The People's Republic of China (PRC) has irrefutably reached ‘great power’ status. As a consequence, most studies argue that it has adopted a revisionist posture towards the US-led international order. However, this image tells us little about Beijing's revisionist strategy, particularly whether it is revolutionary or incremental and what this implies in terms of actual policies. The current article posits that the PRC is behaving as an incremental revisionist and aims at tracing its modes. To verify this hypothesis, the analysis focuses on Beijing's policies towards its regional security order. In this light, it diachronically compares post-Cold War China (1989–2019) with the paradigmatic case of a revolutionary revisionist in the Indo-Pacific region: Shōwa Japan in the Interwar period (1926–1941). The findings offer a helpful contribution to the literature, providing the foundation for a more nuanced theoretical definition of incremental revisionism.

Despite recurring elections and the transition to multiparty systems, authoritarianism has re-emerged in the Post-Soviet Space. Along with domestic factors, the external dimension should also be considered to fully understand this regional trend. Scholars depict Russia as a typical ‘black knight’ for democracy. While most of the literature deals with the Kremlin's policies in the ‘new’ Eastern Europe, this article pays attention to Russia's actions in the relatively understudied Southern Caucasus. Specifically, it investigates why and how Moscow tried to thwart democratization in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The diachronic analysis addresses three periods, namely, Yeltsin's presidency, the first Putin presidency and the Putin–Medvedev diarchy. Findings suggest that the Kremlin implemented an increasingly nuanced and intentional black knight strategy in Southern Caucasus, aimed at gaining primacy in the Post-Soviet Space and recognition of its great power status.

The article investigates the consequences of post‐Cold War regime transitions on human development in the former Soviet bloc. Relying on a mixed‐methods research strategy that combines econometric and qualitative comparative analysis, it proceeds through three consecutive steps. First, there is a discussion of how democratic institutions may solicit governments’ attention toward social issues. Second, the relationship between democratisation and human development in 21 post‐communist countries is tested. Third, democracy in its core attributes is unpacked, and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is used to identify a few alternative institutional configurations favouring human development. The analysis reveals that not only full democracies, but also some hybrid regimes, have been successful in this task.

No abstract

No abstract