Lucan_Authoritarian State Building and the Sources of Regime Competitiveness

Lucan_Authoritarian State Building and the Sources of Regime Competitiveness

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Authoritarian State Building and the Sources of Regime Competitiveness in the Fourth Wave: The Cases of Belarus, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine Way, Lucan, 1968- World Politics, Volume 57, Number 2, January 2005, pp. 231-261 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/wp.2005.0018 For additional information about this article Access Provided by Lou & Beth Holtz Library Endowment at 01/03/11 5:56AM GMT http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/wp/summary/v057/57.2way.html World Politics 57 (January 2005), 23161 AUTHORITARIAN STATE BUILDING AND THE SOURCES OF REGIME COMPETITIVENESS IN THE FOURTH WAVE The Cases of Belarus, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine By LUCAN A. WAY* I NTRODUCTION T HIS article explores the sources of regime competitiveness in the postcold war fourth wave transitions 1 through a structured com- parison of regime trajectories in Belarus, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine during the years 19922004. All four counties experienced relatively competitive political regimes at the beginning of the 1990s despite such important obstacles as continued dominance of old regime incumbents, a lack of democratic history, weak civil society, weak rule of law, and relative international isolation. By the end of the 1990s and early 2000s, all four countries had become noticeably more closed, although to very different degrees that ranged from highly closed regimes in Be- larus and Russia to more open ones in Moldova and Ukraine. This article focuses on two core puzzles. First, why was it that all four countries were relatively open in the early 1990s despite the pres- ence of key obstacles but became more closed over time? Second, why by the beginning of the twenty-first century did the countries emerge * This article benefited especially from input from the following: Jessica Allina-Pisano, Tim Colton, Keith Darden, Richard Deeg, Larry Diamond, Dmitry Gorenburg, Anna Grzymala-Busse, Yoi Her- rera, Charles King, Stephen Kotkin, Taras Kuzio, Pauline Jones Luong, Rory MacFarquhar, Stanislav Marcus, Michael McFaul, Marc Plattner, Richard Rose, Joseph Schwartz, Vitali Silitski, Oxana Shevel, Richard Snyder, Sherrill Stroschein, Josh Tucker, and three anonymous reviewers. I am partic- ularly indebted to Steve Levitsky. The author gratefully acknowledges support provided by the College of Liberal Arts at Temple University and the Harvard Academy for International and Areas Studies. 1 Michael McFaul, The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship: Noncooperative Transitions in the Postcommunist World, World Politics 54 (January 2002). with different levels of competitiveness? An examination of the mech- anisms of regime formation and reproduction in these cases demon- strates the need for a fundamental rethinking of the transition process, especially in countries that face relatively weak international democra- tizing pressures....
View Full Document

Page1 / 32

Lucan_Authoritarian State Building and the Sources of Regime Competitiveness

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online