How transition paths differ:enterprise performance in Russia and China

We use enterprise survey data to analyse and contrast the determinants of enterprise performance in China and Russia. We find that in China, enterprise growth and efficiency is associated with rapid increases in factor inputs, and with ownership to a lesser extent, but not greatly correlated with industry-specific or institutional factors. However, in Russia, enterprise growth is not associated with improvements in factor quantity (except for labor) or quality. The main determinants of company performance are instead demand and institutional factors at a regional level. The findings are robust across a variety of specifications.

Can grassroots organisations and NGOs substitute for the State in Russia? A review of the literature and suggestions for a future research agenda

The paper investigates the relationship between civil society and the state. Using the unique lens of the state-substitution (the process whereby civil society organisations take on government roles) the paper reviews the literature and highlights three key issues: - Civil society is weak in Russia and its contribution to democracy development is limited - The Russian State has be withdrawing from its responsibilities to care for its citizens, leaving a field of opportunity for civil society organisations. - The state has subsequently began to encroach on civil society organisations mainly through the use of legislative changes and government sponsored organisations These trends have far reaching implications for civil society organisations, in particular those which take up or take over government roles and responsibilities. The literary evidence shows that the Russian state leverages its political power into the sphere of civil society similar to how it regained control over the economy in the early 2000s. This Russian variant of civil society attributes the state as a key player in all societal spheres.

Adjusting to institutional realities: the 2006 NGO law and its effects on civil society in Russia

Key findings: The paper investigates the impact that the legislative changes of 2006 had on civil society in Russia. This legislation has change the regulatory environment in which civil society actors such as Third Sector Organisations operate. Using the past development of civil society organisations as well as insights about how the institutional environment influences this article illustrates: - the undemocratic nature and motivation of the law and how it exploits the structural weaknesses of civil society - how Third Sector Organisations rationalise and translate the legislative changes into their organisational realities and how this changed or did not change their behaviour - the shift in state-civil society relations away from liberal co-existence into more hierarchical arrangements were Third Sector Organisations are subordinated to the state. These trends have far reaching implications for civil society. The empirical evidence shows that state now manages civil society to meet its own political ends. It also shows that organisations in the field welcome the more engage and directive nature of the Russian state. Why is this important? What does it mean for business or other users? Are there policy implications? The research is important as it shows how Third Sector Organisations have reacted to the legislative changes. Further it provides a basis for interpretation of the potential future development of civil society. Additional it highlights how the continuous process of democratisation in transition economies sometimes might come unstuck. In particular donor agencies will need to consider these trends when disturbing funding to Third Sector Organisations.

Towards conflict or cooperation? The Ukraine crisis and EU-Russia relations

The Ukraine crisis and Russia’s contribution to it have raised numerous concerns regarding the possible emergence of a new ‘Cold War’ in Europe. At the same time, Ukraine’s popular choice and enthusiasm for European integration expressed clearly on the streets of Kyiv seem to have caused Russia to adopt a (neo)revisionist attitude. In this context, relations between Russia and the EU (and the West for that matter) have been limited, frozen and directed on path towards conflict. This article analyses how the traditional dichotomy between conflict and cooperation in EU–Russia relations was replaced by conflict in the context of the Ukraine crisis. The article contends that the breakdown of the symbolic and peaceful cohabitation between the EU and Russia has been influenced by the fact that both actors have chosen to ignore key tensions that characterized their post-Cold War interactions. The article identifies three such tensions: the first emphasizes divisions between EU member states and their impact on coagulating a common EU approach towards Russia; the second (geopolitical) tension highlights the almost mutually exclusive way in which the EU and Russia’s security interests have developed in the post-Soviet space; finally, the third contends that a clash of values and worldviews between the EU and Russia makes conflict virtually unavoidable.