Out of the frying pan, into the fire? Post-soviet regime changes in comparative perspective
Why do some countries become democracies, while others move from one nondemocratic regime to another? Post-communist transformations in the countries of the former Soviet Union could be viewed as a “natural experiment” in regime change: the politics of post-Soviet states demonstrate a great diversity. In this article, I present a partial theory of post-Soviet regime change and attempt to explain the outcomes of elite conflicts in post-Soviet states and their consequences for regime change. The account of political transformations in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus will outline certain common features and peculiarities of regime change in each case and provide several implications for comparative studies of regime change.
The present paper focuses on the political processes in South Korea after the liberation from Japanese colonialism in August 1945 and before the establishment of the Republic of Korea in August 1948. Due to the division of Korea along the 38 parallel and dislocation of the US and USSR’s occupation forces in South and North Korea respectively the US with support of UN contributed a lot to the establishment of an independent South Korean state but didn’t prejudge the political situation completely. South Korean newspapers, documents on the American and Soviet foreign policy were used to determine a shift of the US strategy toward Korea and a political tactic of South Korean nationalists during transitional period (1945-1948). The preliminary results of the research show that the shift of the US strategy toward establishment a separatist government in South Korea coincided with the separatist tactic of South Korean right wing political groups. South Korean moderates developed a political movement for keeping national unity thus opposing to the rightists. The establishment of an independent South Korean state was a result of the joint efforts of the US and South Korean rightists and extreme right political groups.
We propose a two-sector unified growth model, in which the speed of industrialization depends on the outcome of political conflict between the heterogeneous interest groups differing with respect to capital and land ownership. The distribution of capital and land determines agents’ political preferences and their incentives to invest in lobbying for development or blocking modern sector development. The probability that pro-growth policies are realized depends on the aggregate lobbying of two competing groups. We demonstrate that higher concentration of land ownership hampers the development of the modern sector, while higher concentration of capital ownership within the landless agents increases political support of pro-growth reforms and increases the pace of industrialization. Our model also explains the non-monotonous dynamics of political conflict intensity, which corresponds well with structural changes and GDP per capita growth observed in historical data.
Political, social, and economic transformation is a complex historical phenomenon. It can adequately be analysed only by a multidisciplinary approach. The Handbook brings together an international team of scholars who are specialists in their respective research fields. It introduces the most important areas, theories, and methods in transformation research, with particular attention placed on the historical and comparative dimension. Although focussing on post-communist and other democratic transformations in our epoch, the Handbook therefore presents and discusses not only their problems, paths, and developments, but also deals with the antecedent 'waves', beginning with the Meiji Restoration in Japan in 1868 and its aftermath. The book is structured into six parts. Starting with basic concepts as systems, actors, and institutions (Section I), it gives an overview over major theoretical approaches and research methods (Sections II and III). The connection of theory and method with their application is essential, allowing special insights into the past and opens analytical avenues for transformation research in the future. Section (IV) provides a historically oriented description or interpretation of particular 'waves' or types of societal transformation. With a clear focus on present transformations, the contributions to Section V provide a description and discussion of the problems, structures, actors, and courses of the transformations within different spheres of (civil) society, politics, law, and economics. Finally, brief lexicographic entries in Section VI delineate research perspectives and facts about relevant issues of societal transformation. Each of the 79 contributions contains a concise list of the most important research literature.
The paper deals with an axiological dimension in discourse studies. It presents different theories of values in Russian and European scientific research, focuses on the heuristic potential of values and value studies for discourse analyses. Specifically, the two traditional strategies in political discourse, i.e. identification and out-casting, are analyzed vis-à-vis the category of value. It is contended that values are integrated in discourse, with ‘discourse’ construed as a ‘way of speaking which gives meaning to experiences from a particular perspective’. Values are defined as notions about ideal states of affairs tied to specific social practices as instantiated in their respective discourses in the abovementioned sense. These discourse-specific values, as common-sense, taken-for-granted, notions of excellence, control verbalization processes. An ‘out-group’ is thus always represented textually out of the discourse-driven system of values of an in-group. An in-group system of values pre-frames word choice, attitudes and evaluations in a text/texts, with an out-group system of values being automatically ruled out.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.