Publications

Books

The Authoritarian International: Tracing How Authoritarian Regimes Learn in the Post-Soviet Space. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Book description

Stephen Hall argues that democracies can preserve their norms and values from increasing attacks and backsliding by better understanding how authoritarian regimes learn. He focuses on the post-Soviet region, investigating two established authoritarian regimes, Belarus and Russia, and two hybrid-regimes, Moldova and Ukraine, with the aim of explaining the concept of authoritarian learning and revealing the practices that are developed and the sources of that learning. Hall finds clear signs of collaboration between countries in developing best survival practices between authoritarian-minded elites, and demonstrates that learning does not just occur between states, rather it can happen at the intra-state level, with elites learning lessons from previous regimes in their own countries. He highlights the horizontal nature of this learning, with authoritarian-minded elites developing methods from a range of sources to ascertain the best practices for survival. Post-Soviet regional organisations are crucial for the development and sharing of these survival practices as they provide 'learning rooms' and training exercises.

A link to the book launch can be found here

Reviews

‘Dr Hall pushes forward the literature on authoritarian learning. The lessons learned from this book's conceptual framework and case studies will serve as the foundation for future scholars researching the current wave of autocratic resilience.’

Thomas Ambrosio - Professor of Political Science, North Dakota State University

‘The Authoritarian International is a fascinating exploration of the complex ways in which authoritarian states in the post-Soviet space learn, adapt and evolve as regimes by fashioning a common repertoire of repressive and manipulative strategies. Stephen Hall has drawn on extensive primary research to construct a new understanding of a topic that is of growing importance in the contemporary world.’

Sarah Birch - Professor of Political Science, King’s College London

‘Dr Hall’s book is a landmark in the study of authoritarian learning. It analyses how and why regimes learn, or fail to learn, from the successes and failures of measures taken by themselves and their neighbours to strengthen their hold on power.’

Peter J. S. Duncan - School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London

‘In a world where authoritarian regimes increasingly challenge democratic societies and norms, this is an essential handbook for western scholars and policymakers alike.’

Roberto Foa - Director of the Centre for the Future of Democracy, University of Cambridge

‘This book provides a perceptive account of the ways in which stable authoritarian rule rests on processes of authoritarian learning. Through a careful comparison of post-Soviet cases, Hall illuminates how authoritarian leaders and their officials collude and learn from one another to avoid failed survival strategies and emulate successful ones. The book makes a strong case that elite learning must be placed at the centre of theories of authoritarian stability.’

Oisin Tansey - Kings College London

‘It is often said that democratisation comes in 'waves'. Authoritarian states can copy each other too. They also learn from their own past successes and failures, and from malpractice in democratic states. Hall provides a fascinating study of authoritarian adaption and durability.’

Andrew Wilson - Professor of Ukrainian Studies, UCL SSEES

Articles

"The End of Adaptive Authoritarianism in Belarus?" Europe-Asia Studies.

Abstract: In the 2000s the Belarusian regime appeared adept at developing appropriate methods for countering external democratisation efforts and was even a model for other post-Soviet autocracies. To cope with ever-changing internal and external environments, the regime honed the methods of adaptive authoritarianism. However, this article shows that the Belarusian system is fragile and failing by using a framework that analyses various aspects of adaptive authoritarianism, including performance legitimacy, personalist rule, neopatrimonialism, managed pluralism and coercive capacity.

“Environmental commitments and rhetoric over the Pandemic crisis: social media legitimation of the AIIB, the EAEU, and the EU.” (T. Lenz and A. Obydenkova). Post-Communist Economies.

Abstract: How do international organisations (IOs) legitimise their right to rule in times of a Pandemic? Where are their previously made environmental commitments on their agenda during a crisis? What are the differences in self-legitimation, if any, across different types of IOs? These questions have gathered renewed urgency during the ongoing COVID-19 and climate change crises posing a threat to the legitimacy not only of national governments but also of IOs. The paper aims to address these questions through the analysis of environmental commitments made in legal documents of three IOs (the EU, the EAEU, and the AIIB) and through the analysis of their respective social media between 2017 and 2021. Among other issues, we find significant differences in self-legitimation strategies of these three IOs as reflected by their social media and some evidence of mimicry across these IOs that should remain on the agenda for further studies.

“Sustainable Development Agendas of Regional International Organizations: The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development and the Eurasian Development Bank.” (T. Ambrosio and A. Obydenkova). Problems of Post-Communism.

Abstract: The paper analyzes how the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Eurasian Development Bank (EDB) approach sustainable development in their legal documents and social media. Unlike democracies, autocracies are driven by concerns of regime survival, but they often seek legitimacy through expressed commitments to global norms. We find that while the EBRD has a clear and detailed environmental agenda, this is not so for the EDB, which appears unconcerned about legitimizing itself on this issue. The paper advances our understanding of the likely role of these organizations in sustainable development, identifying areas for further research on global environmental challenges.

“Improving the Kremlin’s Preventive Counter-Revolution Practices after the 2011-2012 Winter of Discontent and the Euromaidan.” Russian Politics. 4(4): 466-491.

Abstract: This paper argues that between 2012 and 2019, the Kremlin recalibrated preventive counter-revolutionary practices due to fears that an event like the Arab Spring or Euromaidan could occur in Moscow or that the 2011–2012 winter of discontent could return. While the Kremlin returned to practices of the preventive counter-revolution used after 2004, the tactics increased creating a “politics of fear.” The preventive counter-revolution post-2012 implemented new tactics, incorporating an external element of countering the involvement of Western states in destabilizing authoritarian regimes, specifically in the post-Soviet space, thereby attempting to weaken Western states. The tactics of the preventive counter-revolution after 2012 have the potential to coup-proof the Kremlin and serve as a model for other authoritarian regimes to devise methods to counter Western states and democratization, thereby allowing the Kremlin to become a model and black knight for other authoritarian regimes.

“Learning from past experience: Yanukovych’s implementation of authoritarianism after 2004.” Journal of Eurasian Studies. 8(2): 161-171.

Abstract: This paper argues that an important concept of authoritarian learning is missing. This is how leaders learn from domestic experience. Using Yanukovych's defeat in the Orange Revolution, the paper illustrates how he adapted to stop a new Colour Revolution. Through using Party of Regions resources, Yanukovych improved his image, developed Party of Region's electoral success, controlled institutions and the political system, coerced the opposition, built-up security forces and pro-regime groups and created a family. While the paper finds that Yanukovych adapted to the failure of the Orange Revolution these adjustments contributed to the Euromaidan and the learning from domestic experience resulted in ultimate failure.

“Preventing a Colour Revolution: the Belarusian example as an illustration for the Kremlin?” East European Politics. 33(2): 162-183.

Abstract: Much has been written about Russian authoritarian promotion in the former-Soviet Union and further afield, but there has been little analysis of Russian learning from other regimes. This article argues that the Belarusian regime provides lessons to Moscow for overcoming democratic protests, having learnt from the 2000 overthrow of Slobodan Milošević in Serbia. The Belarusian case therefore expands a literature primarily centred on Russia, extending understanding of authoritarian learning and questioning Russia’s role as the primary authoritarian promoter in the region.

“Authoritarian learning: a conceptual overview.” (T. Ambrosio). East European Politics. 33(2): 143-161.

Book Chapters

Learning from a Neighbouring Crisis: Did the Belarusian and Kazakh Regimes Learn from the Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity, 2013-2014? In Crises in Authoritarian Regimes: Fragile Orders and Contested Powers edited by J. Baberowski and M. Wagner. (pp. 53-78). Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag.

China’s emerging liberal partnership order and Russian and US responses: Evidence from the Belt and Road Initiative in Eurasia. (P. J. Braga). In Socialism, Capitalism and Alternatives: Area Studies and Global Theories edited by P. J. S. Duncan and E. Schimpfössl. (pp/ 131-157). London: UCL Press.

Reconsidering Western Concepts of the Ukrainian Conflict: The Rise to Prominence of Russia’s “Soft Power” Policy. In Vocabularies of International Relations after the Crisis in Ukraine edited by A. Makarychev and A. Yatsyk. (pp. 70-89). New York and London: Routledge.