权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Ukrainian Political Regimes, the Donbas conflict, and Decentralisation in Comparative Perspective

比较视角下的乌克兰政治体制、顿巴斯冲突和权力下放

基本信息

批准号：
ES/W005573/1
负责人：
金额：
$ 10.6万
依托单位：
University of Portsmouth
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Fellowship
财政年份：
2021
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2021 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FW005573%2F1
关键词：
Ukrainian Political Regimes Donbas conflict

项目摘要

For the article on Ukraine and Syria, the new research strand I will develop involves a structured comparison between the regimes of Bashar al-Assad and Viktor Yanukovych. I will demonstrate how incumbent authoritarian regimes can deploy groups of civilians to disperse political protest that threatens to dislodge the regime and disrupt the status quo. A comparison will be drawn between the Syrian Shabiha and Titushki in Ukraine. I will argue that if an authoritarian regime is truly authoritarian, such use of armed civilians should be systematic, violent and clearly linked to the state.Through this comparison, I will question whether Yanukovych's regime was truly authoritarian as claimed by some analysts. Once it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, the article will generate impact on the academic community who work globally on the resilience of authoritarianism. I will use a novel comparison across space and time. I have already published a short version of this article for an academic blog Strife, which will serve as a framework. I will conduct interviews with activists in Ukraine and Syria (remotely) asking them specifically about the use of Shabiha and Titushki. The article on the USA-Ukraine comparison will provide a detailed discussion of how elite compromises were worked out in the two countries in the respective antebellum periods and how they helped forestall conflict. I will provide a discussion of the similarities between the two cases and build a theory of "oligarchic peace" that explains the outcome of peace. The decentralisation reform in Ukraine (2014 - present) is a new phenomenon that was a direct product of the events of 2014 investigated in my thesis. Case studies of countries that have pursued decentralisation to resolve conflicts have yielded mixed results. One school led by Lijphart (1977) and more recently by Miodownik (e.g. with et al., 2004 and with Cartrite, 2010) argues that decentralisation contributes to political stability. Another school led by Roeder argues that decentralisation gives groups resources to engage in secessionism undermining stability. The two main research questions of this research that will follow after this fellowship are: (1) Does decentralisation contribute to political stability across Ukraine? and (2) Is Ukraine's decentralisation model attractive to the residents of the non-government controlled area of the Donbas and, therefore, is it a viable model for conflict resolution? I will analyse the reform by looking at the Kharkiv and Odesa regions in south-eastern Ukraine. I will build on my doctoral work and test new hypotheses pertaining to how decentralisation affects local protest and the behaviours of local elites. The project will draw on digital and print newspaper reports as well as on interviews and my own public opinion survey. It will contribute to the growing case studies literature on the effects of decentralisation on political stability in fragile contexts.The puzzle at the heart of my monograph "The Donbas Conflict in Ukraine: Elites, Protest, and Partition", to be published by August 2021, focuses on how the behaviours of local elites and activists definitively contributed to the conflict outcome in Donets'k and the peace outcome in Kharkiv. Drawing on the insights from the literature on informal politics, networks and patronage in the post-Soviet space, I have explained why the elites in Donets'k allowed radical pro-Russian activism in their region while their counterparts in Kharkiv did the opposite. To support the discussion, I have drawn on the rich evidence from newspaper reports, interviews, social media, videos and blogs in Russian, Ukrainian and English. The book contributes to our understanding of Ukrainian politics, the literature on the Donbas conflict, and the broader literature on elites and conflicts. The book is also important for the broader policy community, especially when it comes to networks and budgetary politics in Ukraine

对于关于乌克兰和叙利亚的文章，我将开发的新研究方向涉及巴沙尔·阿萨德和维克多·亚努科维奇政权之间的结构化比较。我将展示现任独裁政权如何部署平民群体来驱散有可能推翻政权并破坏现状的政治抗议。将叙利亚的 Shabiha 和乌克兰的 Titushki 进行比较。我认为，如果一个独裁政权是真正的独裁政权，那么这种对平民武装的使用应该是系统性的、暴力的，并且与国家有明确的联系。通过这种比较，我将质疑亚努科维奇政权是否真的像一些分析人士所声称的那样是独裁政权。一旦在同行评审的期刊上发表，这篇文章将对全球研究威权主义弹性的学术界产生影响。我将使用跨空间和时间的新颖比较。我已经为学术博客 Strife 发布了本文的简短版本，它将作为一个框架。我将（远程）采访乌克兰和叙利亚的活动人士，具体询问他们关于 Shabiha 和 Titushki 的使用情况。关于美国和乌克兰的比较的文章将详细讨论两国在各自战前时期如何达成精英妥协以及它们如何帮助预防冲突。我将讨论这两个案例之间的相似之处，并建立一个“寡头和平”理论来解释和平的结果。乌克兰的权力下放改革（2014 年至今）是一种新现象，是我论文中研究的 2014 年事件的直接产物。对寻求权力下放来解决冲突的国家进行的案例研究得出的结果好坏参半。由 Lijphart (1977) 和最近由 Miodownik（例如 with et al., 2004 和 with Cartrite, 2010）领导的一派认为，权力下放有助于政治稳定。罗德领导的另一所学派认为，权力下放为团体提供了从事破坏稳定的分裂主义的资源。这项研究的两个主要研究问题将在本次奖学金之后进行：（1）权力下放是否有助于整个乌克兰的政治稳定？ (2) 乌克兰的权力下放模式对顿巴斯非政府控制地区的居民有吸引力吗？因此，它是解决冲突的可行模式吗？我将通过观察乌克兰东南部的哈尔科夫和敖德萨地区来分析改革。我将在我的博士论文的基础上测试关于权力下放如何影响当地抗议和当地精英行为的新假设。该项目将利用数字和印刷报纸报道以及采访和我自己的民意调查。它将为越来越多关于脆弱环境下权力下放对政治稳定影响的案例研究文献做出贡献。我的专着《乌克兰的顿巴斯冲突：精英、抗议和分裂》将于 2021 年 8 月出版，其核心谜题重点关注当地精英和活动人士的行为如何最终促成顿涅茨克的冲突结果和哈尔科夫的和平结果。借鉴有关后苏联时期非正式政治、网络和赞助的文献的见解，我解释了为什么顿涅茨克的精英们允许在他们的地区出现激进的亲俄激进主义，而哈尔科夫的同行则相反。为了支持讨论，我利用了俄语、乌克兰语和英语的报纸报道、采访、社交媒体、视频和博客中的丰富证据。这本书有助于我们理解乌克兰政治、有关顿巴斯冲突的文献以及有关精英和冲突的更广泛的文献。这本书对于更广泛的政策界也很重要，特别是在乌克兰的网络和预算政治方面