Vladimir Rauta
University of Nottingham
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Vladimir Rauta.
Political Studies Review | 2017
Vladimir Rauta
Hall Gardner’s book, Crimea, Global Rivalry, and the Vengeance of History, deserves merit for its ability to ask the most important questions today concerning the future of European security in particular and of world security in general: Will the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent civil war in South-East Ukraine inaugurate a new era in international relations? Are we witnessing a Russian revanchist return? And, most importantly, will this lead to a major power confrontation of the like of the First and Second World Wars? From this point of view, Gardner tasks the book with a challenging, if not daunting, endeavour, for which he combines historical analogical analysis with its corollary, counterfactual analysis. In bridging the two, Gardner constructs an argument that avoids a direct answer and one which shifts between historical comparison, geopolitics and snippets of international relations theory. It is here that the book could have tied its theoretical narrative threads together more tightly, for it combines notions such as ‘preclusive imperialism’, ‘strategic leveraging’ and ‘balance of power’ without careful consideration of the individual set of assumptions underpinning each individual concept. Take, for example, the theorisation of strategic leveraging where two issues arise. First, there is its definition as ‘the means in which states mediate between their conflicting domestic and international interests, given their position in a larger geostrategic and political-economic nexus’ (p. 83), and second, its use. As presented, ‘strategic leveraging’ is no different to the logic of the bipolar balancing of the Cold War since it is designed to capture the efforts to ‘press third states into close political-economic accords and military alliances’ (p. 83). As employed, the concept barely features in the analysis, other than presenting contemporary international politics as a series of games of strategic leveraging against rivals. But how does Russia get to pick its rivals? On what grounds? With what options? Why now? And, what does history tell us? The book partly answers these questions. It explains Russia’s position today as the result of post-Cold War isolation and being ignored by other great powers. It posits Russia’s recent Ukrainian adventurism as historically immanent and enforced by a strong programme of military transformation. And it clarifies ongoing debates on historical similarities and dissimilarities by showing how the situation today and the decades immediately preceding it are more similar to the plight of Germany and its collapse after the First World War. Taken together, the book’s arguments offer a walk down the historical lane in the hope of casting light on future pathways. Seen from this angle, Gardner’s book is a welcome addition to the literature which offers plenty of food for thought.
Political Studies Review | 2016
Vladimir Rauta
to another novel idea of which he was aware, namely, ‘anti-intellectualism’ (p. 10). By this he means the actions of dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists in the group, who quelled any reform initiatives and privileged sentiments over enquiry in the name of awaiting this ‘divine’. Kandil insightfully links these new trends within the group to the founding fathers Sayyid Qutb and Hassan Banna. The conclusion, for Kandil, is political ineptitude and incompetence in government, before the group’s fall from power in July 2013. The Brotherhood ‘underestimated the masses’ or ‘[overestimated] its ability to direct them using religion’ (p. 142). Kandil pins down ideological inefficiency as the cause of the failure of the group, allowing him to avoid the current polarisation of being either with or against the Brotherhood and also to refrain from predicting the unpredictable future of an ongoing ‘revolution’. Nevertheless, external elements such as the role of the egocentric state of Egypt and its ideological state apparatuses can still be further portrayed or even counter-balanced against the internal mutations of the Brotherhood.
Political Studies Review | 2016
Vladimir Rauta
majority, the public mood in the previous year (level of conservatism) and the number of statutes passed in the previous year. Looking at the issue priorities of political parties in France, Sylvain Brouard and his colleagues find that the two mainstream parties resemble each other in their issue attention and issue prioritisation in the long run, while Green-Pedersen focuses on the development of Danish party politics, concluding that ‘the agenda-setting dynamics happen in between elections’ (p. 82). The second part of the book strives to explain the variation in issue attention caused by institutional change. Christian Breunig finds that German reunification did not alter the legislative output dramatically in Germany, while Walgrave et al. conclude that Flemish and Francophone parties in Belgium address similar issues, what they call an ‘issue overlap’. Laura Chaqués-Bonafont and her colleagues focus on the ability of political parties to fulfil electoral promises in Spain and find that institutional factors appear to have no effect in mandate responsiveness. Overall, the book appears to reach an important conclusion: the degree to which institutional and traditional political factors influence legislative activities varies across countries, although institutional factors seem to have little effect on average. In the second book, Policy Agendas in British Politics, Peter John and his colleagues extend the scope of traditional CAP areas – that is, legislative activities, media coverage and budget outlays – by adding the Speech from the Throne to their analysis. Using the key components of decision-making in British politics, the authors map out the policy agendas for a period of 60 years. Perhaps the most important theoretical contribution of the book is the classification of policy punctuations into groups – procedural, low-salience and high-salience punctuations – leading to the conclusion that only high-salience punctuations, that is, those that receive intense media attention in comparison with the others, resemble the policy changes described in Baumgartner and Jones’ punctuated equilibrium theory. That is, the causal mechanism behind the procedural and low-salience punctuations, such as policy changes following EU decisions, may not tell the story of attention-based policy change, where public, media and policy agendas all interact with each other. Consistent with Baumgartner and Jones in 1993, the authors find that the agenda of British politics is not stable. Policy Agendas in British Politics and Agenda Setting, Policies and Political Systems provide great insight into the agenda dynamics of advanced democracies. In line with the previous pioneering works of Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones, these two recent works explore the agenda-setting dynamics in different countries using data coded according to a single codebook, which is an important strength that ensures comparability. Although covering country-specific features and complex structures, the language of both books is sublime in its simplicity. Moreover, the introduction sections provide useful information about the political agenda-setting approach that evolved within the framework of the CAP. That being said, these two works should be considered as not only important scholarly contributions but also helpful guides to those who are new to the political agenda-setting approach. In the light of these two books, political agenda-setting appears to have varying dynamics in advanced democracies. The question remains whether the political agenda-setting approach yields similar results in developing countries as well. Future research will doubtless answer this question.
Political Studies Review | 2016
Vladimir Rauta
In the contemporary world, there have been many attempts to define democracy and the democratisation process in the field of international relations. The manifold aspects of democracy and its operationalisation have been put under the microscope by both academics and practitioners. In this regard, The Democratization of International Institutions: First International Democracy Report, edited by Lucio Levi, Giovanni Finizio and Nicola Vallinoto, offers the reader an understanding of the concept of democracy as applied to international organisations. The editors have structured the volume around six major sections that assess the democratisation processes in different international institutions. Alongside the traditional approach of such analysis (i.e. looking at regional and universal organisations), this volume looks deeper into this process and highlights new actors and forms of relations between international and regional institutions. Following the editors’ organisational structure, the first section starts by pointing out the main concepts of democratisation at both the domestic and international level, analysing, for example, input legitimacy, levels of participation, inter-state democracy, supranationalist human rights and the emergence of civil society and its participation (p. 22). In the next section, the authors have selected a range of global organisations (UN, WTO, World Bank, IMF, ILO) and seek to understand how those concepts described in the first section can be applied to such forms of international organisation. Under this framework, Giovanni Finizio argues that in the case of the UN, for instance, over the years, and despite the fact that its charter has remained almost unchanged, it is possible to see an increasing level of participation by civil society (p. 74). The third section is dedicated to regional organisations in Europe, Africa, the Americas, Asia and Oceania. Given the importance of the European Union in the modern world, there is more careful and detailed treatment of aspects of the democratisation process of this regional organisation in particular. Nonetheless, the book also discusses some relatively recent organisations, such as Mercosur, UNASUR and the Andean Community in the Americas; the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States and the Southern African Development Community in Africa; and in Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which is the most relevant, but also the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and the Gulf Cooperation Council. The fourth section considers inter-regional organisations such as the Council of Europe, the League of Arab States, NATO and the Council of Baltic Seas, among others. The fifth section, edited by Laura Roscio, presents the main aspects of inter-parliamentary assemblies and their relation to representative organisations, such as the Amazonian Parliament (PARLAMAZ), the Baltic Assembly, and the Parliamentary Confederation of the Americas, for example. In conclusion, this volume provides an excellent guide for those who are looking to explore democracy within international relations.
Political Studies Review | 2014
Vladimir Rauta
national trade in cotton; and the (most vexing) case of agriculture (both of which, of course, also feature in Trade, Poverty, Development). Given the interactionist account of symbolic power that Eagleton-Pierce constructs it is perhaps unsurprising that the Doha Round has remained unresolved; his analysis suggests that the WTO does not have the ability to construct a favourable ideational universe for the negotiations. Again, this is a useful perspective on the practitioner chapters in Trade, Poverty, Development, which demonstrate this partial failure to establish a single agreed approach. Indeed, at times of most fraught interaction between the various parties at the WTO (such as in a stalled negotiation round), the aspects of symbolic power identified by this analysis become subject to extensive contestation, which ensures that the WTO (as a membership organisation) is unable to force an end to the round based on the constellation of material interests of the developed states. These two books therefore complement each other well – both empirically and by allowing us to construct a compelling multilayered account of the stalled Doha Round by reading one with the other. That said, and unfortunately reflecting the likely origins of the book in Eagleton-Pierce’s PhD thesis, an inordinate amount of time in Symbolic Power is spent on a (perfectly acceptable, if workmanlike) chapter reviewing conceptualisations of power. Surely that is something that nowadays could be achieved with a survey footnote, especially as it is merely a ground-clearing exercise for the development of his Bourdieu-inspired approach to the issues set out in the later chapters. Otherwise, this is an excellent contribution to this important set of debates in IPE. Trade, Poverty, Development is wellassembled, but as with most snapshots, will swiftly move from a timely analysis to a book of largely historical interest (often the case with books with strong advocacy credentials). Nevertheless, read together today these books tell us something useful, if depressing, about international trade relations, and for anyone interested in understanding the current state of play with the Doha Round they represent an interesting and immediate opportunity for further thought and reflection.
Political Studies Review | 2014
Vladimir Rauta
national trade in cotton; and the (most vexing) case of agriculture (both of which, of course, also feature in Trade, Poverty, Development). Given the interactionist account of symbolic power that Eagleton-Pierce constructs it is perhaps unsurprising that the Doha Round has remained unresolved; his analysis suggests that the WTO does not have the ability to construct a favourable ideational universe for the negotiations. Again, this is a useful perspective on the practitioner chapters in Trade, Poverty, Development, which demonstrate this partial failure to establish a single agreed approach. Indeed, at times of most fraught interaction between the various parties at the WTO (such as in a stalled negotiation round), the aspects of symbolic power identified by this analysis become subject to extensive contestation, which ensures that the WTO (as a membership organisation) is unable to force an end to the round based on the constellation of material interests of the developed states. These two books therefore complement each other well – both empirically and by allowing us to construct a compelling multilayered account of the stalled Doha Round by reading one with the other. That said, and unfortunately reflecting the likely origins of the book in Eagleton-Pierce’s PhD thesis, an inordinate amount of time in Symbolic Power is spent on a (perfectly acceptable, if workmanlike) chapter reviewing conceptualisations of power. Surely that is something that nowadays could be achieved with a survey footnote, especially as it is merely a ground-clearing exercise for the development of his Bourdieu-inspired approach to the issues set out in the later chapters. Otherwise, this is an excellent contribution to this important set of debates in IPE. Trade, Poverty, Development is wellassembled, but as with most snapshots, will swiftly move from a timely analysis to a book of largely historical interest (often the case with books with strong advocacy credentials). Nevertheless, read together today these books tell us something useful, if depressing, about international trade relations, and for anyone interested in understanding the current state of play with the Doha Round they represent an interesting and immediate opportunity for further thought and reflection.
Political Studies Review | 2014
Vladimir Rauta
belligerents’ different military and political objectives to different pre-war assessments, destructive capacities, cost tolerance and their evolving strategic choices and different war outcomes. There are also some measurement and conceptual labelling problems – e.g. designating war aims based on the methods to acquire them, or the conflation between the different levels of strategy and levels of goals. The book nevertheless offers a solid, precise and original theoretical model worthy of further development and discussion by scholars of international security. Future research could extend its logic, formulate specific causal mechanisms and tackle the different processes related to the belligerents’ goal formation and their change or evolution during war.
Political Studies Review | 2014
Vladimir Rauta
belligerents’ different military and political objectives to different pre-war assessments, destructive capacities, cost tolerance and their evolving strategic choices and different war outcomes. There are also some measurement and conceptual labelling problems – e.g. designating war aims based on the methods to acquire them, or the conflation between the different levels of strategy and levels of goals. The book nevertheless offers a solid, precise and original theoretical model worthy of further development and discussion by scholars of international security. Future research could extend its logic, formulate specific causal mechanisms and tackle the different processes related to the belligerents’ goal formation and their change or evolution during war.
Political Studies Review | 2014
Vladimir Rauta
belligerents’ different military and political objectives to different pre-war assessments, destructive capacities, cost tolerance and their evolving strategic choices and different war outcomes. There are also some measurement and conceptual labelling problems – e.g. designating war aims based on the methods to acquire them, or the conflation between the different levels of strategy and levels of goals. The book nevertheless offers a solid, precise and original theoretical model worthy of further development and discussion by scholars of international security. Future research could extend its logic, formulate specific causal mechanisms and tackle the different processes related to the belligerents’ goal formation and their change or evolution during war.
Political Studies Review | 2017
Vladimir Rauta
