The dual role of state capacity in opening socio-political orders: assessment of different elements of state capacity in Belarus and Ukraine

Abstract

State capacity declines with democratization, yet high state capacity supports the stability of both democracies and autocracies. Ukraine has been a paradigmatic example of capacity decline in democratization and Belarus of an authoritarian regime with high capacity. We set out to discover which aspects of state capacity might contribute to opening or stability. Conceptualizing capacity as containing administrative, informational and public service aspects, we compare the two countries to find that capacity appears to be converging. While recent reforms in Ukraine develop aspects with universalizing effects, some aspects with a stabilizing effecthealth careare still better in Belarus.

Placing the 2020 Belarusian Protests in Historical Context: Political Attitudes and Participation during Lukashenko’s Presidency

“…As discussed earlier, Dimitrova et al (2021) point out the Belarusian government has a strong state capacity, which means the state is able to control vertical attacks to its authority. For example, Rosenfeld (2017) finds that controlling the size of protests is partially a function of public sector employment.…”

“…This ability to prevent dissent creates a paternalist regime model where Lukashenko, and Lukashenko alone, is perceived as capable of ruling the country (Buzgalin and Kolganov 2021). Finally, both Dimitrova et al (2021) and Buzgalin and Kolganov (2021) argue that Belarus has a high state capacity to provide public goods to citizens. Lukashenko’s use of this high state capacity to provide public goods is a useful tool to keep the population satisfied with his rule.…”

Measures of state capacity: so similar, yet so different

“…For instance, Belarus-the country with both the largest multivariate and bivariate rating discrepancy-is a stable and ethnically homogeneous country with powerful state institutions (Way 2005) and a high capacity to control the society (Silitski 2005). Its public apparatus is characterised by low autonomy and a lack of impartiality, and its public services are broad ranging but qualitatively deficient (Dimitrova et al 2021). Given these characteristics, it is unlikely a coincidence that Belarus has relatively high scores with SFI (0.84) and HSI (0.68) but much lower scores with QOG (0.36), CPI (0.16), WGI (0.24), VDEM (0.13), and FSI (0.37).…”

Towards open access social orders in Eastern Europe

“…Addressing the first set of questions, two articles start with domestic aspects affecting stability or change in socio-political orders. While Dimitrova et al (2021) focus on the role of state capacity for stability or opening, Mazepus et al (2021) map the non-state actors linking with key external actors and the various domains in which they are active.…”