Search

This thematic issue analyzes recent and ongoing changes in Arctic regional governance in new geopolitical, security, and socio-economic contexts. It places current challenges in the Arctic within a historical context, aspiring to identify solutions, and enhances our understanding of modern processes. It presents three perspectives on Arctic regional governance: the first focuses on the challenges to Arctic environmental governance (marine living resources and Arctic seals); the second looks at the role of large nation-states, such as Russia and China, in Arctic regional governance; and the third one analyses the challenges posed to Indigenous people—in Russia, Finland, and Canada. Many overlapping themes are developed in the articles: historical lessons (e.g., from the Cold War period), challenges to the inclusiveness of environmental governance, and the role of cross-border diffusion and learning. New challenges to Arctic regional governance in the context of the war in Ukraine affect environmental governance, international scientific collaboration, and the lives of Indigenous people. Yet we know little about the depth of these recent transformations. This thematic issue aims to fill in at least some of the outlined gaps.

The Arctic is one of the key regions in relation to global climate change, experiencing radical transformations in environmental governance as well as challenges in terms of its ecological protection. The region is witnessing a number of irreversible climatic shifts, such as melting permafrost, rising sea levels, contamination of the Global Ocean, and changes in the lives of indigenous people. The Arctic is a global hot spot in climate change where international cooperation (scientific, environmental, diplomatic, etc.) should be a priority to overcome existing ecological challenges. This article provides detailed analysis of these issues from cross-disciplinary perspectives, bringing insights from economics, history, anthropology, international relations, and political science from the perspective of literature on environmental regionalism. The article analyzes a selection of heterogeneous actors, many of whom have contradictory rules, norms, and priorities. Analysis of the Arctic through the lens of regional environmental governance aspires to contribute to understanding of the complexity of existing challenges and their potential solutions. This article offers an analysis of the major findings in this topical collection. It contributes to the development of cross-disciplinary approach to the studies of the Artic and outlines a research agenda.

According to elite and mass surveys, the late-Soviet sociopolitical and economic order was largely perceived as the only viable alternative to domestic political and economic status quo in Russia before 2022. Political elites invested significant efforts and funds into deliberative promotion of a complex of ideational legacies through different tools (including cinematography). This complex, labeled a “Good Soviet Union, ” is an imagined sociopolitical and economic order, which somehow resembles that of the late-Soviet past, while lacking its inherent flaws. Elements of the Soviet legacy were selectively chosen for the sake of preservation of the politico-economic status quo. They include the hierarchical mechanism of governance, low circulation of elites and their privileged status, state control over media, and repressions toward organized dissent. Meanwhile, other elements of the late-Soviet past, such as relatively low inequality and certain state social guarantees, have been discarded. A “Good Soviet Union” model includes not only market economy and no shortages of goods and services, but also a lack of institutional constraints on rent-seeking and legalization of wealth and status of elites. In this article, we consider a “Good Soviet Union” as a socially constructed legacy of the past and focus on mechanisms of translation of this legacy into Russia's current agenda through the use of modern Russian cinematography and analysis of policy preferences on the part of political elites. We further consider its effects on politics and policy-making, as well as its limitations and constraints. Some implications of the social construction of Soviet legacies are discussed in the conclusion.

This article serves as an introduction to the special issue devoted to historical continuities in Eurasia and different conceptualizations of the communist legacies. It highlights the main research challenges the special issue deals with and how they fit into a more general discussion about the application of the concept of “post-communism” as an analytical category. It further reviews the composition of the special issue and sums up the main scholarly insights it produced.

This book aspires to establish a dialogue among the studies of sustainable development, global environmental politics, comparative regionalism, and area studies of Eurasia. The chapters in this book reflect deep knowledge of the authors of the main trends in environmental politics at global, international, and national levels before the invasion in Ukraine in 2022. First, the book looks into the role and impact of international organizations such as the European Union (EU), European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Arctic Council (AC,) and Global Forums on Climate Action on post-Communist states, but also the role of nation-states (e.g., Russia, Kazakhstan, and China). Second, the book explores relatively new international organizations, such as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Eurasian Development Bank, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). How do the EAEU, EDB, and the SCO matter, if at all, in promoting an environmental agenda? How do the EU, EBRD, and the AC advance the environmental agenda across the post-Communist region? This book aspires to answer these questions and to shed more light on the challenges to sustainable development in post-Communist Europe, Central Asia, and Eurasia. With a new foreword and afterword, this book will appeal to students, scholars and researchers of political science, international relations, area-studies as well as practitioners and policymakers working in international organizations and dealing with challenges of sustainable development. The other chapters were originally published as a special issue of Problems of Post-Communism.

Which factors lead states to apply for observer status in the Arctic Council (AC)? What explains the acceptance of those applications? In 2013, the AC underwent its most significant change since its foundation in 1996, with its formalization through the creation of a secretariat, the confirmation of eight observers, and acceptance of other five states, including China, with the same status. This study explores geopolitical and economic interests of actors of regional environmental governance that impact both applications and their acceptance as observer states. Based on probit models and case studies, we identify that states that mostly increase their carbon-equivalent emissions through consumption and production are less likely to join the AC as observers and to be accepted as such. Models also yield statistically significant correlations between states that import a high amount of goods from China and the pursuit of observer status in the AC. Models that disregard the impact of Beijing on observership in the intergovernmental organization reveal that applicants tend to have higher international status than the average and tend to be accepted as observer states for increasing the AC’s prestige. Unsuccessful attempts of joining the AC as observers also suggest that concerns with the environment, science, and technology impact observership demand and supply. Yet, acceptance of observer states may also be contingent on geopolitical and economic considerations by member states of the AC.

Regional international organizations (IOs) are considered to be among the most efficient platforms in promoting an environmental agenda at global, regional, and national levels. Yet, the dialogue between studies of global environmental politics and comparative regionalism is quite recent. The emergence of non-democratic regional organizations (NDROs) is among the most recent discoveries in comparative regionalism and their implications for environmental politics are to be considered. How do NDROs matter in promoting an environmental agenda? How do IOs advance the environmental agenda across the post-Communist region? This Special Issue aspires us to answer these questions through establishing a deeper dialogue between studies of environmental regionalism and authoritarian regionalism. This introduction lays out the theoretical ground for the collection of articles in this Special Issue. It proposes a definition and typology of environmental regionalism (ER) that distinguishes between democratic and autocratic ER. It then analyzes the contributions to the Special Issue within this new theoretical framework.

The paper analyzes how the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Eurasian Development Bank (EDB) approach sustainable development in their legal documents and social media. Unlike democracies, autocracies are driven by concerns of regime survival, but they often seek legitimacy through expressed commitments to global norms. We find that while the EBRD has a clear and detailed environmental agenda, this is not so for the EDB, which appears unconcerned about legitimizing itself on this issue. The paper advances our understanding of the likely role of these organizations in sustainable development, identifying areas for further research on global environmental challenges.

This paper addresses the impact of political regimes on carbon emissions (CO2) from a historical perspective, covering the period of 1970–2015. Our sample consists of 153 countries that we follow for 20 years before the transition (1970–1990) and 26 years after it (1990–2015). During transition, post-Communist states experienced a decline in CO2, when controlling for economic variables. Transition had a positive impact on the environment only in cases when it was associated with democratization. When transition has led to consolidation of autocratic regimes, CO2 has increased.

This paper analyses the ideational interaction underlying attempts at regional integration and cooperation in Eurasia. While the ideas and values of the European Union have been relatively well-studied within the theory of Europeanisation, the key concepts, ideas, values and principles driving Eurasian regionalism have remained out of the main focus of Western scholarship. This paper aims to shed more light on this ideational basis of Eurasian regionalism by unveiling the discourse developed in Russian scholarship and available only in Russian. Understanding interactions between institutions will always remain partial as long as the ideational interaction is not addressed. Such concepts as ‘integrative mentality’, as a segment of the wider category ‘foreign policy mentality’, and the theory of neo-Eurasianism have been incorporated into Russian political discourse and therefore affect public opinion through specific interpretation of economic, political and cultural processes in the EU’s near neighbourhood and the EU as an actor. The analysis presented in this paper indicates the development of new ideational competition, in addition to the well-documented geopolitical one. The paper also aspires to contribute to emerging research on public support to governmental strategic choices and self-legitimation of international organisations in Eurasia.

The paper summarises the findings of this special issue and suggests avenues for future research. It concludes that the Eurasian regionalisms’ development in the 2010s was influenced, among other factors, by Russia’s concerns about external threats and by its control over the Eurasian space. However, the design of the regional institutions does not make them incompatible with global governance. The cooperation between global and regional institutions varies depending on the agenda of the specific regional organisation. In addition to direct competition between global and regional institutions, there may be an indirect one through offering access to different forms of economic benefits. Through this indirect strategy, regional institutions may reduce the incentives for individual countries to comply with their obligations to global institutions. This paper also places Eurasia within a global context of analysis and considers similar trends world-wide as well as outlines the agenda for future studies of global versus regional governance.

Which limitations does the hegemon face when exerting financial statecraft through multilateral institutions? Recent studies indicate that intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) that are tools of collective financial statecraft sponsored by the United States, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, lead developing states to align with Washington in the United Nations (UN). The same effect is verified in the case of US bilateral aid. Little, however, has been discussed about the effect of American-sponsored regional development banks (RDBs) in the same context. RDBs are IGOs with unique characteristics as each of them covers a region of the world and relies on resources from developed sponsors and developing borrowing members alike. In this article we aim to fill this gap in the debates on economic and financial statecraft by demonstrating through tobit models that the higher the material capabilities of a borrowing state that takes loans, the less likely it is to align with the United States at the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Membership of all RDBs but the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) yields the same effect. Results indicate the need to develop further research on RDBs to assess whether they create incentives for challenging the hegemon.

While supporting the values and goals of sustainable development at the international level, states might employ very different strategies at the national level. The goal of this Forward and of special issue is twofold. First, it aims to advance our understanding of different strategies, paying special attention to China and Russia at global, national, and sub-national levels. Thus, analysis of their strategies across different levels presents a more rounded picture. The second goal is to identify at least a few of the most pressing challenges of sustainable development across Eurasia (e.g. nuclear supply chain, emissions, environmental conflict management) and to attempt to understand their triggers, outcomes, and potential solutions. This Forward aspires to develop a better dialogue across different sets of literature in area studies, environmental politics, and international relations to improve our understanding of obstacles to sustainable development in Eurasia.

How are environmental conflicts managed in China and Russia? Both states are territorially large non-democracies affected by environmental degradation due to industrialisation and economic growth, and both are characterised by collectivist culture resulting from pronounced historical legacies and Communism. Our analysis of China indicates the important role played by local governments often supporting local people; and role of the negotiation between the central and the local governments. In contrast, in Russia local governments ally with businesses involved in environmental conflicts; or tend to support central government view on the conflict. However, the environmentalists’ movements in Russia are better connected to external (international) support. In contrast, China exhibits more isolation of environmental movements that are less influenced by Western environmentalism, if at all. The paper aspires to bring further insights in understanding of the public environmentalism and management of environmental conflicts in Eurasia.

Since its inception in 1991, the EBRD has had a strong environmental agenda, which it ‘exported’ to post-Communist Europe and Asia. We posit that the post-Soviet states have decreased their carbon emissions more than the average states borrowing from the EBRD as they were more affected by the economic crisis associated with the end of the Soviet Union. However, the post-Soviet states have also been approached by China through a number of regional initiatives launched across Eurasia. Therefore, we further hypothesise that states borrowing from the EBRD that have been aligned with China have higher carbon emissions. We employ a sample of 32 states that borrowed from the EBRD between 1991 and 2015. Through panel-data linear regressions with heteroscedasticity-corrected robust standard errors, we corroborate our hypotheses. This study contributes to a better understanding of new actors in global environmental politics and their role in sustainable development in Eurasia and beyond.

The year 2022 has witnessed highly turbulent changes in all aspects of world politics and socioeconomic development, directly affecting global environmental politics and posing new challenges to the sustainable development agenda.1 This concluding essay places the articles of this special issue into this new dynamic global context, accounting for the rising importance of new actors and changes in regional environmental governance in Eurasia.

Small hydropower plants (SHPs), despite being a renewable energy source, could have negative environmental effects. Nonetheless, many countries have promoted and subsidised them, leading to a rise in the number of environmental conflicts. How was the issue of SHPs framed in Serbia by the proponents and the opponents? How did the framing strategy change over time and why? And which factors increased attention to the topic, eventually leading a change of governmental policy? To address these questions, we analyse the Serbian mass media’s environmental framing of SHPs and conduct a content analysis of 359 articles written between 2000–2020 and published by major national online newspapers and news portals. We use the Discourse Network Analyser to demonstrate changes in framing strategies that, together with increased public pressure, contributed to a re-evaluation of the impact of SHPs and ultimately changed the government’s and the public’s standing on this issue.

How do international organisations (IOs) legitimise their right to rule in times of a Pandemic? Where are their previously made environmental commitments on their agenda during a crisis? What are the differences in self-legitimation, if any, across different types of IOs? These questions have gathered renewed urgency during the ongoing COVID-19 and climate change crises posing a threat to the legitimacy not only of national governments but also of IOs. The paper aims to address these questions through the analysis of environmental commitments made in legal documents of three IOs (the EU, the EAEU, and the AIIB) and through the analysis of their respective social media between 2017 and 2021. Among other issues, we find significant differences in self-legitimation strategies of these three IOs as reflected by their social media and some evidence of mimicry across these IOs that should remain on the agenda for further studies.

The literature on environmental politics and regional governance has mainly been dedicated to the role played by the European Union (EU). The analysis of environmental agenda and politics of other regional international organisations (IOs) remained in the shadows compared to studies of European actors. This special issue aims to address the following questions: How do various regional IOs matter in promoting and sustaining an environmental agenda? What challenges do they face? The first perspective developed in this Forward to special issue looks into European IOs comparatively to Eurasian IOs. The second perspective unfolds various environmental issues within the EU and across post-Communist EU members and candidate states. The analysis of these two perspectives discloses multiple dimensions in the nexus of political and economic developments, and contribute to better understanding of the role of IOs in sustainable development.

Do women exhibit a different pattern of entrepreneurial behavior as compared to men in post-Communist societies? This paper addresses this question using survey data from 25 Eastern Europe and Central Asian states. The sample consists of 11,617 private firms. As a result of 11,000 observations and multiple robustness checks, we find that female owners are more likely to introduce new marketing strategies than males. We demonstrate that firm innovation increases among top female managers with the increase in democratization. Democratization eliminates the gender disadvantages in firm innovation for most types of firm innovation.

Democracy is generally associated with governmental accountability, better public policy choices and public health. However, there is limited evidence about how political regime transition impacts public health. We use two samples of the states around the world to trace the impact of regime transition on public health: the first sample comprises 29 post-communist states, along with 20 consolidated democracies, for the period of 1970–2014; the second sample is a subsample of the same 29 post-communist states but only for the period of transition, 1990–2014. We find that the post-communist states experienced some decline in life expectancy in the first few years of transition (1990–1995). Yet, with a steady increase in the measure of democracy from 1995 onwards, life expectancy significantly improved and infant mortality decreased. Therefore, in the long run, democratization has had a positive impact on both the life expectancy and infant mortality of citizens of the post-communist states.

This essay is an introduction to the special issue and it outlines the main guiding puzzles and questions raised in different contributions. The special issue asks the following general questions. How Eurasian organisations are ‘embedded’ in the global and regional governance networks? What empirical and ideational strategies are implemented on the part of these organisations? How do they interact with traditional international institutions? The contributions in this issue develop different empirical and theoretical approaches to address these puzzles and to contribute to our understanding of Eurasian international organisations as actors in global governance and economy.

The paper analyses the impact of democratisation on firm innovation in European and Central Asian post-communist states using panel-data and cross-sectional approaches. The sample consists of over 25,000 establishments in 25 transition economies. Our empirical analysis provides an array of novel findings to the institutional literature. First, our analysis demonstrates that post-communist democratisation has had a direct impact on firms’ propensity to innovate across transition economies. Second, we find that the relationship between the level of democracy and firm innovation takes the form of a U-shape or inverted U-shape depending on the definition of firm innovation. That is, the states with the lowest and highest levels of democracy exhibit less firm innovation than states with intermediate levels of democracy. The paper contributes to the institutional literature and to studies on the consequences of post-communist regime transition for economic development.

The paper investigates the change in the impact of democracy on political trust in national and international institutions, the European Union (EU) and to the United Nations (UN), after the start of the Great Recession 2008. Based on empirical evidence, the paper argues that the impact of the level of democracy on national trust is different from its impact on international trust post-crisis 2008, despite having been similar before 2008. Overall trend is in line with previous findings on decrease in trust to political institutions. In addition to these findings, this paper also demonstrates that the impact of democracy on trust in international institutions has changed radically after the start of the Great Recession. These findings are important for studies on political trust and democracy, on the consequences of the Great Recession, as well as for the comparative research on regional versus global institutions, such as the EU and the UN.