Obydenkova, Anastassia and Libman, Alexander 2012. The Impact of External Factors on Regime Transition: Lessons from the Russian Regions. Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 28, Issue. 3, p. 346.
McMann, Kelly M. 2017. Measuring subnational democracy: toward improved regime typologies and theories of regime change. Democratization, p. 1.
Lankina, Tomila V. Libman, Alexander and Obydenkova, Anastassia 2016. Appropriation and Subversion. World Politics, Vol. 68, Issue. 02, p. 229.
Lankina, Tomila and Skovoroda, Rodion 2017. Regional protest and electoral fraud: evidence from analysis of new data on Russian protest. East European Politics, Vol. 33, Issue. 2, p. 253.
Libman, Alexander 2012. Sub-national political regimes and asymmetric fiscal decentralization. Constitutional Political Economy, Vol. 23, Issue. 4, p. 302.
Gilley, Bruce 2010. Democratic enclaves in authoritarian regimes. Democratization, Vol. 17, Issue. 3, p. 389.
Levitz, Philip and Pop-Eleches, Grigore 2010. Monitoring, Money and Migrants: Countering Post-Accession Backsliding in Bulgaria and Romania. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 62, Issue. 3, p. 461.
Obydenkova, Anastassia and Libman, Alexander 2013. National autocratization and the survival of sub-national democracy: Evidence from Russia’s parliamentary elections of 2011. Acta Politica, Vol. 48, Issue. 4, p. 459.
TURKINA, EKATERINA and POSTNIKOV, EVGENY 2012. Cross-border Inter-firm Networks in the European Union's Eastern Neighbourhood: Integration via Organizational Learning*. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 50, Issue. 4, p. 632.
Lucardi, Adrián 2016. Building Support From Below? Subnational Elections, Diffusion Effects, and the Growth of the Opposition in Mexico, 1984-2000. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 49, Issue. 14, p. 1855.
Lankina, Tomila 2015. The Dynamics of Regional and National Contentious Politics in Russia: Evidence from a New Dataset. Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 62, Issue. 1, p. 26.
Saikkonen, Inga A.-L. 2016. Variation in subnational electoral authoritarianism: evidence from the Russian Federation. Democratization, Vol. 23, Issue. 3, p. 437.
Gel'man, Vladimir and Lankina, Tomila 2008. Authoritarian Versus Democratic Diffusions: Explaining Institutional Choices in Russia's Local Government. Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 24, Issue. 1, p. 40.
Libman, Alexander and Obydenkova, Anastassia V. 2015. CPSU Legacies and Regional Democracy in Contemporary Russia. Political Studies, Vol. 63, Issue. 1_suppl, p. 173.
Ambrosio, Thomas 2010. Constructing a Framework of Authoritarian Diffusion: Concepts, Dynamics, and Future Research. International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 11, Issue. 4, p. 375.
Libman, Alexander 2013. Natural resources and sub-national economic performance: Does sub-national democracy matter?. Energy Economics, Vol. 37, p. 82.
Libman, Alexander 2017. Subnational political regimes and formal economic regulation: Evidence from Russian regions. Regional & Federal Studies, Vol. 27, Issue. 2, p. 127.
Obydenkova, Anastassia V. 2011. A Triangle of Russian Federalism: Democratization, (De-) Centralization, and Local Politics. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Vol. 41, Issue. 4, p. 734.
Obydenkova, Anastassia and Libman, Alexander 2015. Understanding the survival of post-Communist corruption in contemporary Russia: the influence of historical legacies. Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 31, Issue. 4, p. 304.
Giraudy, Agustina 2013. Varieties of Subnational Undemocratic Regimes: Evidence from Argentina and Mexico. Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 48, Issue. 1, p. 51.
Norkus, Zenonas 2015. Catching Up And Falling Behind: Four Puzzles After Two Decades Of Post-Communist Transformation / Doganianie Czy Pozostawanie w Tyle: Cztery Zagadki Po Dwóch Dekadach Transformacji Postkomunistycznej. Comparative Economic Research, Vol. 18, Issue. 4,
Lankina, Tomila Libman, Alexander and Obydenkova, Anastassia 2016. Authoritarian and Democratic Diffusion in Post-Communist Regions. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 49, Issue. 12, p. 1599.
Bosin, Yury V. 2012. Supporting Democracy in the Former Soviet Union: Why the Impact of US Assistance Has Been Below Expectations1. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 56, Issue. 2, p. 405.
Obydenkova, Anastassia and Swenden, Wilfried 2013. Autocracy-Sustaining Versus Democratic Federalism: Explaining the Divergent Trajectories of Territorial Politics in Russia and Western Europe. Territory, Politics, Governance, Vol. 1, Issue. 1, p. 86.
Libman, Alexander and Obydenkova, Anastassia 2013. Informal governance and participation in non-democratic international organizations. The Review of International Organizations, Vol. 8, Issue. 2, p. 221.
Skovoroda, Rodion and Lankina, Tomila 2017. Fabricating votes for Putin: new tests of fraud and electoral manipulations from Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 33, Issue. 2, p. 100.
Moreno, Luis and Obydenkova, Anastassia 2013. Federalization in Russia and Spain: The Puzzle of Reversible and Irreversible Outcomes. Regional & Federal Studies, Vol. 23, Issue. 2, p. 151.
Libman, Alexander and Obydenkova, Anastassia 2014. International Trade as a Limiting Factor in Democratization: an Analysis of Subnational Regions in Post-Communist Russia. Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 49, Issue. 2, p. 168.
Sergunin, Alexander and Joenniemi, Pertti 2017. Does the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) Mobilize the Municipal Level? City Twinning in Northern Europe. Journal of Baltic Studies, p. 1.
Matsuzato, Kimitaka 2010. Cultural geopolitics and the New Border Regions of Eurasia. Journal of Eurasian Studies, Vol. 1, Issue. 1, p. 42.
Turkina, Ekaterina and Postnikov, Evgeny 2014. From Business to Politics: Cross-Border Inter-Firm Networks and Policy Spillovers in the EU's Eastern Neighbourhood. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 52, Issue. 5, p. 1120.
The article examines the impact of geographical proximity to the West and of Western aid on democracy in Russia's regions and advances a geographic incrementalist theory of democratization. Even when national politicians exhibit authoritarian tendencies, diffusion processes and targeted foreign aid help advance democratization at the subnational level in postcommunist states and other settings. The authors make this case by conducting process-tracing case studies of democratic institution building in two northwestern border regions and statistical analysis of over one thousand projects that the European Union carried out in Russia's localities over fourteen years. They find that the EU shows commitment to democratic reform particularly in, but not limited to, regions located on its eastern frontier. Over time, this, as well as diffusion processes from the West, positively affects the democratic trajectory of the respective regions even if they had been more closed to begin with compared to other regions.
1 Kopstein Jeffrey S. and Reilly David A., “Geographic Diffusion and the Transformation of the Postcommunist World,” World Politics 53 (October 2000).
2 Freedom House, Nations in Transit, 2004, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=17&year=2004 (accessed September 20, 2006).
3 Mendelson Sarah E. and Glenn John K., eds., The Power and Limits ofNGOS: A Critical Look at Building Democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002).
4 Kopstein and Reilly (fn. 1).
5 Pipes Richard, “Flight from Freedom: What Russians Think and Want,” Foreign Affairs 83 (May-June 2004), 13, 15.
6 Snyder Richard, “Scaling Down: The Subnational Comparative Method,” Studies in Comparative International Development 36 (Spring 2001).
7 On external-domestic actor interactions, see Risse-Kappen Thomas, “Introduction,” in Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures, and International Institutions (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995); and Putnam Robert D., “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization 42 (Summer 1988).
8 O'Donnell Guillermo, Schmitter Philippe C., and Whitehead Laurence, “Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies,” in O'Donnell Guillermo, Schmitter Philippe C., and Whitehead Laurence eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule (Baltimore: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), 18.
9 See, for example, Brown Archie, “Transnational Influences in the Transition from Communism,” Post-Soviet Affairs 16 (April 2000); Whitehead Laurence, ed., The International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Giuseppe di Palma, “Legitimation from the Top to Civil Society: Politico-Cultural Change in Eastern Europe,” World Politics 44 (October 1991); Grzegorz Ekiert and Jan Kubik, “Contentious Politics in New Democracies: East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, 1989–93,” World Politics 50 (July 1998), 550.
10 Nye Joseph Jr., “The Decline of America's Soft Power: Why Washington Should Worry,” Foreign Affairs 83 (May 2004); Anheier Helmut, Glasius Marlies, and Kaldor Mary, eds., Global Civil Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Thomas Daniel C., The Helsinki Effect: International Norms, Human Rights and the Demise of Communism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001); Keck Margaret E. and Sikkink Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998); Risse-Kappen Thomas, Ropp Stephen C., and Sikkink Kathryn, eds., The Power ofHuman Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Moravcsik Andrew, “The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe,” International Organization 54 (Spring 2000).
11 For transitology debates, see Schmitter Philippe C. and Karl Terry Lynn, “The Conceptual Travels of Transitologists and Consolidologists: How Far to the East Should They Attempt to Go?” Slavic Review 53 (Spring 1994); Schmitter Philippe C. and Karl Terry Lynn, “From an Iron Curtain to a Paper Curtain: Grounding Transitologists or Students of Postcommunism?” Slavic Review 54 (Winter 1995); Cohen Stephen F., “Russian Studies without Russia,” Post-Soviet Affairs 15 (January 1999); Brown (fn. 9); Bunce Valerie, “Comparative Democratization: Big and Grounded Generalizations,” Comparative Political Studies 33 (August 2000); idem, “Lessons of the First Postsocialist Decade,” East European Politics and Societies 13 (Spring 1999); idem, “The Political Economy of Postsocialism,” Slavic Review 58 (Winter 1999); idem, “Regional Differences in Democratization: The East versus the South,” Post-Soviet Affairs 14 (July 1998); idem, “Rethinking Recent Democratization: Lessons from the Postcommunist Experience,” World Politics 55 (January 2003); Shin Doh Chull, “On The Third Wave of Democratization: A Synthesis and Evaluation of Recent Theory and Research,” World Politics 47 (October 1994); Bunce Valerie, “Should Transitologists be Grounded?” Slavic Review 54 (Spring 1995); Wiarda Howard J., “Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, and Comparative Politics: ‘Transitology’ and the Need for New Theory,” East European Politics and Societies 15 (Fall 2001); Diamond Larry and Plattner Mark F., eds., Democracy after Communism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002); King Charles, “Post-Postcommunism: Transition, Comparison, and the End of ‘Eastern Europe,’” World Politics 53 (October 2000); Carothers Thomas, “The End of the Transition Paradigm,” Journal of Democracy 13 (January 2002); Gans-Morse Jordan, “Searching for Transitologists: Contemporary Theories of Post-Communist Transitions and the Myth of a Dominant Paradigm,” Post-Soviet Affairs 20 (October-December 2004).
12 Snyder (fn. 6).
13 The other elements in his typology being “control” and “consent.” Laurence Whitehead, “Three International Dimensions of Democratization,” in Whitehead (fn. 9), 15.
14 Philippe C. Schmitter, “The Influence of the International Context upon the Choice of National Institutions and Policies in Neo-Democracies,” in Whitehead (fn. 9).
15 Whitehead (fn. 13), 21.
16 Schmitter (fn. 14), 35.
17 Ibid., 38.
18 Ibid., 28.
19 Linz Juan J. and Stepan Alfred, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 74.
20 Wiarda (fn. 11), 487.
21 Przeworski Adam, Democracy and the Market (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 191. With respect to Eastern Europe, though, he writes that geography is the main reason why it should succeed in joining the West (p. 190).
22 Przeworski Adam, Alvarez Michael A., Cheibub Jose Antonio, and Limongi Fernando, “What Makes Democracies Endure?” in Diamond Larry and Plattner Marc F., eds., The Global Divergence of Democracies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 171.
23 For theories of postcommunist democracy, see Anderson Richard, Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).
24 Fish M. Steven, “Post-Communist Subversion: Social Science and Democratization in East Europe and Eurasia,” Slavic Review 58 (Winter 1999), 794.
25 Bunce (fn. 11, 2003).
26 Bunce (fn. 11, 1999), 759, 767.
27 McFaul Michael, “The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship: Noncooperative Transitions in the Postcommunist World,” World Politics 54 (January 2002), 242. On East-West variations in civil society development, see Kubik Ian, “How to Study Civil Society: The State of the Art and What to do Next,” East European Politics and Societies 19 (Winter 2005), 100.
28 Kopstein and Reilly (fn. 1).
29 Fish M. Steven, “Democratization's Requisites: The Postcommunist Experience,” Post-Soviet Affairs 14 (July 1998), 233, 228.
30 Fish (fn. 24), 794.
31 Ibid., 797, emphasis added. On assessing the impact of external factors, see also Breslauer George W., “The Impact of the International Environment: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations,” in Dawisha Karen, ed., The International Dimension ofPost-Communist Transitions in Russia and the New States of Eurasia (Armonk, N.Y.: Sharpe, 1997), 7.
32 But see Cecilia Chessa, “State Subsidies, International Diffusion, and Transnational Civil Society: The Case of Frankfurt-Oder and Subice,” East European Politics and Societies (February 2004); Hughes James, Sasse Gwendolyn, and Gordon Claire, “Saying ‘Maybe’ to the ‘Return to Europe’: Elites and the Political Space for Euroscepticism,” European Union Politics 3 (2002); and Hale Henry E. and Taagepera Rein, “Russia: Consolidation or Collapse?” Europe-Asia Studies 54 (November 2002). For scholarship on geography as it relates to other aspects of postcommunist transformation, see Bradshaw Michael and Prendergrast Jessica, “The Russian Heartland Revisited: An Assessment of Russia's Transformation,” Eurasian Geography and Economics 46 (March 2005); Treivish Andrei, “A New Russian Heartland: The Demographic and Economic Dimension” Eurasian Geography and Economics 46 (March 2005); Lynn Nicholas J., “Geography and Transition: Reconceptualizing Systemic Change in the Former Soviet Union,” Slavic Review 58 (Winter 1999); and Hill Fiona and Gaddy Clifford G., The Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners Left Russia out in the Cold (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003).
33 Rustow Dunkwart A., “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model,” Comparative Politics 2 (April 1970).
34 Roeder Philip G., “People and States after 1989: The Political Costs of Incomplete National Revolutions,” Slavic Review 58 (Winter 1999); Bahry Donna, “The New Federalism and the Paradoxes of Regional Sovereignty in Russia,” Comparative Politics 37 (January 2005); Beissinger Mark R., “How Nationalisms Spread: Eastern Europe Adrift the Tides and Cycles of Nationalist Contention,” Social Research 63 (Spring 1996); idem, “Nationalist Violence and the State: Political Authority and Contentious Repertoires in the Former USSR,” Comparative Politics 30 (July 1998); Leff Carol Skalnik, “Democratization and Disintegration in Multinational States: The Breakup of the Communist Federations,” World Politics 51 (January 1999); Gorenburg Dmitry, “Not with One Voice: An Explanation of Intragroup Variation in Nationalist Sentiment,” World Politics 53 (October 2000); Laitin David D., Identity in Formation: The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near Abroad (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998); Treisman Daniel, “Russia's 'Ethnic Revival': The Separatist Activism of Regional Leaders in a Postcommunist Order',” World Politics 49 (January 1997); Bunce Valerie, Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); King Charles, “The Benefits of Ethnic War: Understanding Eurasia's Unrecognized States,” World Politics 53 (July 2001); Hale Henry E., “Divided We Stand: Institutional Sources of Ethnofederal State Survival and Collapse,” WorldPolitics 56 (January 2004); Giuliano Elise, “Who Determines the Self in the Politics of Self-Determination: Identity and Preference Formation in Tatarstan's Nationalist Mobilization,” Comparative Politics 32 (April 2000); Gorenburg Dmitry, Minority Ethnic Mobilization in the Russian Federation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
35 Snyder (fn. 6), 101, 98.
36 Snyder Richard, “After Neoliberalism:The Politics of Reregulation in Mexico,” World Politics 51 (January 1999), 202.
37 Fox Jonathan, “Latin America's Emerging Local Politics,” Journal of Democracy 5 (April 1994); O'Donnell Guillermo, Counterpoints: Selected Essays on Authoritarianism and Democratization (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999).
38 Heller Patrick, “Degrees of Democracy: Some Comparative Lessons from India,” World Politics 52 (July 2000), 517.
39 Putnam Robert, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). See also Linz Juan J. and Miguel Amando de, “Within-Nation Differences and Comparisons: Th e Eight Spains,” in Merritt R. L. and Rokkan S., eds., Comparing Nations: The Use of Quantitative Data in Cross-National Research (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966).
40 Golosov Grigorii, Political Parties in the Regions ofRussia: Democracy Unclaimed (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rennier, 2004); Hale Henry, “Why Not Parties? Electoral Markets, Party Substitutes, and Stalled Democratization in Russia,” Comparative Politics 37 (January 2005); Lankina Tomila V., Governing the Locals: Local Self-Government and Ethnic Mobilization in Russia (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004); Stoner-Weiss Kathryn, Local Heroes: The Political Economy ofRussian Regional Governance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997); Hahn Jeffrey W., “How Democratic Are Local Russian Deputies?” in Saivetz Carol R. and Jones Anthony, eds., In Search ofPluralism: Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1994); Henderson Sarah L., Building Democracy in Contemporary Russia: Western Supportfor Grassroots Organizations (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2003); Orttung Robert W., From Leningrad to St. Petersburg: Democratization in a Russian City (New York: St. Martin's, 1995); Mendras Marie, “How Regional Elites Preserve Their Power,” Post-SovietAffairs 15 (1999); Petrov Nikolai, “Regional Models of Democratic Development,” in McFaul Michael, Petrov Nikolai, and Ryabov Andrei, eds., Between Dictatorship and Democracy: Russian Post-Communist PoliticalReform (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005); Gelman Vladimir, Ryzhenkov Sergei, Brie Michael, Ovchinnikov Boris, and Semenov Igor, Making and Breaking Democratic Transitions: The Comparative Politics ofRussia's Regions (Lanham, Md.: Row man and Littlefield, 2003); Petro Nicolai N., Crafting Democracy: How NovgorodHas Copedwith Rapid Social Change (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 2004).
41 Petrov (fn. 40).
42 On external and subnational interactions, see Duchacek Ivo D., “Perforated Sovereignties: Towards a Typology of New Actors in International Relations,” in Michelmann Hans J. and Soldatos Panayotis, eds., Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units (Oxford: Claren-don, 1990). On how regionalism relates to globalization, see also Hooghe Liesbet and Marks Gary, “Multi-Level Governance and European Integration,” in Marks Gary, ed., Governance in Europe (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001).
43 For a discussion, see Keating Michael, “Regions and International Affairs: Motives, Opportunities and Strategies,” in Aldecoa Francisco and Keating Michael, eds., Paradiplomacy in Action: The Foreign Relations ofSubnational Governments (London: Frank Cass, 1999).
44 Deutsch Karl W., Political Community at the International Level: Problems ofDefinition and Measurement (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1954). See also Habermas Jürgen, “Toward a Cosmopolitan Europe,” Journal ofDemocracy 14 (October 2003).
45 Vachudova Milada, Europe Undivided: Democracy, Leverage, and Integration after Communism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
46 Kopstein and Reilly (fn. 1). Kopstein and Reilly also include a reference to “circumstance,” which in addition to “choice” has an impact on flows.
47 Ibid., 13.
48 Ibid., 15.
49 Ibid., 18.
50 Ibid., 21.
51 Data on international tourism for the regions were not available from Goskomstat.
52 This is based on Moscow Carnegie Center's project on sociopolitical monitoring of the regions and modeled on Freedom House surveys of democracy Petrov (fn. 40), 242–47. Results compiled by Nikolay Petrov and Aleksey Titkov are available from the Web site of the Independent Institute of Social Politics, http://atlas.socpol.ru/indexes/index_democr.shtml (accessed September 20, 2006). The moving-average time periods were also selected to correspond with the federal electoral cycles for the periods of 1999–2003 and 2000–2004.
53 Fan Jianquing and Yao Qiwei, Nonlinear Time Series: Nonparametric andParametric Methods (New York: Springer, 2003), 217; http://members.aol.com/wsiler/chap13.htm (accessed July 15, 2006).
54 The scores for democratization or democracy as applied to regional contexts were used in relative terms. Petrov's method does not imply that regions at the top of the ranking are necessarily democracies, but that relative to other regions they have higher levels of political pluralism, electoral competitiveness, media freedom, economic liberalization, civil society, judicial independence, elite turnover, and so forth. “Competitive authoritarianism” may capture well the political processes in many of Russia's regions. Levitsky Steven and Way Lucan A., “Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regime Change in Peru and Ukraine in Comparative Perspective,” Studies in Public Policy 355 (Glasgow: University of Strathclyde, 2001).
55 I.e., allowing a one-year lag. For summary statistics, see Appendix 3. The bivariate correlation matrix with all variables used in the analysis in the paper is in Appendix 5.
56 Kopstein and Reilly (fn. 1), 28–30.
57 Colton Timothy J. and McFaul Michael, Popular Choice and Managed Democracy: The Russian Elections of1999 and2000 (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2003).
58 See Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Relations with Russia, February 9, 2004, http://ec.europa.eu/comm/extemal_relations/russia/russia_docs/com04_106_en.pdf (accessed September 20, 2006). See also Gowan David, How the EU Can Help Russia (London: Centre for European Reform, 2000), 43–44. “The EU spends a large share of overall aid on democratic assistance. In 1990–99, it amounted to 19 percent. Mendelson and Glenn (fn. 3), 6.
60 See http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/russia/intro/ (accessed February 15, 2006). See Appendix 7 for a discussion of the democracy component of EU aid.
61 Haukkala Hiski, “The Relevance of Norms and Values in the EU's Russia Policy,” Working Paper 5 (Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2005), 5.
62 Concept employed in Henrikson Alan, “Facing across Borders: The Diplomacy of Bon Voisin-age,” International Political Science Review 21 (April 2000). For a list of top-10 EU regional projects participant countries, refer to Appendix 8.
63 Diez Thomas, “Europe as a Discursive Battleground: Discourse Analysis and European Integration Studies,” Cooperation and Conflict 36 (March 2001), 11. On Nordicness, see Jukarainen Pirjo, “Norden Is Dead—Long Live the Eastwards Faced Euro-North: Geopolitical Remaking of Nor-den in a Nordic Journal,” Cooperation and Conflict 34 (December 1999). On Nordic discourse, see Browning Christopher S., “Coming Home or Moving Home?” Westernizing Narratives in Finnish Foreign Policy and the Reinterpretation of Past Identities,” Cooperation and Conflict 37 (March 2002); Viatcheslav Morozov, “Russia in the Baltic Sea Region: Desecuritization or Deregionalization?” Cooperation and Conflict 39 (September 2004). On the role of Nordic states in world affairs, see Ingebritsen Christine, “Norm Entrepreneurs: Scandinavia's Role in World Politics,” Cooperation and Conflict 37 (March 2002).
64 While border is “an unambiguous concept referring to territorial, geographic and recognizable borders of the union denned by membership,” the “boundaries differ as the extension of boundaries does not require widening the union but application of governance patterns below the membership line.” Filtenborg Mette Sicard, Gaenzle Stefan, and Johansson Elisabeth, “An Alternative Theoretical Approach to EU Foreign Policy: ‘Network Governance’ and the Case of the Northern Dimension Initiative,” Cooperation and Conflict 37 (December 2002), 394, 389.
65 Reference to an article that appeared in Helsingin Sanomat. Browning (fn. 63), 57. “The Wild East” reference also appeared in the book by Sergeev Victor M., The Wild East: Crime and Lawlessness in Post-Communist Russia (London: Sharpe, 1998).
66 See http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/policy_en.htm (accessed February 11,2005). On the Northern Dimension, see Christopher S. Browning, “Competing or Complementary Policies? Understanding the Relationship between the NEI and NDI,” Working Paper, (Copenhagen: Copenhagen Peace Research Institute, 2002); and Lange Peer H., “Die Nordliche Dimension: Europaische Energie Versorgung und Sicherheit,” Internationale Politik 1 (January 2001). The U.S. under Clinton came up with a similar initiative. See Browning Christopher S., “A Multi-Dimensional Approach to Regional Cooperation: The EU States and the Northern European Initiative,” European Security 10 (Winter 2001). On approaches to security in the region, see Archer Clive, “Nordic Swans and Baltic Cygnets,” Cooperation and Conflict 34 (March 1999); Mouritzen Hans, “Security Communities in the Baltic Sea Region,” Security Dialogue 32 (September 2001); Spanger Hans-Joachim, “Moral versus Interesse? Die Ambivalenz westlicher Demokratiehilfe fur Rufiland,” Osteuropa 52 (July 2002).
67 http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/consultations/cswp_tacis.htm (accessed February 15,2006). For an in-depth analysis of EU aid motives in Russia's regions as they relate to other factors, such as foreign investment, see Lankina Tomila V., “Explaining European Union Aid to Russia,” Post-SovietAffairs 21 (December 2005).
68 On geographic conceptions of Europe, see Webber Mark, ed., Russia and Europe: Conflict or Cooperation? (London: Macmillan, 2000); Newmann Iver B., Russia and the Idea ofEurope:A Study in Identity and International Relations (London: Routledge, 1996); idem, Uses of the Other: The “East” in European Identity Formation (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999); Wallace William, “From the Atlantic to the Bug, from the Arctic to the Tigris? The Transformation of the EU and NATO,” InternationalAffairs 76 (July 2000); Baranovsky Vladimir, “Russia: A Part of Europe or Apart from Europe?” International Affairs 76 (July 2000).
69 The first projects were conducted in 1992. Numbers of projects conducted by year: 1992: 31; 1993: 49; 1994: 81; 1995: 88; 1996: 90; 1997: 108; 1998: 135; 1999: 91; 2000: 53; 2001: 119; 2002: 124; 2003: 89; 2004: 58; and 2005: 2. Source: compiled by author from project data available from http://18.104.22.168/tacis/en/index.asphttp://www.tacis-lso-rf.org/en/objectives.asp (accessed No -vember 15, 2005). Project data for 2003–5 suggest that there have been fewer projects. Alexander Berdino, head of the Petrozavodsk LSO maintained that there is often a time lag before data on projects i n a given LSO are added to the TACIS Web site database. His data for the Petrozavodsk LSO show that projects running in 2004—5 (18) are consistent with averages for the last years. TACIS funding instruments for Russia are currently being restructured; however, these changes would not be reflected in the 2003—5 data because the projects had been approved earlier. Author interview with Alexander Berdino, Petrozavodsk, January 18, 2006
70 Petrov (fn. 40). Aspects of democratic development, such as openness and capacity of NGOs, are often themselves products of Western aid. Henderson (fn. 40); Mendelson and Glenn (fn. 3); Lisa Mclntosh Sundstrom, “Strength from Without? Transnational Actors and NG O Development i n Russia” (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 2001); author interview wit h Venedikt Dostovalov and Nadezhda Donovskaya, NGO Veche, Pskov, August 27,2004. Other studies also found similar patterns of aid going to areas that are relatively well off. Biekart Kees, The Politics of Civil Society Building: European Private Aid Agencies and Democratic Transitions in Central America (Utrecht, Netherlands: International Books, 1999), 298.
71 On aid motives, see Jupille Joseph, Caporaso James A., and Checkel Jeffrey T., “Integrating Institutions: Rationalism, Constructivism, and the Study of the European Union,” Comparative Political Studies 36 (February-March 2003); Schimmelfennig Frank, “Strategic Interaction in a Community Environment: The Decision to Enlarge the EU to the East,” Comparative Political Studies 36 (February-March 2003); and Schraeder Peter J., Hook Steven W., and Taylor Bruce, “Clarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle: A Comparison of American, Japanese, French, and Swedish Aid Flows,” World Politics 50 (January 1998).
72 Petrov (fn. 40). On Islam and political authority patterns worldwide, see Fish M. Steven, “Islam and Authoritarianism,” World Politics 55 (October 2002).
73 Aginsk-Buryatsk, Komy-Permyak, Nenetsk, Taymyr-Dolgano-Nenetsk, Ust-Orda-Buryat, Evenk, Yamalo-Nenetsk, Khanty-Mansiysk, Koryak Autonomous Districts.
74 Glenn W. Harrison, “House Money Effects in Public Good Experiments: Comment,” Experimental Economics, forthcoming (April 2006), 6, fn. 7.
75 The two-year lag with moving average aid has the highest coefficient among our aid measures. This bolsters our finding that aid allocated in later years might be a better predictor of democratic outcomes than that allocated in earlier years. Likewise, later openness indicators might be better predictors of democracy than measures going back further in time, though due to data limitations stemming from only two time points for the democracy score, caution should be exercised in making inferences about the respective temporal lags. For illustrative purposes, results from an OLS regression with two-year lags are presented in Appendix 4.
76 Parts of what is now the Republic of Karelia formerly belonging to Finland were incorporated into the USSR during the 1939–44 Soviet-Finnish wars.
77 After St. Petersburg and Sverdlovsk oblasts. Petrov (fn. 40). It was also found to have some of the lowest reported occurrence of corruption among Russian regions. Dminio Phyllis and Orttung Robert, “Explaining Patterns of Corruption in the Russian Regions,” World Politics 57 (July 2005).
78 http://www.gov.karelia.ru/gov/News/2004/02/0224_11.html (accessed February 21,2005).
79 Biography available at http://www.gov.karelia.ru/gov/Power/Ministry/Relations/shlamin_e.html (accessed February 21, 2005).
80 The ministry was disbanded subsequently and Shlyamin now works in Finland.
81 Ilkka Liikanen, “Euregio Karelia: A Model for Cross-Border Cooperation with Russia?” Karelian Institute, University ofjoensuu. http://www.iiss.org/rrpfreepdfs.php?scID=65 (accessed June 5, 2005).
82 Henderson (fn. 40), 152.
83 It also has representative offices of the Nordic Council of Ministers, the Swedish-Karelian Business and Information Centre, and TACIS.
84 http://www.gov.karelia.ru (accessed May 15, 2005).
85 Author interview with Tat'yana Klekachova, executive director, Swedish-Karelian Business and Information Center, Petrozavodsk, July 9, 2004.
86 Vladimir Gel'man, Sergei Ryzhenkov, Yelena Belokurova, and Nadezhda Borisova, Avtonomiya Hi kontrol'? Reforma mestnoy vlasti v gorodakh Rossii, 1991–2001 [Autonomy or control? Reform of local power in cities of Russia], (St. Petersburg: Letniy sad, 2002), 245, 230, 231. On civil society in Karelia, see Yelena Belokurova and Natalya Yargomskaya, “Do i posle Grazhdanskogo foruma: grazh-danskoye obshchestvo v regionakh Severo-Zapada,” in Nikolay Petrov, ed., Grazhdanskoye obshchestvo i politicheskiyeprotsessy v regionakh, Working Paper 3 (Moscow: Moscow Carnegie Center, 2005).
87 Author interview with Andrey Patsinkovskiy, head of administration, Prionezhskiy rayon, Petro-zavodsk, January 17, 2006.
88 RFE/RL Newsline, November 9,1998.
89 Pskov also differed from its other neighbor Novgorod, since the mid-1990s a magnet for investors and donors.
90 Gulnara Roll, Tatiana Maximova, and Eero Mikenberg, “The External Relations of the Pskov Region of the Russian Federation,” Working Paper 63 (Kiel, Germany: Schleswig-Holstein Institute for Peace Research) http://www.schiff.uni-kiel.de/pdf_files/063.pdf (accessed February 15,2006).
91 Author interview with Olga Vassilenko, chairperson, NGO Chudskoe Project, Pskov, August 26, 2004. Another unsuccessful applicant in 1998 was the Fund for Support of Civic Initiative. Author interview with Dmitriy Antoniuk, Pskov, August 26, 2004.
92 Author interview with Andrey Balandin, consultant, Committee for Foreign Affairs, Pskov Region Administration, August 26, 2004.
93 http://www.pskov.ru/en/economics/external_constraint (accessed February 15, 2006).
94 Author interview with Valentina Chaplinskaya, EC delegation in St. Petersburg, July 13, 2004.
95 Belokurova and Yargomskaya (fn. 86) 27.
96 http://invest.pskov.ru/i_prac.php?action=show&id=1078dang=en (accessed February 15,2006). See also “Baltiyskoye napravleniye: god spustya posle vstupleniya Estonii i Latvii v YeEs,” April 27, 2005, http://pln-pskov.ru/arhiv/pragmatika/22290.html (accessed September 20, 2006).
97 “Interv'yu s gubernatorom,” official Web site of the Pskov oblast administration, November 1, 2005, http://www.pskov.ru/ru/interview/governor/26 (accessed September 20, 2006). These economic processes are linked to broader patterns of economic interaction in the region influenced by EU expansion, such as a surge in Finnish investments into Estonia in the 1990s and competition and labor costs eventually leading Estonian businesses to invest into Pskov.
99 Krasnoyarsk also has an eight-point increase in the democracy score, http://atlas.socpol.ru/indexes/index_democr.shtml (accessed September 20, 2006).
100 Kopstein and Reilly (fn. 1), 24.
101 Vachudova (fn. 45); Kopstein and Reilly (fn. 1).
102 Schraeder, Hook, and Taylor (fn. 71).
103 Admittedly, not every Western aid project achieves its intended goals. Carothers Thomas, Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1999); Wedel Janine, Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998); Henderson Sarah L., “Selling Civil Society: Western Aid and the Non-Governmental Organization Sector in Russia,” Comparative Political Studies 35 (March 2002); Mendelson and Glenn (fn. 3); Weigle Marcia A., Russia's Liberal Project: State-Society Relations in the Transitionfrom Communism (University Park: Penn State University Press, 1999).
104 The reference is to a federal law regulating funding to NGOs, adopted in December 2005.
105 This issue has been a subject of conflict between the Karelian government and federal agencies.
106 Huntington Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), 139.
107 Mouritzen (fn. 66), 306
* The authors thank Assen Assenov, Archie Brown, Ashwini Chhatre, Joan DeBardeleben, Jonathan Fox, Vladimir Gel'man, Dmitry Gorenburg, Arman Grigorian, Christian Haerpfer, Henry Hale, Pal Kolsto, Jeffrey Kopstein, Alvaro Morcillo-Laiz, David Nickles, Robert Orttung, Nikolai Petrov, Alex Pravda, Jesse Ribot, Blair Ruble, Ira Straus, Bill Tompson, Alexandra Vacroux, and Stephen Whitefield, as well as participants of the George Washington University Postcommunist Politics Social Science Workshop for comments on the paper and paper-based presentations or help with data analysis. We are also grateful to Meng Liu and Rachel Treffeisen for their excellent research assistance, as well as to the staff of EC RELEX and Europe-Aid offices in Brussels and to TACIS Local Support Offices in Karelia and St. Petersburg for facilitating field research. Tomila Lankina gratefully acknowledges the support of the scholars and staff of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. Finally, we thank the anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions for improving the article. Any errors are solely our own.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.