Opportunities for Political Institutions' Transplantation in Technology Trading: Results of a Network Analysis in a Comparative Perspective | Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2022. № 65. DOI: 10.17223/1998863X/65/26

Opportunities for Political Institutions' Transplantation in Technology Trading: Results of a Network Analysis in a Comparative Perspective

The study aims to analyze the network structure of trade relations in 38 countries and is based on data from the World Trade Organization. The popular concept of digitalization drives the focus of the study on technology trade. Comparative logic is implemented by analyzing networks for two time periods: 2013 and 2019. The analysis of trade networks of countries allows resolving the existing contradiction about the impact of international trade on the institutions' transplantation. On the one hand, it argues that international trade enhances the transplantation of institutions and leads to democratization. On the other, it claims that authoritarian regimes can apply and develop technologies without exposing their own regime to change threats. As a result, it was established that the autocracies occupied positions similar to those of democracies in both periods. The Russian Federation occupies a leading position in the network structure of trade relations. There is no isolating attitude towards autocracies; moreover, a regime practically does not play a role in trade relations. Over the past six years, the countries' positions in trade relations have not changed despite a radical change in the political discourse regarding the Russian Federation and China. The results of the network analysis allowed mapping the international technology trade landscape. Authoritarian states are not “outcasts” but rather active participants in international trade relations without exposing the internal authoritarian regime to threats (the regime's adaptation and the stability of authoritarian institutions). In other words, “business is business” despite the regime differences. Another assumption of the study was that the transplanting process of authoritarian institutions is more successful than that of democratic institutions. This assumption requires an independent and more detailed study in the future. However, it has an empirical basis and looks promising in the context of the explanatory power of modern political processes in different countries.

Download file

Counter downloads: 33

Keywords

democratization, international trade, technology, institutional transplantation, network analysis, regimes

Authors

Name	Organization	E-mail
Turobov Aleksey V.	Higher School of Economics	aturobov@hse.ru; alturobov@yahoo.com

Всего: 1

References

Perry N., Schonerwald C. Institutions, Geography, and Terms of Trade in Latin America // International Journal of Political Economy. 2012. № 41 (1). Р. 66-94. https://doi.org/10.2753/IJP0891-1916410103

Ernesto Lopez-Cordova J., Meissner Christopher M. The Impact of International Trade on Democracy: A Long-Run Perspective // World Politics. 2008. № 60 (40). Р. 539-575. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40060211

Stier S.Internet diffusion and regime type: Temporal patterns in technology adoption // Telecommunications Policy. 2017. № 41 (1). Р. 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2016.10.005

Christensen B. Cyber state capacity: A model of authoritarian durability, ICTs, and emerging media // Government Information Quarterly. 2019. № 36 (3). Р. 460-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.04.004

Corrales J., Westhoff F. Information Technology Adoption and Political Regimes // International Studies Quarterly. 2006. № 50 (4). Р. 911-933. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4092785

Cosgel Metin M., Miceli Thomas J., Rubin J. The political economy of mass printing: Legitimacy and technological change in the Ottoman Empire // Journal of Comparative Economics. 2012. № 40 (3). Р. 357-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2012.01.002

Djankov S., Glaeser E.L., La Porta R., Lopez de-Silanes F., Shleifer A. The New Comparative Economics // Journal of Comparative Economics. 2003. № 31 (4). Р. 595-619.

Oleinik A. Transfer of Institutions: Actors and Constraints - The Russian Case in a Global Context // HWWA Discussion Paper. 2005. № 320. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/19292

Evans P. Development as Institutional Change: The Pitfalls of Monocropping and the Potentials of Deliberation // Studies in Comparative International Development. 2004. № 38 (4). Р. 30-52.

Багдасарьян И.С., Миронова Е.С. Импорт институтов в российской экономике // Постулат. 2017. № 2.

Сочнева Е.Н. Социальный аудит: институциональный подход // Человек и труд. 2009. № 11. С. 50-52.

Coral C., Bokelmann W., Bonatti M., Carcamo R., Sieber S. Understanding institutional change mechanisms for land use: Lessons from Ecuador's history // Land Use Policy. 2021. № 108. Art. 105530.

Powell B., Clark J.R., Nowrasteh A. Does mass immigration destroy institutions? 1990s Israel as a natural experiment // Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2017. № 141. P. 83-95.

Pevehouse J. Democracy from the Outside-In? International Organizations and Democratization // International Organization. 2002. № 56 (3). Р. 515-549. URL: http://www.jstor.org/sta-ble/3078587

Hariri J. Foreign Aided: Why Democratization Brings Growth When Democracy Does Not // British Journal of Political Science. 2015. № 45 (1). Р. 53-71. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43821685

Bonfatti R. An economic theory of foreign interventions and regime change // The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue Canadienne D'Economique. 2017. № 50 (1). Р. 306-339. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/45172429

Houle C., Kayser M., Xiang J. Diffusion or Confusion? Clustered Shocks and the Conditional Diffusion of Democracy // International Organization. 2016. № 70 (4). Р. 687-726. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44651920

Chang E., Wu W. Preferential Trade Agreements, Income Inequality, and Authoritarian Survival // Political Research Quarterly. 2016. № 69 (2). Р. 281-294. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stab-le/44018010

Mansfield E., Milner H., & Rosendorff B. Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade // The American Political Science Review. 2000. № 94 (2). Р. 305-321. URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/2586014

Bergesen A. Regime Change in the Semiperiphery: Democratization in Latin America and the Socialist Bloc // Sociological Perspectives. 1992. № 35 (2). Р. 405-413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1389386

Антонова А., Туробов А. Мишени цифровых технологий через призму образования // Образовательная политика. 2020. № 2 (82). Р. 42-55.

Mergel I., Edelmann N., Haug N. Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews // Government Information Quarterly. 2019. № 36 (4). Р. 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002.

Bryer T. The Costs of Democratization: Social Media Adaptation Challenges Within Government Agencies // Administrative Theory & Praxis. 2011. № 33 (3). Р. 341-361. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41427129

Bussell J. Explaining Cross-National Variation in Government Adoption of New Technologies // International Studies Quarterly. 2011. № 55 (1). Р. 267-280. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23019522

Czernich N. Broadband internet and political participation: Evidence for Germany // Kyklos. 2012. № 65 (1). Р. 31-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2011.00526.x

Bailard C.S. Testing the Internet's Effect on Democratic Satisfaction: A Multi-Methodological, Cross-National Approach // Journal of Information Technology and Politics. 2012. № 9 (2). Р. 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2011.641495

Goebel C. The Information Dilemma: How ICT Strengthen or Weaken Authoritarian Rule // Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift. 2013. № 115. Р. 367-384. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2108787

Astrom J., Karlsson M., Linde J., Pirannejad A. Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors // Government Information Quarterly. 2012. № 29 (2). Р. 142-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.008

Jho W., Song K.J. Institutional and Technological Determinants of Civil E-Participation: Solo or Duet? // Government Information Quarterly. 2015. № 32 (4). Р. 488-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.003

Kneuer M. E-democracy: A new challenge for measuring democracy // International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale De Science Politique. 2016. № 37 (5). Р. 666-678. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26556880

Maerz S.F. The electronic face of authoritarianism: E-government as a tool for gaining legitimacy in competitive and non-competitive regimes // Government Information Quarterly. 2016. № 33 (4). Р. 727-735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.008

Christensen B. Cyber state capacity: A model of authoritarian durability, ICTs, and emerging media // Government Information Quarterly. 2019. № 36 (3). Р. 460-468 URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.04.004

Wang W., Li Z., Cheng X. Evolution of the global coal trade network: A complex network analysis // Resources Policy. 2019. № 62. Р. 496-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.10.005

Zhang H.Y., Ji Q., Fan Y.Competition, transmission and pattern evolution: A net-work analysis of global oil trade // Energy Policy. 2014. № 73. Р. 312-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.020

Wang X., Li H., Yao H., Chen Z., Guan Q.Network feature and influence factors of global nature graphite trade competition // Resources Policy. 2019. № 60. Р. 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.12.012

Hao X., An H., Sun X., Zhong W. The import competition relationship and intensity in the international iron ore trade: From network perspective // Resources Policy. 2018. № 57. Р. 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.01.005

Dong C., Yin Q., Lane K.J., Yan Z., Shi T., Liu Y., Bell M.L.Competition and transmission evolution of global food trade: A case study of wheat // Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications. 2018. № 509. Р. 998-1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.06.052

(Garcia-Alonso M.D.C., Levine P. Chapter 29 Arms Trade and Arms Races: A Strategic Analysis // Handbook of Defense Economics. 2007. № 2. Р. 941-971. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0013(06)02029-1

Hafner-Burton E.M., Kahler M., Montgomery A.H.Network analysis for international relations // International Organization. 2009. № 63 (3). Р. 559-592. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818309090195

Wasserman S., Faust K. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1994. 825 p.

Scott J. Social Network Analysis: a Handbook. London : Sage, 2000.

Everett M.G., Borgatti S.P. Extending Centrality // Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis, Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2012. P. 57-76. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511811395.004

Bonacich P. Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures // American Journal of Sociology. 1987. № 92 (5). https://doi.org/10.1086/228631

Hafner-Burton E.M., Montgomery A.H. Power positions: International organizations, social networks, and conflict // Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2006. № 50 (1). Р. 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002705281669

Gould R.V. Power and social structure in community elites // Social Forces. 1989. № 68 (2). Р. 531-552. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/68.2.531

Padgett J.F., Ansell C.K. Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici // American Journal of Sociology. 1993. № 98 (6). Р. 1400-1434. https://doi.org/10.1086/230190

Goddard S.E. Uncommon ground: Indivisible territory and the politics of legitimacy // International Organization. 2006. № 61 (1). Р. 35-68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818306060024

Gibb S., Strimmer K. Differential protein expression and peak selection in mass spectrometry data by binary discriminant analysis // Bioinformatics. 2015. № 31 (19). Р. 3156-3162. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv334

Coppedge M., Gerring J., Knutsen C.H., Lindberg S.I., Teorell J., Alizada N., Altman D., BernhardM., Cornell A., Fish M.S., Gastaldi L., Gjerl0w H., Glynn A., Hicken A., Hindle G., Ilchenko N., Krusell J., Luhrmann A., Maerz S.F., Marquardt K.L., McMann K., Mechkova V., Med-zihorsky J..., Sundstrom A., Ei-tan Tzelgov, Yi-ting Wang, Tore Wig, Wilson S., Ziblatt D. V-Dem [Country - Year/Country - Date] Dataset v11.1 // Varieties of Democracy Project. 2021. https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds21

Локшин И.М. «Избрание на царство»: от чего зависит объем президентских полномочий? // Полис. Политические исследования. 2014. № 5. Р. 118-138. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2014.05.09

Lankina T.V., Getachew L. A Geographic Incremental Theory of Democratization: Territory, Aid, and Democracy in Postcommunist Regions // World Politics. 2006. № 58 (4). Р. 536-582. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40060149

Christin T., Hug S. Federalism, the Geographic Location of Groups, and Conflict // Conflict Management and Peace Science. 2012. № 29 (1). Р. 93-122. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26275284