The Eurasian Economic Union: the geopolitics of authoritarian cooperation

Abstract

Understanding cooperation among authoritarian regimes remains a puzzle for researchers; in particular, those working in post-Soviet Eurasia. Research suggests that autocrats are becoming increasingly coordinated in their efforts to thwart democracy, with authoritarian-led regional organizations offering an effective vehicle to extend autocrat time horizons. In contrast, older studies, including insights from failed regional integration among former Soviet states, suggest that the absence of democracy limits cooperation, although in both cases there is a lack of detail on the mechanisms enabling or constraining relations between autocrats. This article addresses this shortcoming by developing a theoretical framework based around autocrat survivability or "regime security" and applying it to the important case of the newly formed Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), drawing on original interview data with experts and stake-holders in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. The argument forwarded in this article is that concerns over regime security create antagonistic cooperation drivers. In the case of the EAEU, regime security provides a strong explanation for the inability of member states to coordinate policy. The implication is that future studies should pay close attention to the way the material and ideational aspects of authoritarian rule combine to drive, but also limit relations between autocrats.

Supranationality and Sovereignty in the European Union and in the Eurasian Economic Union

“…Sprouting from the latter idea, there emerged the concept of authoritarian regionalism (EAEU) as opposed to liberal regionalism (EU). Its authors are unanimous in that the EAEU allows authoritarian political regimes to prolong their existence through economic cooperation and mutual assistance [Roberts, 2017;Dragneva, Hartwell, 2022;Libman, Obydenkova, 2018]. The main shortcoming of those studies is their reductionist treatment of sovereignty.…”

Priorities of personnel policy in the sphere of science

“…The theoretical basis of the research is the work of Russian and foreign scientists, which comprehensively examines the role of science and technology in society (Abalkin, 2011;Tierney et al, 2005;Roberts, 2017;Hasbulatov, 2020), and focuses on the need to apply a systematic approach to the study of economic development patterns (Kleiner, 2021). Unstable functioning of RAS institutes and branch research institutes was characteristic of the period for the Russian economy market transformations (1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000).…”

Three essays on bureaucracy : post-communist context

“…In this study, we test the claim that countries, which chose to model their bureaucratic institutions after the Weberian blueprint, are better performers in one of the proxy measures for government performance, that is, the quality of public good provision, as expressed in infrastructure, and education (H1). We further propose that the success of such reforms is associated with the geopolitical choices that these countries made post-independence (Ademmer et al, 2016) as well as spatial considerations (Kopstein & Reilly, 2000;Libman & Vinokurov, 2018;Roberts, 2017). Those nations which joined the EU or are pursuing a strategy of rapprochement with the EU are more likely to have effective bureaucracies, while countries in close geographical proximity, economic interdependence and political association with Russia, have subpar bureaucratic institutions (H2).…”