presented as a clash between the enlightened peoples of CentralEurope, longing to returnto freedom and democracy, and the darkforcesof the Balkansand of Communism, seekinghegemony through armed force. In siding with the former, Meier is siding with the forces of the good which arebound to triumphin spiteof the incompetence and ignorance of theEuropeanandAmericanpoliticiansexposed in hislastchapter.National romanticism of this Central European variety, like Marxist-Leninismof old, assuresits adherentsthat they are on the rightas well as the winning side. Department ofPolitics ALEKSANDAR PAVKOVIC Macquarie University, Sydney Kirkow, Peter. Russia'sProvinces. Authoritarian Transformation versus LocalAutonomy ?Studies in Russian and East European History and Society. Macmillan, Basingstokeand London, and St Martin'sPress,New York, I998. XiV+ 240 pp. Tables. Notes. Appendix. Bibliography. Index. ?45.oo. THEobscuretitle of thisbook is misleadingto the uninitiated,suggestingpure politics and giving no hint of the meaty statisticswithin! In fact, the book is about economics and economic policy specifically,the importantquestion of how to implementeconomic reformin Russia'sregions.It isthe publication of a Ph.D. thesisinvestigatingwhetherpost-Communisteconomic transformation has to be carriedout from Moscow 'authoritariantransformation' REVIEWS 377 or whether there is any potential for regional elites to implement it autonomously. (The term 'authoritarian'is confusinglyused to mean 'centralized '; as this book makes clear, the patron-client style of local politics means that it is localautonomy thatcan be most easilyequatedwith authoritarianrule!) Peter Kirkow examines how the plan to transformRussia's economy has been implementedin two particularregions,theAltai Krai in WesternSiberia and PrimorskiiKrai in the Russian FarEast. His study centres on 1994, but coversevents up to early I996. He found that Moscow applied differentpolicies to each, reacting much more sensitivelyto theassertivenessof thepoliticalleadershipin the Primorskii Krai than in the Altai. However, he disproves his original hypothesis that PrimorskiiKrai, as a gateway region, would have an independent role in economic change, and that the Altai, as an agriculturalregion, would require an assertive transformation from above. In fact, neither province lacked autonomy, but neithermoved towardsan open economy either and it was the Altaiwhich went furthestwith economic reforms. Kirkow concludes that 'Russian provinces move in rather different directions, which are not necessarily determined by the centre any more'(p.172). Instead, provincial policy-making is profoundly affected by local leaders,in additionto a growingnumber of otherinfluencesfromwithin the region (local private business and criminal gangs) and from outside (migrantsand foreigninvestors). With the likelihood of increasing regional differences and the further pluralization of Russian society, Kirkow suggests that the two dimensional model he has used 'transformation from above versus regional autonomy ' does itselfhave to be reconsidered(hence the question markadded to the book's title, we presume!) Certainly, the concern nowadays is not whether economic transformationshouldbe implemented from above, but whetherit even canbe. Getting through an unadulterated Ph.D. thesis requires a bit of patience from those used to readingbookswrittenfor readersratherthan examination panels. The...