The article aims to investigate the interrelations between current crisis of economic globalization, on the one hand, and decay of USA hegemony and escalation of international conflicts, on the other hand. For this purpose we provide synthesis of theories of hegemony within neoliberalism, neorealism and world-system approach based on theory of transactional economy (D. North) and theory of megalopolises-“global gaits” (D. Andersson), which provides the analysis of territorial distribution of relationships in transactional economy. Thus, in this paper we disprove the widespread statement, that globalization related with the process of uniform increase of connections between all parts of the world. On the contrary, we conceive globalization as the territorial heterogeneity of relationships based on social heterogeneity of resource allocation in the world. Maintenance of this heterogeneity requires the hegemony in world politics. In the period of decrease of economic growth it provokes the escalation of conflicts. If the period of economic decline coincides with the crisis of hegemony (current situation with Tramp administration), it stimulates the crisis of economic globalization. The situation also provokes the vast gap between the world economics’ demands in stability and inability of the system of world politics to maintain it. On its turn, escalation of conflicts related to decrease of level of predictability, decrease of mutual credibility, arms race etc., generates new secondary cycles of instability. Above mentioned processes are the basis of expanding recently multi-level crisis of globalization. Our analysis allows formulating three scenarios of development of this crisis (the transit to multipolar global management, partial return to some period of USA hegemony and “hegemonic cold war” between the USA and China). These scenarios are ranged in term of level of conflictness and level of negative impact on the world economy. In the risk zone there are the semi-peripheral areas, where the most intensive clashes of key world actors take place. The risk zone also encompasses Post-Soviet states.
An attempt has been realized in the article to apply qualitative and quantitative methods of comparative analysis for revealing key factors influencing the trajectories and the results of regime changes in post- Communist countries. The authors investigate into the question of which of these factors and in what situations are the most significant for explaining the character and the results of post-Communist regime transformations
The article attempts to identify the major factors of party system nationalization in contemporary Russia. The concept of nationalization is treated either as the nationwide participation in elections and territorial voting homogenization, what allows to study the formation of national parties participating the process of political competition within nationwide standardized patterns of electoral behavior. The study is focused on national (2016) and subnational (2012-2016) parliamentary elections (proportional representation). Author introduces the national-subnational covering index to achieve the aim. This index takes into account election participation strategies of political parties at different territorial levels. The measuring shows a significant variation in electoral participation of the parties across the territory, what can be explained by the level of the institutionalization (parliamentary / non-parliamentary) as well as their durability. Also, statistical analysis has been carried out with data concerning voting homogeneity of the State Duma, 2016 elections (according to Party Nationalization Score by Jones-Mainwaring) used as sample. Principal component analysis has revealed that the voting nationalization structure is quite compact and similar to the structure of electoral competition where "United Russia" occupies a separate position from all other parties in the electoral space (so-called "structural domination"). On the other hand, it is also important to take into account the cleavage between the federal parliamentary parties and the non-systemic opposition plus the most successive spoilers. At last regression analysis reveals the importance of regional political factors like the governors’ ability to consolidate regional elites delivering votes in high levels of territorial homogenization. At the same time the radical opposition remains marginalized being forced to deny participating in regional electoral campaigns.
This article provides an attempt to draft a conceptual approach to the problem of the interrelation of domestic and external factors in the processes of the state-building with the special focus on unrecognized and self-proclaimed states. Various methodological and theoretical aspects of external recognition and domestic legitimization of the selfproclaimed new states which are claiming sovereignty are analyzed. An analytical distinction of different levels and qualities of stateness is introduced in the article, in particular building upon some findings of the Political Atlas of the Modern World project. A strong correlation between the levels of stateness and the potential of international influence is used as one of the possible criteria
Numerous researchers in comparative politics have pointed at non-liner J-shaped link between state capacity and democracy. This claim suggests that consolidated autocracies possess higher levels of state capacity than hybrid regimes do. We test this conjecture using post-communist sample, 1989-2010, and do not find supporting evidence. The paper presents an original approach to measurement of state capacity and an informal model of the “king of the hill” explaining low quality of institutions in post-communist autocracies.