title: Conceptualization of post-Soviet regime changes: Some intermediate results
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Letnyakov, Denis E.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2020-11-10T15:27:56Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2020-11-10T15:27:56Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2020-09
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Letnyakov D.E. Conceptualization of post-Soviet regime changes: Some intermediate results. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International Relations, 2020, vol. 13, issue 3, pp. 374–393.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2020.306
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/20408
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: The aim of the article is to analyze the attempts to conceptualize post-Soviet regime changes that have been undertaken over the past thirty years. For convenience, all concepts are
  grouped around three main approaches. The first one examines regime transformations in
  the former USSR from the point of view of a possible transition to democracy (transition
  paradigm); the second approach emphasizes the continuity between the post-Soviet political regimes and previous ones, overlooking fundamental differences between them; the third
  approach assumes that the post-Soviet transition did take place, however, it was “autocracyto-autocracy transition” (from one-party communist dictatorship to hybrid regimes or consolidated personalistic autocracies). The author considers regime change as transformation of
  some basic formal and informal rules of the game that determine the functioning of a given
  political system (from the way of making key decisions and allocating resources to the main
  channels for recruiting to the elite). As a result, the author proves that the third approach is the
  most relevant for understanding post-Soviet politics. Inter alia, its advantage is that it allows
  us to fit post-Soviet studies into the wider field of comparative political science: the analysis
  of post-Soviet politics, on the one hand, can significantly enrich our ideas about “how dictatorships work” at large, on the other hand, empirical knowledge about autocracies outside
  post-Soviet Eurasia and theories built on this basis will help us to understand the nature of
  authoritarianism in Russia’s “near abroad”.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: ru
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Vestnik of St Petersburg University. International Relations;Volume 13; Issue 3
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: former USSR
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: democracy
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: new authoritarianism
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: transitology
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: hybrid regimes
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: regime changes
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: Conceptualization of post-Soviet regime changes: Some intermediate results
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 374-393.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/20408/1/374-393.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 690,39 kB