The articles deals with the make-up of regional elites in a particular span of time and the dynamics of the extent to which members of these elites exercised influence on the social, political and economic situation in every particular region which has its own, often unique specific characteristics. The article also demonstrates peculiarities of mechanisms that defined formation of regional political and economic elites in terms of influence factors. This approach allows comparing regions with each other on one hand and on the other hand getting the result which is representative for the Russian Federation as a whole. The experts' opinions poll made in the research of 2000 covered 54 regions while the similar poll carried out in 2003 covered 66 regions. The poll of 2003 is not a mere extended repetition of the research of 2000 but its qualitatively new stage. The novelty of the poll made in 2003 lies in the conceptual comprehension of the very mechanisms of influence at the regional level.

The article is devoted to analysis of the peculiar phenomenon, i.e., interests groups as subjects of politics and emergence of them in this peculiar capacity in Russia. Investigating approaches to the problem that exist in the scientific literature author comes to conclusion that scholars have to pay the greatest attention to those interests groups that exert influence on power structures in order to realize their interests without direct claims for the political power. Such groups deserve the appellation of «pressure groups». Retrospective analysis of political role played by pressure groups created in big business stratum prior the October revolution allows isolate two stages in history of the state and big business relationships development in Russia: the period of Alexander II reforms and the period of industrial upsurge at the end of 19th and early 20th centuries. As the author demonstrates, there were two main obstacles to realization of the Russian bourgeoisie pretensions to power: lack of capital among the Russian businessmen and the political weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie.

The author investigates interrelationships between the types of society development and the political elites formation models. The author proceeds from availability of two paradigms of development: the mobilization paradigm and innovative paradigm. Both paradigms predetermine formation of distinctively different models of elite formation: «bureaucratic» (or «service») one and the «oligarchic» one. Under the mobilization model of development the higher echelon of administrative-political bureaucracy performs the functions normally performed by the political elite while economically dominant groups act as the subject of the innovative development. The author provides, on the basis of the comparative analysis of political development in Russia and the US, a detailed analysis of factors that help to diversify models of development and political forms which correspond to these models. The author points out that the prolonged, in historical terms, period when the mobilization methods of development dominated caused the fact that the model of elite formation which evolved under mobilization development conditions functioned for a long span of the Russian history. In the course of the 1990s social reforms the old «service» principle has been succeeded by the «oligarchic» principle. The contemporary stage of the Russian society development is characterized by a complicated interaction between pluralistically organized political-financial groups and political-administrative bureaucracy.