Pandemic Politics in Eurasia:Roadmap for a New Research Subfield

© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. The sudden onset of COVID-19 has challenged many social scientists to proceed without a robust theoretical and empirical foundation upon which to build. Addressing this challenge, particularly as it pertains to Eurasia, our multinational group of scholars draws on past and ongoing research to suggest a roadmap for a new pandemic politics research subfield. Key research questions include not only how states are responding to the new coronavirus, but also reciprocal interactions between the pandemic and society, political economy, regime type, center-periphery relations, and international security. The Foucauldian concept of “biopolitics” holds out particular promise as a theoretical framework

Pandemic Politics in Eurasia:Roadmap for a New Research Subfield

The sudden onset of the coronavirus pandemic has challenged many scholars of the social sciences to proceed in the absence of a robust theoretical research foundation upon which to build. This article seeks to help scholars meet this challenge, particularly as it pertains to Eurasia, through bringing together a multinational group of scholars in order to develop the roadmap for a new pandemic politics research subfield. It begins with a discussion of how states are responding to COVID-19 before moving into an exploration of reciprocal interactions between the pandemic and society, political economy, regime type, center-periphery relations, and international security. Finally, it discusses the potential novel contributions of a theoretical foundation rooted in the Foucauldian concept of “biopolitics.” Ultimately, we hope to spark an ongoing conversation regarding how political science and the social sciences more broadly can be used to understand the impacts of the pandemic and inform policymaking amidst the current and potential future pandemics

Border Demarcation, Cross-Border Migration, and Interethnic Hostility in the Russian Far East

The article examines the effects of border dispute resolution and cross-border migration in Primorskii Krai, Russian Federation in the early 2000s on ethnic stereotypes of the Chinese, on Russia-China relations, and on policy preferences toward Chinese migration among the Russian border province population. This is the first statistical comparison of two original opinion surveys designed by the author and carried out by the Institute for History, Anthropology, and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East in 2000 (N=1,010) and 2005 (N=650). Focusing on 387 respondents interviewed in both years, it examines whether and how the same individuals changed their views on Chinese migration after a "treatment" period bookended by the departure of Primorskii's anti-demarcation treaty governor in 2001 and the Russian State Duma's ratification of the Russia-China border treaty in 2005. All statistically significant attitude changes were toward a more positive perception of migration and Russia-China relations. This positive shift was more pronounced among respondents in border counties and among older respondents who had been longer exposed to anti-Chinese official discourses since the Sino-Soviet split in the early 1960s - regardless of per-capita scale of Chinese and Korean migration. In addition, local Russians who visited China more often between 2000 and 2005, but not before 2000, also viewed Chinese migration more positively. These findings provide evidence that formal settlement of border disputes significantly improves immigration attitudes in neighboring states

Blocs, States, and Borderlands : Explaining Russia's Selective Territorial Revisionism

Variation in post-Soviet Russia’s borderland policies challenges empirical findings in International Relations that associate militarized territorial revisionism with economic and demographic incentives and the absence of border settlements. This study offers additional insights from game theory. First, iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma tournaments imply that state territorial value is interactive – i.e., dependent on interaction frequency across groups of states. Second, the collective action logic shows how a revisionist state may discount international constraints by engaging in “corporate raiding” of a status quo powers coalition. Finally, the minimal winning coalitions theory explains why military power may be restricted to producing controlled borderlessness to influence neighbors without territory holding costs. A model integrating these insights and a case study of Russia’s border policies with Georgia and Azerbaijan suggests that the interactive dynamic between the EU and the Eurasian Union could be decisive in shaping and reshaping Eurasia’s interstate borders over the coming decade

Regionalism of Russia's Foreign Policy in the 1990s: A Case of "Reversed Anarchy"

The Donald W. Treadgold Papers publication series was created to honor a great teacher and scholar. Donald W. Treadgold was professor of history and international studies at the University of Washington from 1949 to 1993. During that time he wrote seven books, on of which - Twentieth Century Russia - went into eight editions. He was twice editor of Slavic Review, the organ of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, and received the AAASS Award for Distinguished Contributions to Slavic Studies, as well as the AAASS Award for Destinguished Service. Professor Treadgold molded several generations of Russian historians and contributed enormously to the field of Russian history. He was, in other ways as well, an inspiration to all who knew him. The Treadgold Papers series was created in 1993 on the occaision of Professor Treadgold's retirement, on the initiative of Professor Daniel Waugh. Professor Treadgold passed away in December 1994. The series is dedicated to the memory of a great man, publishing papers in those areas which were close to his heart