Interaction between economy and politics
MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia; HSE University, Moscow, Russia, email@example.com
elibrary_id: 123521 | ORCID: 0000-0002-4845-1391 | RESEARCHER_ID: H-2728-2016
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), Moscow, Russia, firstname.lastname@example.org
elibrary_id: 1042903 |
MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, email@example.com
elibrary_id: 639897 | ORCID: 0000-0001-6231-0491 | RESEARCHER_ID: AAT-9251-2020
Kazantzev A.A., Lebedev S.V., Medvedeva S.M. Rentier states: Interaction between economy and politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 2. P. 159-173. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.02.12
This work was supported by grant from IIS of MGIMO University No. 1921-01-03
This article is dedicated to the interdisciplinary concept of rentier state or government that finances itself via oil and gas export rather than by taxes. This concept is equally important to political economy and to IR theory. The extraction of oil rent impacts the politics and public administration of rentier states and affects their foreign policy. The article argues that although initially the concept had more of an economic undertone, in modern conditions it is first of all a political concept. The authors show that a rentier state has specific domestic and foreign policy parameters. The main internal political and foreign policy patterns in rentier states are closely linked: the ruling regime seizes control of the oil and gas sector as the main resource of the country, secures its stability through this, and turns it into a balancing tool in foreign policy. Based on the political economy criteria identified, a list of 16 rentier states has been drawn up (all the patterns outlined in this paper apply to them). The group includes the following states: Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Angola, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Qatar, UAE, Algeria, Iran, Kazakhstan, Brunei Darussalam, Nigeria and Turkmenistan. A transitional group was also identified, in which individual patterns may operate.
Baev, P. (2008). Russian energy policy and military power: Putin’s quest for greatness. London, New York: Routledge.
Baldwin, D. (1993). Neorealism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bilgin, M. (2011). Energy security and Russia’s gas strategy: the symbiotic relationship between the state and firms. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 44(2), 119-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2011.04.002
Bouzarovski, S., & Bassin, M. (2011). Energy and identity: imagining Russia as a hydrocarbon superpower. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(4), 783-794. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.567942
Chehabi, H.E. (1998). Sultanistic regimes. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Coronil, F. (1997). The magical state: nature, money, and modernity in Venezuela. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Geddes, B., Wright, J., & Frantz, E. (2014). Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: a new data set. Perspectives on Politics, 12, 313-331. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714000851
Ghaleb, A. (2011). Natural gas as an instrument of Russian state power. Carlisle, PA: The Letort Papers; Strategic Studies Institute.
Hale, H. (2015). Patronal politics: Eurasian regime dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hale, H. (2017). The regional roots of Russia’s political regime. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Keohane, R.O., & Nye, J.S. (2001). Power and interdependence: world politics in transition. 3rd ed. New York: Longman.
Laruelle, M., & Radvanyi, J. (2018). Understanding Russia: the challenges of transformation. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Ledeneva, A.V. (2013). Can Russia modernise? Sistema, power networks and informal governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linz, J.J. (2000). Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Linz, J.J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mahdavy, H. (1970). The patterns and problems of economic development in rentier states: the case of Iran. In M. Cook (Ed.). Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East. London: Oxford University Press.
Petrov, K., & Gelman, V. (2019). Do elites matter in Russian foreign policy? The gap between self-perception and influence. Post-Soviet Affairs, 35(5-6), 450-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2019.1662185
Qasem, I.Y. (2010). Neo-rentier theory: the case of Saudi Arabia (1950-2000). Doctoral Thesis. Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Leiden University.
Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144-172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100007814
Ross, M.L. (1999). Natural resource abundance and economic growth. World Politics, 51(2), 297-322. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100008200
Ross, M.L. (2015). What have we learned about the resource curse? Annual Review of Political Science, 18(1), 239-259. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052213-040359
Rutland, P. (2008). Putin’s economic record: Is the oil boom sustainable? Europe-Asia Studies, 60, 1051-1072. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130802180975
Afanas’ev, M.N. (2000). Klientelizm i rossiiskaya gosudarstvennost’: issledovaniya klientarnykh otnoshenii, ikh roli v evolyutsii i upadke proshlykh form rossiiskoi gosudarstvennosti, ikh vliyaniya na politicheskie instituty i deyatel’nost’ vlastvuyushchikh grupp v sovremennoi Rossii [Clientelism and Russian statehood: studies of client relationships, their role in the evolution and decline of past forms of Russian statehood, their impact on political institutions and the activities of ruling groups in modern Russia]. Moscow: MONF. (In Russ.)
Chernetska, A.A. (2012). Transstranovye truboprovody kak instrument realizatsii natsional’nykh interesov v sovremennom mire: politologicheskiy analiz [Transcountry pipelines as a tool for realizing national interests in the modern world: political science analysis]. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University. (In Russ.)
Duka, A.V. (2017). Transformation of the Post-Soviet Political and Administrative Elites. Aktual’nye problemy Evropy, 2, 14-54. (In Russ.)
Eisenstadt, Sh. (1999). Revolution and the transformation of societies. (Russ. ed.: Eisenstadt, Sh. Revolyutsiya i preobrazovanie obshchestv. Sravnitel’noe izuchenie tsivilizatsiy. Moscow: Aspekt Press).
Ergin, D. (2020). Vsemirnaya istoriya bor’by za neft’, den’gi i vlast’ [The world history of the struggle for oil, money and power]. Moscow: Al’pina. (In Russ.)
Etkind, A. (2020). Priroda zla. Syr’e i gosudarstvo [The nature of evil. Raw materials and state]. Moscow: New Literary Observer. (In Russ.)
Golosov, G.V. (2019). Avtokratiya, ili Odinochestvo vlasti [Autocracy, or Loneliness of Power]. St. Petersburg: EUSP Press. (In Russ.)
Kokoshin, A.A. (2006). Mezhdunarodnaya energeticheskaya bezopasnost’ [International energy security]. Moscow: Europa. (In Russ.)
Kordonskiy, S.G. (2007). Resursnoe gosudarstvo: sbornik statey [Resource state: collection of articles]. Moscow: Regnum. (In Russ.)
Nisnevich, Yu. (2014). The ruling nomenclature today: “state capture”. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’, 5, 88-97. (In Russ.)
Nisnevich, Yu. (2018). Regeneration of the nomenclature as a ruling social stratum in post-Soviet Russia. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 8, 143-152. (In Russ.)
North, D., Wallis, J., & Weingast, B. (2011). Violence and social orders. A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. (Russ. ed: North, D., Wallis, J., & Weingast, B. Nasilie i sotsial’nye poryadki. Kontseptual’nye ramki dlya interpretatsii pis’mennoi istorii chelovechestva. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House).
Petrov, K.E. (2006). Domination of conceptual polysemy: “strong state” in Russian political discourse. Polis. Political Studies, 3, 159-183. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2006.03.13
Ross, M.L. (2015). The oil curse. How petroleum wealth shapes the development of nations. (Russ. ed.: Ross, M.L. Neftyanoe proklyatie: kak bogatye zapasy uglevodorodnogo syr’ya zadayut napravlenie razvitiya gosudarstv. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House).
Rutland, P. (2016). Russia’s post-Soviet elite. Polis. Political Studies, 3, 55-72. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.03.06
Shevtsova, L. (2010). Odinokaya derzhava. Pochemu Rossiya ne stala Zapadom i pochemu Rossii trudno s Zapadom [Lonely power. Why Russia did not become the West and why it is difficult for Russia with the West]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.)
Simonov, K.V. (2006). Energeticheskaya sverkhderzhava [Energy superpower]. Moscow: Eksmo. (In Russ.)
Solovyev, A.I. (2005). Oscillating-pendulum mechanism of government decision-making: to substantiate of the cognitive model (I). Polis. Political Studies, 5, 6-22. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2005.05.02 (In Russ.)
Vasil’ev, L.S. (1994). Istoriya Vostoka [History of the East]. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola. (In Russ.)
Vin’kov, A., Imamutdinov I., Medovnikov D., Rozmirovich, S., & Rubanov, I. (2007). Why Russia is not an energy superpower today. Society and Economy, 8, 104-110. (In Russ.)
Volkov, V. (2002). Power entrepreneurship in modern Russia. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 1, 56-65. (In Russ.)
The dual state in Russia: paraconstitutionalism and parapolitics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No1
State, business and civil society: cooperation for modernization (according to results of RAPS all-Russian conference). – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No1
Conception ofeconomic political science and specificities of its subjest field in Russia. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No4
Transformations of the political regime in Ukraine before and after the «Orange revolution»: institutional interpretation. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No5
Oriental Countries and the Crisis of Modern Globalization Model. – Polis. Political Studies. 2015. No6