Przejdź do głównego menu Przejdź do sekcji głównej Przejdź do stopki
SP baner

Tom 48 Nr 4 (2020)

Droga do Europy: doświadczenia polskie i ukraińskie

Ład instytucjonalny a bezpieczeństwo narodowe w podzielonej Europie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35757/STP.2020.48.4.05
Przesłane: 14 lutego 2021
Opublikowane: 25 stycznia 2021

Abstrakt

In this article, we develop an analytical framework drawing upon Acemoglu’s and Robinson’s theory that links developmental potential of the state to its political and economic institutions (inclusive and extractive), and that of Etel Solingen’s relating type of governing coalitions to foreign policy strategies and regional politics. States that adopted inclusive institutions tend to be governed by internationalist coalitions and their external interactions are based on cooperation, whereas those with extractive institutions tend to pursue adversarial regional strategies. Using the developed analytical framework, the article addresses the following three questions:
(1) How has the choice of a strategy for dismantling state socialism shaped the transition towards market-based democracy?
(2) What impact did choices made have upon patterns of intra-European relations in terms of cooperation and confrontation?
(3) What factors may explain differences in respective trajectories and external strategies?
The post-communist systemic transformation took place in an international environment favouring cooperation with the elites of the former Soviet bloc in introducing institutional changes. Western friendly policies and assistance helped internationalist coalitions maintain power but had no impact on the transition from the statist-nationalist-confessional coalition, even when it was weak. Despite initial attempts and strong encouragement from international community, Russia failed to establish inclusive political and economic institutions. The prevalence of the statist-national coalition adversely affected transition processes in its immediate vicinity – primarily in the former ‘Slavic republics’, such as Ukraine and Belarus.

Bibliografia

  1. Acemoglu D., Robinson J.A., Dlaczego narody przegrywają. Źródła władzy, pomyślności i ubóstwa, Zysk i S-ka, Poznań 2014.
  2. De Tocqueville A., Democracy in America, vol. 1, Henry Reeves text as revised by Bowen and Philips Bradley, Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1945, s. 434.
  3. Giles K., Hanson Ph., et al., The Russian Challenge, Chatham House Report, May 2015, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280611569_Russia_Toolkit.
  4. Gilpin R., The Political Economy of International Relations, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J. 1987, s. 129–130.
  5. Huntington S., Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Simon Schuster, New York 1996.
  6. Hurak I., D’Anieri P., The Evolution of Russian Political Tactics in Ukraine, „Problems of Post-Communism” 2020, https:/doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2020.1819162.
  7. Jowitt K., Soviet Neotraditionalism: The Political Corruption of a Leninist Regime, „Soviet Studies” 1983, nr 35 (July).
  8. Kamiński A.Z., Kamiński B., Siły motoryczne rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego: refleksje na kanwie koncepcji Acemoglu – Robinsona, „Kultura i Społeczeństwo” 2015, nr 4.
  9. Kamiński A.Z., Kamiński B., Pakt faustowski: ekonomia polityczna stosunków białorusko-polskich, w: Polska: sąsiedztwo bliższe i dalsze, red. R. Żelichowski, ISP PAN, Warszawa 2019, s. 365–395.
  10. Keenan E., Moscovite Political Folkways, „The Russian Review” 1986, nr 45(2).
  11. Kennan G.F., Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin, The American Library, New York 1962, s. 366.
  12. Keohane R.O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton University Press, Carnegie Moscow Center, Princeton, N.J. 1984, s. 111–116, 137-138.
  13. Klyamkin I., Shevtsova L., The Omnipotent and Impotent Government: The Evolution of Political System in Post-Communist Russia, Gendalf, Moskva 1999.
  14. Koneczny F., Cywilizacja bizantyjska, Wydawnictwo im. Romana Dmowskiego, Londyn 1973, s. 348.
  15. Koneczny F., O wielości cywilizacji, Capital Sp. z o.o., Warszawa 2015, s. 339–340.
  16. Kuriański M., Feliksa Konecznego (1862–1949) charakterystyka Siedmiu Cywilizacji, część 1: Cywilizacje Starożytne, „Legnickie Studia Teologiczne-Historyczne”, nr 1(18), s. 121.
  17. Mearsheimer J.J., The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, W.W. Norton Company, New York 2001.
  18. Mearsheimer J.J., The Great Delusion. Liberal Dreams and International Realities, Yale University Press, New Haven 2018.
  19. Pipes R., Russia under the Old Regime, Penguin Books, London 1995.
  20. Skocpol T., States and Social Revolutions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1979.
  21. Solingen E., Regional Orders at Century’s Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1998.
  22. Waltz K.N., Struktura teorii stosunków międzynarodowych, przeł. R. Wloch, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa 2010.
  23. Weber M., Polityka jako zawód i powołanie, przedmowa, wstęp i opracowanie Z. Krasnodębski, przeł. A. Kopacki i P. Dybel, Fundacja im. Stefana Batorego i Wyd. ZNAK, Kraków–Warszawa 1998.
  24. Wendt A., Społeczna teoria stosunków międzynarodowych, przeł. Włodzimierz Derczyński, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa 2008.
  25. Wilson A., Virtual Politics: Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World, Yale University Press, New Haven–London 2005.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.