Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine processes of Eurasian integration and the veritable ‘culture war’ between Russia and the West over it, while contributing to the theoretical paradigm of geopolitical economy. This paradigm invites us to consider the multiple manifestations of an emerging multipolar world order while scrutinising the extent to which previously popular approaches to the study of international political economy were themselves enmeshed in projects, the architects of which aspired to global hegemony.

The paper employs critical historicism, an approach in which cultural difference is seen as the sedimentation of historically constituted material and ideational processes and which eschews cultural essentialism and orientalising tropes. It is through this lens that Russian state attempts at normalising Eurasian integration processes are examined.

I demonstrate that Russian state organs and officials, as well as ‘political technologists’ attempt to de-politicise processes of Eurasian integration by appealing to both the logic of cultural/civilisational compatibility of affected parties, as well as the logic of economic integration. Such portrayals invite scrutiny; however, it is important that we also consider how Eurasian integration initiatives are the product of a post-Soviet struggle over Eurasian space but represent something more than mere neo-Soviet revisionism.

The paper demonstrates its originality by situating ongoing processes of Eurasian integration within the longer post-Soviet conjuncture and amid processes of international contestation. Moreover, it situates Russian officials and political technologists as active contributors to international debates about the emerging multipolar world order.

The purpose of this paper is to explore urban mobilisation patterns in two post-Soviet cities: Vilnius and Moscow. Both cities were subject to similar housing and urban policy during Soviet times, and they have implemented urban development using neoliberal market principles, provoking grassroots opposition from citizens to privatisation and marketisation of their housing environment and local public space. However, the differing conditions of democratic Lithuanian and authoritarian Russian public governance offer different opportunities and set different constraints for neighbourhood mobilisation. The purpose is to contrast local community mobilisations under the two regimes and highlight the differences between and similarities in the activists’ repertoires of actions in two distinct political and economic urban settings.

The paper employs qualitative methodology using data from semi-structured interviews conducted with community activists and state officials, presented using a comparative case study design.

Although, citizens’ mobilisations in the two cities are reactions to the neoliberalisation of housing and local public space, they take different forms. In Vilnius they are institutionalised and receive formal support from national and local authorities. Moreover, support from the EU encourages organisational development and provides material and cognitive resources for grassroots urban mobilisations. In contrast, residents’ mobilisations in Moscow are informal and face fierce opposition from local authorities. However, even in an authoritarian setting, grassroots mobilisations evolve using creative strategies to circumvent institutional constraints.

Little attention has been paid to grassroots urban mobilisations in post-Soviet cities. There is also a lack of comparative attempts to show variation in post-Soviet urban activism related to housing and local public space.

The post-Soviet space, consisting of the countries of the former USSR and the Warsaw Pact, is a good testing ground for the dynamics of growth. Motivated by the mixed evidence on economic convergence in the region, this paper explores why countries have performed differently, focusing on institutional strength and its determinants. It proposes the hypothesis that, in the region, Russian influence plays a negative role in institutional development, both through opaque business practices that come with it, and through the isolation from European Union influence it entails. The paper uses recent panel data to test this hypothesis, concluding that there is some evidence supporting a negative effect of Russian influence on post-Soviet states’ institutions, but that more rigorous analysis is needed to confirm this link.

This paper aims to examine the role in tax evasion and corruption played in Ukraine by money-laundering organisations called “conversion centres”: networks of sham firms and banks implementing “black cash” schemes that facilitate tax evasion by the private sector and embezzlement by the state sector. The paper describes their embedding both in a post-Soviet state as well as in the international political economy.

It draws on scholarship, journalist investigations, court records, government agency reports and other open source data and interviews with market participants. It first describes “conversion centres” as an ideal type and then presents three case studies, focusing on international financial flows and the domestic political setting.

Ukraine’s conversion centres generate significant international flows of dirty money handled by specialised foreign banks mostly in the Baltic states. Domestically, conversion centres thrive through state capture, resulting from their facilitation of embezzlement by state actors.

Open source data and investigative methods make it possible to conduct empirical research in crime and corruption in the post-Soviet context. As open sources expand, the scope for such enquiry will increase.

This is the first empirical description of “black cash” money-laundering platforms in terms of embedding in a post-Soviet state and in the international financial system.

In contrast to the dominant accounts in post-Soviet studies that see public and private as two spheres existing in parallel, the purpose of this paper is to argue that in Armenia the public-private dichotomy can be better understood as a spectrum of different kinds of interactions between the state and private actors/social groups representing different sets of socio-cultural values, which are mirrored in Yerevan’s city planning and housing.

The data derives from long-term ethnographic fieldwork in Yerevan. To analyse the data set the author used methods common in social and cultural anthropology. The theoretical background derives from urban anthropology (Liu), theories on housing (Carsten and Hugh-Jones), the anthropology of values (Dumont), and the anthropology of states (Herzfeld) linked to the debate on modernity.

The author demonstrates that basic cultural concepts, norms, expectations, rules, beliefs, and values currently take effect on both sides (public and private/state and people), and that personal networks in Armenia are no longer used to trick an alien state, but also used by the state elites to gain advantage. The degree of intimacy of social relations thereby structures urban space and behaviour.

The paper looks at the public-private dichotomy in post-Soviet states from a new perspective, which is inspired by the anthropology of (socio-cultural) values, and argues that cultural intimacy (Herzfeld) is – simultaneously – a unifying and a separating fact in the relationship of states and people.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the money attitudes among students at English-language business schools in the transitioning Central Asian nations of the former USSR, namely, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

The survey was carried out in 2017, using previously established measures of Love of Money survey questionnaire. Over 300 undergraduate students in English-language business degree programs in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan participated in the survey. A few hypotheses were tested using three-way MANOVA to test the influence of three factors (country, gender and student years). In addition, post hoc analysis, and one- and two-way ANOVA methods were used for multiple comparisons.

The results showed evidence of increasing convergence among students who are farther along in the program. Some statistically significant differences were also found, mainly in regard to gender differences in money attitudes across countries and student levels. The results of statistical analysis suggest a need for further research on attitudes and values related to money in the modern nation states of Central Asia.

This study is one of first attempts to study the values and attitudes regarding money among the first generation of business students who were born and grew up after their respective countries gained independence. The findings imply the development of a relatively homogeneous labor pool for business organizations across regions that are characterized by increasing differentiation among countries within the region.

This chapter reviews the theoretical literature about Europeanisation and argues the need for further analysis of post-Soviet Europeanisation. This chapter also connects post-Soviet Europeanisation to the notion of policy learning, which is introduced as a theoretical perspective. The chapter discusses the challenges around the definition of policy learning in relation to other policy processes such as transfer, translation and diffusion. Policy layering does not presuppose mutual exclusion between path-dependence and change, but rather the fruitful mutual development of both. It implies a gradual change of certain policy aspects and the retaining of others. The development of the links between path-dependence and change in layering is a highly messy process. Multiple actors participate in learning, and they create policy as they learn. There are no distinct stages of learning, and the line between policy-makers and practitioners is often blurred.

The difference between policy-making on the European level and the post-Soviet domestic context is significant. The literature about post-Soviet countries recognises the presence of a struggle between Europeanisation and post-Soviet legacies there. Europeanisation in this literature is presented as change; while the influence of the post-Soviet legacies is seen as an obstacle that hinders it. The policy learning concept is key here to frame Europeanisation in the post-Soviet context as an area of enquiry which may develop according to the logic of layering.

This paper aims to improve the service discipline’s understanding of the unique challenges and opportunities that services marketers encounter in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe (CESEE) and Post-Soviet states. This paper also serves as an introduction to the special section about services marketing perspectives in this region.

Considering the Post-Soviet reality, the paper is a viewpoint regarding the specific development potential of services marketing in the CESEE region. In addition, the three papers included in the special section use a variety of research methods, participants and service settings.

First, this paper outlines the positive and negative consequences of the radical changes in the services markets over the past 30 years. Next, all three papers included in the special section explore the distinctive customer perspective of services marketing. Finally, this paper discusses the specific relationship building environment of the Post-Soviet reality and how its unique do-it-yourself background contributes to the existing discussion on consumers’ involvement in the co-creation of value.

The findings from this special section have valuable implications for future research on services marketing in the CESEE markets, although these may not always be generalizable beyond the unique context of the research detailed in each of these papers.

This research, along with the three papers, presents some useful directions for services marketing managers cooperating with the CESEE markets, such as understanding and managing the expectations of their customers or employees.

This paper is one of the first attempts to understand the uniqueness of the under-researched area of services marketing in the CESEE and Post-Soviet States, both from a theoretical and empirical point of view. This also provides previously under-represented authors from the region the opportunity to present their perspective to an international service community.

The purpose of this research paper is a theoretical understanding of the most general trends of Russian economic development during the country's pre‐Soviet, Soviet and post‐Soviet time frames.

The objectives are designed in such a way as to include a historical aspect in the research. An attempt is made to grasp (rather cursorily) a logical internal progression in all stages of the Russian development for the last 150 years. In this, the paper shows no need for so‐called great historical personalities to explain the great historical events.

In the course of the work, it was found that Russia had experienced alternatively five different socioeconomic systems of: late mixed feudalism which was on its way to democratic mixed capitalism (the 1850s‐October 1917); state feudalism which was pregnant with authoritarian mixed capitalism (1918‐1921); authoritarian mixed capitalism in whose womb there was ripening totalitarian state capitalism (1921‐1928); totalitarian state capitalism which was carrying within itself the seeds of authoritarian state capitalism (1928‐1990); finally, authoritarian state capitalism which was moving toward authoritarian mixed capitalism (1991‐present).

The original value of the paper is in its fresh approach to the great events that have been taking place in Russia since the 1850s. The events have been analyzed not as they should be according or despite some theory but as they were and are. The paper, therefore, will be valuable to those who are interested in the socioeconomic development of Russia and who would like, one way or another, to attempt to predict the country's nearest future.

The universal “promise of entrepreneurship” has gone far beyond the borders of countries where it emerged. Education systems might play an important role in this process by legitimizing entrepreneurship related myths, principles, and social hierarchies. Surprisingly, against the literature on the role of education in producing and allocating human capital, entrepreneurship education development on organizational, national, and global scale is only emerging as a theme of mainstream academic discussions. This paper applies multi-level approach to get insights on what role might higher education have in promoting global “entrepreneurial culture,” with a focus on post-Soviet countries. We analyze supra-national initiatives, national policies, leading universities’ practices, and the actual characteristics of entrepreneurship education programs in these universities. Our results suggest that drivers of entrepreneurship education development in national higher education systems of post-Soviet countries are not only the “concrete” and “technical” institutional factors on the national level, but also the broader cultural environment. Though institutional environment in post-Soviet countries does not always objectively meet high international standards we found many cases when official policy documents state goals related to teaching entrepreneurship in higher education and there are concrete programs devoted to entrepreneurship education sharing largely similar “entrepreneurial” worldviews. We also found that the actual perceptions and strategies of the actors directly involved in entrepreneurship education practices demonstrate much higher similarity than formally declared education policies in the related countries.