Russian energy in the EU market: Bolstered institutions and their effects
The article examines institutional changes in EU-Russian energy relations since 2000. The article explores the ability of transformed institutions to limit the politicisation of energy and to reconcile the EU competitive-market approach with Russian state capitalism. More specifically, the article focuses on changes in intergovernmental, transgovernmental and transnational interactions. The article demonstrates that the gradual strengthening of transgovernmental and transnational institutions has inhibited the politicisation of energy relations and facilitated regulative cooperation between the EU and Russia. However, the potential of shared institutions is constrained by internal institutions on both sides. In Russia, these obstacles are insufficient top-down delegation of responsibilities in the government and its great power aspirations. In the EU, key barriers include inter-institutional rivalries, the EU’s propensity to impose its legislation on external partners and the integration of energy policy with foreign policy. The article presents several policy implications. First, it is futile to institutionally impose the regulative paradigm of one partner on the other; rather, mutual dialogue is needed. Thus, institutions should be structured appropriately. Second, current depoliticisation will require the involvement of not only the EU and Russia but also transit countries, such as Ukraine. Third, transgovernmental and transnational cooperation should be nurtured because this is a useful channel for both information exchange and a regulative convergence of policy implementing mechanisms. Finally, this incremental regulative convergence is the only option available today for the EU and Russia; this is also a way to further depoliticise energy relations.
We address the external effects on public sector efficiency measures acquired using Data Envelopment Analysis. We use the health care system in Russian regions in 2011 to evaluate modern approaches to accounting for external effects. We propose a promising method of correcting DEA efficiency measures. Despite the multiple advantages DEA offers, the usage of this approach carries with it a number of methodological difficulties. Accounting for multiple factors of efficiency calls for more complex methods, among which the most promising are DMU clustering and calculating local production possibility frontiers. Using regression models for estimate correction requires further study due to possible systematic errors during estimation. A mixture of data correction and DMU clustering together with multi-stage DEA seems most promising at the moment. Analyzing several stages of transforming society’s resources into social welfare will allow for picking out the weak points in a state agency’s work.
This manuscript explores alternatives to the currently dominant model of political identification with a nation (nation-state), namely versions of civilizational, cosmopolitan and identification. In the course of the research author concludes that transnational identification can not become a solution to the problem of “identity crisis” for large political communities. However, the theoretical investigation of this form of identification may be relevant to the life strategies of single individuals who face existence under the dominant political order of the nation-state, despite the fact that their practices in a global world has already gone beyond national borders.
The monograph may be of interest to students in the field of political theory, international relations and philosophy, as well as a wide range of readers ingaged in a problem of the construction of political identities in the era of globalization.
The chapter constructs a new approach to legal approximation in EU-Russian energy relations
To what extent can democratic competence of citizens be reached? The main aim of the article is to determine a conception of democratic competence against the background of the contradiction between public and private interests and between rationality and morality by developing a political preference. The research methodology of the article suggests a comparative analysis of deliberative democracy and liberal democracy theoris in terms of political preference formation.
Intergovernmental Reforms in the Russian Federation: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? is a critical analysis of Russia’s intergovernmental reform program which began in the early 1990s. It assesses the effects of a broad range of reforms adopted over two tumultuous decades during which the Russian Federation experienced significant, and at times drastic, political regime changes, coupled with a similarly turbulent economic growth trajectory. This environment reshaped intergovernmental relations, requiring certain fiscal responsibilities to be delegated to the subnational levels. These reforms, however, were not always accompanied by the kinds of administrative and political structures required to support a truly devolved system of intergovernmental fiscal relations. As this study indicates, in recent years there has been a tendency to recentralize some powers that had been granted to subnational governments under earlier reforms—a trend that may call into question the future of fiscal decentralization in the federation. Moreover, the current global economic downturn has had a significant effect on Russia’ economic growth, largely because of the country’s overdependence on oil, gas, and mineral exports. It is likely that in the present economic climate the political regime will be inclined to further limit subnational autonomy.
Born in response to the economic and financial crisis which existing institutions were unable to address adequately, G20 transformed from a crisis management group into the premier forum for international economic cooperation. Like its predecessor G7 set up in 1975 and BRICS established in 2009 G20 is an informal club or summit institution. To ensure continuity, legitimacy and efficiency in fulfilling their global governance functions of deliberation, direction-setting, decision-making, delivery and global governance development G20 members engage other international organizations. It is hypothesized that to maximize benefits from its engagement with international organizations G20 resorts to a combination of the “catalyst”, “core group” and “parallel treatment” approaches exercised by summit institutions: exerting an influence for international organizations’ changes through endorsement or stimulus, or compelling them to reform; imparting a new direction by giving a lead that the other organizations would follow; and creating its own mechanisms. The article tests this assumption. To trace the dynamics of G20 engagement with multilateral organizations and identify preferred models across the presidencies and policy areas the analysis is carried out within the rational choice institutionalist paradigm drawing on quantitative and qualitative analysis of documents adopted by G20.
Findings from the study indicate that the intensity of the G20 engagement with the IOs is very high and G20 mostly resorts to a combination of the catalyst and core group approaches, though the pattern depends on the policy area, the IOs and the presidency agenda. Intensity of G20 engagement with the IMF, Financial Stability Board, World Bank, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development by far exceeds the intensity of its interaction with the other institutions. The UN comes only seventh in the G20 discourse by the share and intensity of references. There are very few cases of parallel treatment and most of them are in the sphere of infrastructure investment which can be interpreted as G20 response to a persistent gap in the demand and supply for infrastructure investment and governance leadership in this area. Thus in implementing the forum mission and functions G20 prefer to engage with key international organizations acting as “a hub of a global network”.
The article starts with a brief overview of the study analytical paradigm and methodology. It then proceeds to examine the dynamics and modes of G20 engagement with international organizations across a wide spectrum of policy areas. The final section summaries and concludes.
The article examines partnerships for modernisation between Russia, on the one hand, and the EU as well as 23 out of its 28 member states, on the other hand. In doing that it first identifies the difference between the Russian economic interpretation of modernisation and the EU's one based on political values. The article then demonstrates the ambiguity rather than singularity of the position that EU member states promote in their modernisation partnerships with Russia. To illustrate the difference among EU member states’ the article designs a scale of Russia’s sensitivity to various political aspects of modernization and then posits member states on this scale on the basis of their national partnerships for modernisation with Russia. As a result, a new classification of EU member states emerges; it is based on the extent, to which they are ready to defend the political definition of modernisation (and ultimately the EU's normative power) in their relations with Russia.