All
 
|
 
 


Features of the political and economic development of the Republic of South Ossetia
 
PIIS221979310021328-3-1
DOI10.37490/S221979310021328-3
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Andrey Suzdaltsev 
Occupation: Associate professor, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Visiting Lecturer at the Department of International Relations
Affiliation: NRU HSE
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Nikolay Novik
Occupation: Candidate of Economics, Associate Professor of the Department of International Relations, Research Fellow at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies
Affiliation: NRU HSE
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Vadim Tedeev
Occupation: Candidate of Technical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Engineering and Technical Disciplines
Affiliation: A.A.Tibilov South Ossetian State University
Address: South Ossetia, Tskhinvali
Aza Besaeva
Occupation: Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Pedagogy and Psychology
Affiliation: A.A.Tibilov South Ossetian State University
Address: South Ossetia, Tskhinvali
Journal namePskov Journal of Regional Studies
EditionVolume 18. No3/2022
Pages19-36
Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of the peculiarities of the political and economic development of South Ossetia. A number of these features can be attributed to the external environment, including the specifics of the republic's relations with the Russian Federation. Other features reflect economic and political processes within countries, including the formation of the South Ossetian political class and the traditions of political struggle in South Ossetia. The article notes the peculiarities of South Ossetian sovereignty, including partial recognition of the republic, international isolation, and the absence of official political and economic ties with Georgia. The Russian Federation has assumed a special role in ensuring security and the main problems of organizing sustainable economic development in South Ossetia. As the features of the political and economic development of the republic, the article analyzes the high level of political activity and political competition in the internal South Ossetian political market. The republic is actively discussing options for developing relations with the Russian Federation. The dilemma of defining and forming a strategy for the development of South Ossetian statehood remains the main theme of the political struggle within the South Ossetian political class between supporters of the sovereign development of the Republic of South Ossetia and supporters of the young state's entry into the Russian Federation.

Particular attention is paid to the current economic situation in the country, the peculiarities of the development of the South Ossetian economy, and the lack of an investment climate. The only sponsor and investor of the republic is the Russian Federation. The transition from the stage of Russian subsidies to South Ossetia to the formation of a national economic model remains an important task for the leadership of the Republic of South Ossetia.

KeywordsSouth Ossetia, Russian-South Ossetian relations, post-Soviet space, Russian foreign policy, Georgia, smuggling, investment climate
AcknowledgmentThe research was supported financially by the RFBR and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of South Ossetia within the framework of the scientific project No. 20-514-07003 “Problems of development of Russian-South Ossetian relations and integration initiatives in the conditions of economic and diplomatic restrictions”.
Received01.08.2022
Publication date09.09.2022
Number of characters40084
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.
1 Введение. Республика Южная Осетия (РЮО), ставшая 26 августа 2008 г. суверенным государством, остаётся политическим феноменом и своеобразным осколком распавшегося 30 лет назад СССР. До 1991 г. союзный центр обеспечивал безопасность и стабильность в Закавказье (Южном Кавказе), что позволяло до 1990–1991 гг. (армянский погром в Баку и Сумгаите) держать ситуацию в республике и регионе под контролем. В 1990–2008 гг. в результате целого ряда региональных процессов и военных конфликтов народ Южной Осетии получил уникальную возможность создать своё национальное государство в условиях, когда обеспечение безопасности и основные проблемы организации устойчивого экономического развития взяла на себя Российская федерация.
2 Политическая, экономическая и военная поддержка Россией южноосетинского народа и Республики Южная Осетия, тем не менее, не исключает целый ряд особенностей в становлении самого молодого на постсоветском пространстве независимого государства. Частично признанный суверенитет, политическая специфика закавказского региона с высоким уровнем межгосударственной и межнациональной конфликтности, сильной экономической зависимости от России, соседство с Грузией, постсоветская деиндустриализация, частично совпавшая с разрушением производственных активов в результате грузино-южнооосетинской войны, тесные отношения с республикой Северная Осетия — Алания, отсутствие привлекательного инвестиционного климата, высокий уровень политической активности и политической конкуренции на внутреннем южноосетинском политическом рынке создают целый ряд особенностей, влияющих на становление и развитие Южной Осетии.
3 Включение РЮО в систему российской финансово-ресурсной поддержки на первом этапе становления югоосетинской государственности является закономерным. Россия заинтересована в государственности Южной Осетии, которая оказалась своеобразным военно-стратегическим «балконом» за Главным Кавказским хребтом. Свою роль играет тот факт, что осетинский народ является одним из коренных народов России и имеет свою национальную республику. Однако в среднесрочной перспективе ставка на постоянную и безусловную внешнюю дотационную помощь, помимо достижения определённой социально-экономической стабильности, начинает негативно влиять на экономическую активность, снижает инвестиционную привлекательность страны, стимулирует экспорт труда и сказывается на политической жизни республики.
4 Теоретически, РЮО, являясь небольшой по масштабам постсоветского пространства страной, могла бы продемонстрировать наиболее оптимальную схему пошаговой стратегии по формированию собственной национальной экономической модели.
5 Учитывая особенности Южной Осетии, формирующаяся в республике экономическая модель может стать эффективной только в случае обеспечения высокой степени интеграции с российской экономикой.

views: 230

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Achkasov V. A. (2016), The concept of “security dilemma” in the study of the dynamics of ethno-political conflicts, Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University, Series 6. Political Science. International relationships, iss. 2, pp. 24–30. (In Russ.).
2. Markedonov S. M. (2015), Elections in South Ossetia: stability or unpredictability? Politkom.ru. (In Russ.). URL: http://politcom.ru/22270.html  (Accessed: 03.06.2021).
3. Markedonov S. M. (2021), Post-Soviet de facto states: trajectories of the struggle for sovereignty, Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 79–89. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2021-65-12-79-89. 
4. Markedonov S. M. (2015), Russia in South Ossetia: the formation of a new status quo and the price of stability. (In Russ.). URL: http://174.138.62.117/sites/default/files/global-documents/cpp/cost-of-conflict/Markedonov_Ru%20.pdf  (Accessed: 20.06.2021).
5. Markedonov S., Okunev I. (2020), Integrity and self-determination of states in the world of problematic sovereignty, Quaestio Rossica, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1422–1436. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15826/qr.2020.4.536. 
6. Platonova M. A. (2012), De facto independent states of the Caucasus: rethinking terminology, Bulletin of the Volgograd State University. Series 4: History. Regional studies. International Relations, no. 1, pp. 98–101. (In Russ.).
7. Tadtaev T. V. (2016), Industry of South Ossetia in the 20–40s. 20th century,  Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series: History of Russia, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 29–38. (In Russ.).
8. Tokarev A. A. (2017), Comparative analysis of secessions in the post-communist space: quantification of influence factors, Polis. Political studies, no. 4, pp. 106–117. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.0  4.08.
9. Chikharev I. A., Kosorukov A. A. (2010), Neoclassical realism: to the problem of the correlation of global and national-state variables in the formation of foreign policy, Bulletin of the Moscow University. Series 12: Political Science, no. 1, pp. 50–66. (In Russ.).
10. Chichkin A. (2014), New Transcaucasian Highway: Multilateral Benefits, Scientific Society of Caucasian Studies.  (In Russ.). URL: http://www.kavkazoved.info/news/2014/09/08/novaja-transkavkazskaja-magistral-vygody-mnogostoronnie.html  (Accessed: 05.07.2021).
11. Yagya V. S., Antonova I. A. (2020), States with limited recognition in the foreign policy of the Russian Federation: a comparative analysis of the main features, Comparative Politics, no. 4, pp. 92–105. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24411/2221-3279-2020-10051. 
12. Florea A. (2017), De Facto States: Survival and Disappearance (1945–2011),  International Studies Quartely, no. 61, pp. 337–351.
13. Kazantsev A. A., Rutland P., Medvedeva S. M., Safranchuk I. A. (2020), Russia’s policy in the “frozen conflicts” of the post-soviet space: from ethno-politics to geopolitics, Caucasus Survey, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 142–162.
14. Maass M. (2009), The elusive definition of the small state, International Politics, no. 46 (1), pp. 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2008.37. 
15. Markedonov S. (2015), De facto statehood in Eurasia: a political and security phenomenon, Caucasus Survey, no. 3 (3), pp. 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2015.1086565. 
16. Markedonov S. (2013), Unfreezing conflict in South Ossetia: Regional and International Implications, Reassessing security in the South Caucasus: Regional conflicts and transformation, A. Jafalian (ed.), Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., pp. 33–46.
17. Markedonov S., Suchkov M. (2020), Russia and the United States in the Caucasus: cooperation and competition, Caucasus Survey, no. 8 (1), pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2020.1732101. 
18. Ó Beacháin D. (2019), Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, Gëzim Visoka, John Doyle and Edward Newman (eds.), London, New York, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 520 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351131759. 
19. Ó’Beacháin D., Comai G., Tsurtsumia-Zurabashvili A. (2016), The Secret Lives of Unrecognized States: Internal Dynamics, External Relations, and Counter-recognition Strategies, Small Wars & Insurgencies, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 440–466.
20. O’Loughlin J., Kolossov V., Toal G. (2014), Inside the post-Soviet de facto states: a comparison of attitudes in Abkhazia, Nagorny Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Transnistria, Eurasian Geography and Economics, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 423–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2015.1012644. 
21. Silaev N. (2022), Russia and its Allies in Three Strategic Environments, Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 598–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2021.1887087. 
22. Schweller R. L. (2004), Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing, International Security, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 167–168.
23. Schweller R. L. (1994), Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back, International Security, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 72–107.
24. Taliaferro J. W. (2006), State Building for Future Wars: Neoclassical Realism and the Resource-Extractive States, Security Studies, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 464–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410601028370.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up