Shkel S.N., Dmitrieva V.D., Shvaya A.Yu. Factors of institutional diversity in Russia’s regions: the case of transition to a single-tier local government model in 2020–2025. Political science (RU). 2026, N 3, P. 177–205. DOI: http: ... Shkel S.N., Dmitrieva V.D., Shvaya A.Yu. Factors of institutional diversity in Russia’s regions: the case of transition to a single-tier local government model in 2020–2025. Political science (RU). 2026, N 3, P. 177–205. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2026.03.09ISSN 1998-1775DOI 10.31249/poln/2026.03.09РИНЦ: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=92002374Posted on site: 29.10.26Текст статьи на сайте журнала URL: https://www.politnauka.ru/jour/article/view/1372 (дата обращения 05.11.2026)AbstractThe most recent wave of municipal reform in Russia was conceived as a further step toward the centralization and standardization of the country’s institutional design. Contrary to these intentions, however, the reform resulted in the persistence of significant institutional variation at the subnational level. This article examines the determinants shaping regional elites’ choices between alternative models of municipal governance-specifically, single-tier and two-tier systems-and advances a theoretical explanation for this observed diversity. The study employs a comparative case analysis of two Russian regions, Yaroslavl Oblast and the Republic of Dagestan, which exemplify divergent approaches to municipal organization. The research uses thirty semi-structured expert interviews as an empirical foundation. The analysis identifies three principal factors influencing the selection of municipal institutional models: social-settlement structures, ethnocultural configurations, and economic conditions. Beyond categorizing these factors, the article elucidates the causal mechanisms through which they shape reform outcomes, as reflected in regional choices of local governance arrangements. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the internal logic of institutional reform in Russia and offer broader insights into the determinants of asymmetric institutional design in contemporary states.