Institutional Isomorphism in the Slavic Core of the Commonwealth of Independent States

1. Institutional Isomorphism in the Slavic Core • of the Commonwealth of Independent States A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Change During Post-Communist Transition • General Background • Research Questions • Theory • Methodology & Structure of PhD • Conclusion

2. General Background • implosion of the Soviet Regime  NIS freed of FP directives of isolationist Soviet bloc  they developed bi- & multilateral ties with both West and East post-Soviet territory much more complex picture than before. • Still, several developments along distinct lines • - Central Europe made unambiguous Western choice --> by striving to become part of the Euro-Atlantic security structures e.g. EU bid • - Eastern Europe more complicated. region with divergent domestic and FP choices. • e.g.: CIS (1991) --> conjoins countries with diverse policy goals in 1 organisation • - Some member states (e.g. Ukr): CIS = elegant solution (civilised divorce) • - Other members (e.g. Rus&Bel): main purpose: co-ordinating econ & secur. policies among Soviet successor states. Russia: CIS = framework to re-assert leading role in post-Soviet region. • --> after 10 yrs : instit development of CIS has stalled - integration efforts dissipated over CIS area. Members involved in host of sub-regional initiatives: GUUAM, Eurasian Econ Community, Union Rus & Bel, Common Econ Zone. • Some countries are profiling themselves clearly (Belarus), some pretend to do so (Ukraine)

3. Research Questions • So since 1991:evolution : from unitary Soviet state --> area with a variety of foreign policy goals ranging from EU membership to regional integration. • some academics (Zatulin & Migranian) identified this as geopolitical pluralism in the former USSR. observed in different levels of state and society: • -divergent policy preferences of the former Soviet states • - in different political models on which the newly independent states based themselves during transition • - diversity in economic transition and trade links. • I want to focus on how this geopolitical pluralism is reflected in the institutional change of the newly independent states. I focus on 3 countries who are left on the periphery of the EU: Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. • Rus, Bel & Ukr each developed own pol & instit transition. • Especially this divergence in FP preferences can lead to the question whether instit. in these 3 countries have been adapted to the institutional structures of the EU or the CIS. • More specifically, the core question of this research is: • ‘Which mechanisms within the political institutions of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus generate ‘isomorphism’ toward the European Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States, and what is the rationale behind the divergent foreign policy orientations in the Slavic Core of the CIS?’

4. Theory • I depart from the school of new institutionalism.  I define inst as: a formal organisation that determines behaviour, interests, and belief-systems and that structures relations between different groups in the national community and international order. • most applications of new instit struggle with aspect of instit change. questions why inst change, how this process develops & if certain models of inst change can be distinguished: largely ignored & left unanswered. (Some attempts e.g. normative instit. Yet particularly sociol institutionalism - more specif organisational analysis offers us a basic model for explaining inst change • So my theoretical framework is based on one specific application of org. analysis, namely instit isomorphism • - first put forward by W Powell & P DiMaggio in 1983 - P&D describe instit change as instit or org becoming increasingly similar (isomorph) • - But they add that org become more similar without necessarily becoming more efficient. most impt goal not efficiency but obtaining legitimacy. P&D stress actor’s belief that legitimacy stems from conforming to general rules & norms; isomorphism

5. Inst Isomorphism in CEECs • Similar processes of isomorphism can be witnessed in the post-communist transition of CEECs  demise of Soviet instit created certain void that called for inst-l reinterpretation. Looking East and West for inspiration for reforms is inherent to the transition processes. (eg EU integration of Central Europe, adapting to acquis communautaire) • It is the aim of this PhD to analyse the process of institutional change in Slavic Core of CIS from the theoretical perspective of inst isomorphism. More specifically, I want to assess how isomorphism surfaces through different stages in the instit of the selected countries. Secondly I want to look deeper into the reasons of isomorphism. • I translated these 2 aims into 2 impt distinct stages that lead to inst isomorphism. • first stage: comprises institutional definition towards org field • 2nd stage: homogenisation or isomorphism of institutions

6. Stage 1: Institutional Definition towards organisational fields • Def. org field: consists of org that constitute recognised area of institutional life, e.g. regulatory agencies, a legal system, or a supranational org. • first step: examine institutional definition of 3 cases towards org fields surrounding them. how do instit of R, U & B define themselves on level ofFP towards EU & CIS I chose inst involved in drafting, reflecting on & implementing FP: pres admin, MFA, parl 2.) Secondly, also empirical analysis of inst definition through a systematic assessment of 4 org characteristics  char. contribute to deepening relations between the centre& periphery of the org. field  also via interviews (see later in presentation) • SLIDE 4 org characteristics: (1) an increased interaction among organisations in the field (2) the emergence of sharply defined interorganisational structures of dominance and coalition (3) an increase in information load with which institutions and organisations in the field must contend (4) the development of a mutual awareness among participants in a set of organisations that they are involved in a common enterprise

7. Stage 2: Institutional Isomorphism • Stage of Isomorphism. 2nd stage of research will consist of a thorough evaluation of instit change / redesigning in Ukr,Russia, Bel.  e.g. in Ukr: interesting to see shifting responsibilities for policy vis-à-vis EU between instit (from Min of economics to MFA),…. • After this, the divergences in FP preferences that we might witness lead to issue of geopol pluralism. I will try to explain the reasons of geopol plur bya. Looking at origins of inst change b. seeking how to explain variations in institutional change. a. Origins and Patterns of Institutional Change • should uncover underlying motives for the instit in R, U & B becoming isomorphic - conform to EU or CIS. • Comes down to identifying causal mechanisms of inst change  I depart from 6 factors: coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphic processes, unsuccessful imitation, incomplete institutionalisation, and the recomposition of organisational fields. • TABEL MET VBN

8. b. Sources of Variation / Heterogeneity in Institutional Change • how to explain variations in instit change of Ukr, Bel & Russia? • reason for variations lies partly in the fact that the creation, development & change of institutions are history-dependent processes (Powell 1991:195). •  points to path dependent patterns of development, in which initial choices preclude future options. to better understand factors that promote heterogeneity need to trace sources of divergence by exploring path dependent processes. • In sum, I asserted a new institutionalist approach to the issues of instit change & geopolitical pluralism in R, Ukr&Bel. More specifically, the theory of instit isomorphism can form an innovative & adequate conceptual framework for the analysis of instit change.

9. Structure & Methodology INTRODUCTION PART I Chapter 1 • General Background: Geopolitical situation since 1991 in Slavic Core of CIS • Status Quaestionis – Research Questions – Relevance of the Research Chapter 2 • Theoretical framework: neo-institutionalism, Institutional isomorphism • Methodology & Introduction of the Cases PART II - Institutional Definition Chapter 3-4 • Assessing processes of institutional change in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus  how do institutions in these countries define themselves vis-à-vis EU & CIS? • Systematic analysis of the selected institutions:  review of the official policy documents issued by the selected institutions. This could reveal a lot about their policy orientations. E.g.: checking the pres. decrees issued 1991-2000. In Ukr, specifically on EU-Ukr relations: 20 pres decrees issued (appr 2-yr). In total: 80 decreten mentioning EU-Ukr relations. In Russia: not so --> up until 1999, barely decrees specifically mentioning EU-Russia rel. In contrast, a lot of decrees conerning CIS  reveals a lot about official policy (not actual policy)

10. syst analysis will be followed by & framed in empirical analysis:verifying presence of organisational characteristics in institutions of Russia, Ukr & Bel. • Data collection ch 3-4: • - literature review: primary sources: official policy documents (MFA, Pres Admin), decrees (pres admin); parliamentary bills & committee proceedings concerning external affairs (EU&CIS) (parliament); secondary sources: relevant academic literature, articles from parlamentskaya gazeta, dumskoe obozrenie,.. • - systematic analysis org characteristics; review of official documents complemented by semi-structured qualitative elite-interviews. Verifying respondents perception of the org. fields (EU & CIS) & how the insititution in which they work profiles itself vis-à-vis these org.fields. Target groups: e.g. In parliament: members of the committees; e.g. MFA diplomats to EU & CIS. • PART III - Institutional Isomorphism In part III, I want to explore the motives of isomorphism • Chapter 5 - First of all: a thorough comparative analysis of institutional change in selected institutions, based on data collected in part II

11. Chapter 6 • Here I want to uncover the underlying motives forthe inst change in R, Ukr & why they conform themselves to certain other instit. in org fields by exploring 6 causal factors • Exploring reasons of institutional change • Causal mechanisms • Chapter 7 • Explaining variations in instit change  why divergence in seemingly similar countries? • Why does Ukraine focus on the EU (yet at the same time participates in CIS subregional initiatives), & why does Belarus manifestly choose for CIS integration, turning its back to the EU?  to better understand the heterogeneity  I want to find source of divergence by comparing and analysing processes of path dependence. • Path dependence: comparing historical processes • Creation of institutions & ‘critical junctures’. • Data collection ch 5-7: • - comparative analysis ch 5: data collected in part II serves as basis for comp analysis. • – causes of isomorphism ch 6: elite interviews on causal mechanisms, starting from certain hypotheses connecting instit definition to isomorphism • - variations in isomorphism ch 7: comparative historical analysis with a focus on the initial stages of institutional development & ‘puncture points’. • - literature review: relevant academic literature, corpus of offic. documents part II • Conclusion

12. Conclusion • Main aim of my research: an innovative analysis of processes of institutional change in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. • My intended contribution to the field of research & theory ofneo-inst in general is twofold: • Constructing a theoretical framework to systematically map instit change in the Slavic core of the CIS. Thereby I want to stress the importance of historical & cultural factors that are often neglected in the study of post-Sovietology yet are also very important & even determine to a certain extent policy orientations, especially in this region, where the FP discours is full of historical references. • pay attention to ‘weak points’ of the theory of inst isomorphism - ‘need for understanding sources of heterogeneity & the processes that cause instit change’ (Powell)  by elaborating these issues in part III, hope to contribute to making theory more comprehensive framework of analysis.

13. Planning • January-april 2004 • chapter 1: elaborating on theory • 1st PhD seminar • planning interviews autumn 2004 • presentation & discussion part of research at ECPR 2004 • start comparative analysis primary sources • May-august 2004 • continuation comp. analysis primary sources (offic. documents) • review secundary sources • formulating questions for elite interviews in autumn • test-interviews (missions Ukr, Bel, RF to the EU) • Autumn 2004 • field research --> elite-interviews in selected institutions in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus • start of processing interviews

14. February – april 2005 • poss. continuation field research • processing interviews • preparations ICCEES • May- august 2005 • processing interviews • finish writing part I • ICCEES World Congress 2005 Berlin • Autumn 2005 • continue writing part II • 2006 • finish writing • editing of the final text • submitting PhD • PhD defense