1. For the early history, see Ekonomika i zhizn’, No. 37, 1991, p. 15; No. 3, 1992, pp. 4–5.
2. Commentaries include Eric Lohr, ‘Arkadii Vol’skii’s political base’, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 45, No. 5, 1993, pp. 811–32; Michael McFaul, ‘Russian centrism and revolutionary transitions’, Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1993, pp. 196–222; A. Zudin, ‘Changing status’; A.Iu. Zudin, Biznes i politika v postkommunisticheskoi Rossii, Tsentr politicheskikh tekhnologii, Moscow, 1995; S. Peregudov, I. Semenenko, A. Zudin, ‘Business associations in the USSR — and after: the growth and political role’, PAIS Papers, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, Working paper No. 110, April 1992.
3. The most reformist views can be found in the Declaration of the NPS-organized Congress of Directors in February 1991 and in particular the NPS report on the status of the economy submitted to Gorbachev and Yeltsin in September 1991. The report came just as Yeltsin announced his commitment to shock therapy and at a time when NPS was supporting Yeltsin against Gorbachev. Inzhenernaia gazeta, 25 February 1991, p. 1; Ekonomika i zhizn’, No. 39, 1991, pp. 10–11. The shift to anti-reform positions has been pretty constant since then. See S. Fortescue, ‘The Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs: an employer peak group in a transition economy’, unpublished paper presented to the annual conference of the Australasian Political Studies Association, Australian National University, Canberra, 30 September–2 October 1992.
4. Rabochaia tribuna, 18 August 1992, p. 2.
5. A move some have interpreted as a deliberate slight to Vol’skii, who has very poor relations with Skokov. Kommersant, 14 November 1992, pp. 9 and 11.