Anastassia Obydenkova

Democratization at the grassroots: the European Union's external impact

By the end of Russias regime transition to democracy (1991–2001), Russia displayed a mosaic of different sub-national regimes. A number of economic, social, and cultural factors have been investigated to explain how the sub-national regime transitions produced such heterogeneous results. This article intends to contribute to the debate by focusing on the role of the European Union (EU) in the democratic regime transition in the regions of Russia and, in this context, explores the international dimension of sub-national regimes. The main question raised in this article is what was the role of the EU, if any, in the formation of different outcomes of sub-national regime transitions? The analysis is based on a quantitative study that is combined with a number of interviews assessing the EUs impact on sub-national regime formation in Russia during the period of regime transition. The article explores the international dimension in sub-national regime change in Russia while controlling for a number of social, economic, and cultural variables. It argues that the EU has indeed contributed to the process of democratization in the regions of Russia. The approach developed in this article arguably has implications for both area studies and studies of democratization.

Understanding the survival of post-Communist corruption in contemporary Russia: the influence of historical legacies

Corruption is widespread throughout the former Communist states, and it is particularly severe and entrenched in Russia. Despite the fact that Russias contemporary corruption has recently become a subject of analysis, there is, however, no study that has addressed the role of the Communist legacy in the development of various aspects of corruption. This paper contributes to the debates through, first, disentangling the complex phenomenon that is corruption, and focusing on its three aspects: supply, demand, and the attitude of the population. Second, the paper also contributes to the literature on modern corruption by explicitly focusing on the role of the historical legacy in these different aspects of corruption. The study is based on several rich data-sets on corruption and on an original data-set compiled to measure the percentage share of Communists in various regions of Russia in the last decades of the USSR (1970s–1980s). The analysis presented in the paper uncovers different roles of the Communist legacies across the development of various aspects of corruption. By doing so, the paper contributes to the literature on historical legacies in general, on Communist legacies in particular, as well as to the broader literature on the causes of corruption in transitional societies.

Appropriation and Subversion: Precommunist Literacy, Communist Party Saturation, and Postcommunist Democratic Outcomes

Twenty-five years after the collapse of communism in Europe, few scholars disagree that the past continues to shape the democratic trajectories of postcommunist states. Precommunist education has featured prominently in this literature’s bundle of “good” legacies because it ostensibly helped foster resistance to communism. The authors propose a different causal mechanism—appropriation and subversion—that challenges the linearity of the above assumptions by analyzing the effects of precommunist literacy on patterns of Communist Party recruitment in Russia’s regions. Rather than regarding precommunist education as a source of latent resistance to communism, the authors highlight the Leninist regime’s successful appropriation of the more literate strata of the precommunist orders, in the process subverting the past democratic edge of the hitherto comparatively more developed areas. The linear regression analysis of author-assembled statistics from the first Russian imperial census of 1897 supports prior research: precommunist literacy has a strong positive association with postcommunist democratic outcomes. Nevertheless, in pursuing causal mediation analysis, the authors find, in addition, that the above effect is mediated by Communist Party saturation in Russia’s regions. Party functionaries were likely to be drawn from areas that had been comparatively more literate in tsarist times, and party saturation in turn had a dampening effect on the otherwise positive effects of precommunist education on postcommunist democracy.

Authoritarian and Democratic Diffusion in Post-Communist Regions

There is a rich body of theorizing on the diffusion of democracy across space and time. There is also an emerging scholarship on authoritarian diffusion. The dynamics of the interaction between external democratic and autocratic diffusion processes and their effects on national and sub-national political regime outcomes have received scant attention in the literature. Do democratic diffusion processes help counter external authoritarian influences? And, in contexts where external diffusion of democratic influences is weak, do we observe greater susceptibility to diffusion from regional autocracies that might in turn reinforce authoritarian practices and institutions in “recipient” states? To address these questions, we perform analysis of data from two original under-utilized data sets—a data set on the European Union (EU) aid to Russia’s regions and a data set with statistics on trade among post-Soviet states. We find that EU aid has the effect of countering external authoritarian influences that work through Soviet-era inter-regional economic ties.

CPSU Legacies and Regional Democracy in Contemporary Russia

This article investigates the impact of Communist historical legacies on the variation of sub-national regimes in a federal state. It focuses on the Russian Federation and studies the role of sub-national variations of membership rates in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) during the 1970s and 1980s as a predictor of regional democracy in Russia in the 2000s. Using a unique dataset collected by the authors, the article shows that past CPSU membership rates continue to have a significant and negative impact on democracy at the sub-national level. The article also investigates possible mechanisms of this effect and links them to the persistence of Soviet bureaucracies and their role in exercising control over regional economies. These findings contribute to understanding the complex nexus of federalism and sub-national democracy and to the study of the role of communist legacies in democratisation.

“Comparative Regionalism: Eurasian Cooperation and European Integration: The Case for Neofunctionalism?”

The Post-Soviet regionalism is a new phenomenon and it requires a theory which addresses the very beginning of regional integration. Both Neofunctionalism and (liberal) intergovernmentalism conceptualize the very outset of European integration, thus, presenting the most adequate theoretical framework for understanding post-Soviet case of regionalism. This study seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the impediments to regional integration but also to conditions under which integration might succeed in Post-Soviet Eurasia. The numerous and unsuccessful attempts at regional integration in the post-Soviet Eurasia provide an opportunity to analyze the factors unfavorable to integration and to identify the impediments to this process. The issue motivating this study is that unsuccessful attempts should be analyzed not less than successful ones. Eurasian case is different from European integration due to different historical legacies, institutional choices, structural-developmental contexts and on-going state- and regime-building problems. Regionalism and democratic development are a salient feature of recent developments in Russia and the other republics of the former Soviet Union. The working premise is that through various regional arrangements that operate across Eurasia, countries will be able to find new cooperative solutions to existing problems. The main question is, given the undeniable advantages of the integration, why there has been little progress achieved? How the theories of regional integration can contribute to our understanding of the puzzles of Eurasian regionalism? To address this question, the paper focuses on a few theories of regional integration which will be applied to empirical analysis of post-Soviet Eurasia. The main focus is made on neofunctionalism. However, the study, will also consider the alternative explanation provided by (liberal) intergovernmentalism. The article also analyses the role of historical legacies and the attempts of post-Soviet states (PSSs) at regional integration and provides theoretical explanations of the outcome of these attempts. The analysis evaluates the outcome of post-Soviet Eurasian regionalism and tests the main theoretical assumptions. The analysis offered in this article aspires to contribute to the studies of comparative regionalism and area studies.

The international dimension of democratization: testing the parsimonious approach

This article examines the importance of the international context on regime change. It provides evidence that geographic proximity to the European Union (EU) does not result in the spread of democracy. In contrast, communication and cooperation between EU actors and sub-national regions contributes significantly to the development of democracy in these regions. Considering the role of EU projects, investments and trade in regime transition—measured through indicators of civil society, political openness, freedom of speech and economic liberalization—this article demonstrates that international context may have a positive influence on the diffusion of democracy at a regional, sub-national level. This finding has substantial implications for the literature on international relations and globalization studies. It suggests that the emergence of ‘new’ regions through communication and cooperation takes place through two seemingly contradictory but mutually reinforcing processes: regionalization (territorial disintegration/federalization) and integration (through communication and cooperation).

Understanding the foreign policy of autocratic actors: ideology or pragmatism? Russia and the Tymoshenko trial as a case study

While the literature on the autocratic regimes has been rapidly growing in the last years, there still exists a research gap in this field: which impact do autocratic regimes have on the regime transition in the neighbouring countries? The literature on autocracies has demonstrated that autocratic political leaders tend to support each other. This article argues that the external influence of an autocracy may be more complex. The article analyses the case of Russias international standing in relation to the trial of Yulia Tymoshenko. Using detailed process tracing, it has been shown that in terms of the Russian position, pragmatic goals may undermine ideological goals. Thus, while the main objective of Russia is to ensure the stability of gas contracts, the unintended consequences of its actions undermine the consolidation of autocratic regime in Ukraine. The article builds on the literature on regime transition, autocracy, and international relations.

Federalization in Russia and Spain: The Puzzle of Reversible and Irreversible Outcomes

The article aims at contributing to the understanding of the dynamics of federalism in Russia and Spain. It traces the dynamics of decentralization in both states and addresses a puzzle on reversible (Russia) and irreversible (Spain) outcomes of territorial reforms and regime transition. Among other explanatory factors, this article argues that the role of the political parties as mediating actors—proactive or reactive—has been crucial in shaping institutional building in both countries. Concluding remarks envisage some scenarios of further territorial developments in comparative perspective.

New Regionalism and Regional Integration: the Role of National Institutions

This article focuses, first, on the under-explored issues of new regionalism: its subnational level and transnational regional cooperation as an initial stage of new regionalism. Second, it analyses the development of new regionalism between a country in regime transition (Russia in the 1990s) and stable democratic actors (in Europe). Third, it addresses the question of whether European integration contributes to new regionalism outside Europes geographic borders. The regions chosen for this analysis are the 89 constituent units of Russia. Such variables as historical legacies, regime transition as domestic context, and the European integration as an international context all remain stable for the 89 units of analysis. Thus, the research design allows one to distinguish other potential variables that may be significant in the development of new regionalism. Given that Russia is located on both the European and Asian parts of the Eurasian continent, the research design also permits the testing of the hypothesis that regional integration and new regionalism are interconnected across Eurasia.