The embodiment of the pragmatic school of the 100 years old Eurasianism movement - the Eurasian Economic Union - took inspiration from the European Union to create a single internal market. Hence, the EU and the EAEU both aim to liberalize economic relations between their member states despite their fundamentally distinct histories and development levels. Both unions have achieved some degree of success in establishing the common labour market. As the integration process continues in the context of the global pandemic there are new barriers to abolish. This article examines the European Union (EU) and Eurasian Economic Unions (EAEU) major accomplishments and challenges in establishing a single labour market. The research used a systematic approach to outline two regional labour markets policy context and mechanisms. Comparative analysis is used to highlight the similarities and differences of the EAEU and EUs practice and current challenges in the framework of the single labour market. We found that despite the similar concept and legal basis the practice of a common labour market is distinctive. We have identified the similarities and differences in challenges the unions are facing currently. They vary from individual to global, including linguistic and cultural barriers, skill gaps, aging population, socioeconomic inequalities, etc. We conclude that the ongoing global pandemic has exposed and further aggravated the existing problems for both unions, which requires revisiting and enhancing the legal basis and creating more favorable conditions for migrants, for instance, better social protection.

No abstract

The paper discusses the “struggle for Soviet legacy’ as a key concept for understanding relations in Central Asia. This struggle is a path of dependent development, in which the resources and values created in Soviet times determine interstate relations in the 21st century. The authors argue that in Central Asia this legacy rests mostly on the mega industries created during the Soviet era, and national resources and practices of their distribution. The paper concludes that in fact the struggle for Soviet legacy means confrontation over the contours of new geoeconomics in Asia.