.

"Vertical hierarchy".

As defined in Marder's Supplemental R>E Dictionary

This is a term that applies specifically to the structure and organization of state power in Russia under Putin (so-called "vertical' vlasti"). In Western academic literature it is normally referred to ( depending on context) as "vertical chain of command" or "vertical power". See for instance "Putin's Russia", ed. by Dale.R.Herspring (Rowman and Littlefield 2007), p. 76 : [Putin's] goal appears to be to establish a unitary, centralized state under the guise of "restoring effective vertical power in the country," to use Putin's own description of his intention" or ibid, p.88 "The strategy is to strengthen the vertical power of command from the Moscow-based ministries or agencies to the federal destrict agencies...". The former expression is also used in Archie Brown's reader "Contemporary Russian Politics" (Oxford UP, 2001), p. 89 :" Putin's statement on the subject..."It is simply essential .. to restore an effective vertical chain of command in the country..." These are just some examples (I can say so with certainty because I teach Russian Politics in Canadian university and know this literature).

I've had this discussion a number of times. The temptation is to call it something unique -- like the "power vertical" or my favorite "vertically integrated power," but I think that amounts to editorializing.

I've come to the position that it is nothing more than the [political] power structure. The "Russian national political power structure," if the context is unclear.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day19 hrs (2009-01-18 15:30:53 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

As a note, I'm from the school that considers it better to translate Alah as God. Not doing so creates confusion. People see a difference due to the translation where there may not be one. Chicago has a a political power structure. So does Russia. Both tend to get a little over centralized and are run risks of high-grade corruption creeping in. I don't consider the literal translation of the words to be incorrect translation, but think the effect on the reader of being handed a different term for a familiar object should be considered.

In this case, I'm against ditching "vertical" from the translation because something like merely "power structure" is not by definition vertically organized, even if it may be so in practice in a given country. But, I also find the use of "vertical" as a noun unacceptable in English for this context. Because "vertically organized" and "horizontally organized" are common concepts, I believe that "vertical" as an adjective can be used in a way that conveys the concept, as long as you watch out that it doesn't produce some slightly goofy-sounding phrase. For example, "vertical system" sounds OK to me, but, say, "vertical institutions" would sound a little bit off. If the context allows you to be more expansive, there are other variations such as "vertically organized executive branch institutions", etc.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day19 hrs (2009-01-18 16:27:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

For Olga K. In your response, you again commented that my suggestion is off because "there is an established term used in the literature." My question to you was, what is that "established term" in the English-language literature? Your post includes a range of variations, "depending on context", as you rightly observe:

"effective vertical power in the country" (Herspring, ed.)
"the vertical power of command" (Herspring, ed.)
"vertical chain of command" (Brown)

That is not a established single "term", but an established way of expressing Putin's Russian noun "вертикаль" by means of the English adjective "vertical" + some appropriate noun or noun-phrase which describes the organization and/or its function. And what I had already posted was exactly that same solution to this particular translation problem. Hence, you could add to your list of what is "in the literature":

"vertical system of power" (Douglas)

That's why I suggested that you were actually agreeing with me and providing additional documentation of the fact that others have also found this to be the best way to approach the problem, more than giving a different version.