Factors of Socio-Economic Development of Partially Recognized and Unrecognized Republics of the Caucasus

Particular and general factors determine the dynamics and trends of endogenous development of three unrecognized and partially recognized republics of the Caucasus the Republic of South Ossetia (RSO), Abkhazia, and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The article identifies critical factors and assesses prospects for endogenous socio-economic development of an unrecognized and partially recognized Republics of the Caucasus. It uses comparative and statistical methods, namely, one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Kraskel-Wallis Criterion. A database developed for this study uses a set of indicators of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2007 to 2019 as a formalized universal and balanced system of global determinants. We found that differences in the achieved UN SDGs indicators can be accounted for by the variety of each state's initially socio-economic situation (the effect of a differentiated base). At the same time, the research shows that the dynamics of the development of the Caucasian republics are similar, which determines a commonality of trends of their future (while maintaining current conditions and circumstances). The study results expand our understanding of the development of unrecognized and partially recognized states. It shows that one has to consider this propensity of the Caucasian states to self-development when justifying measures for improving their socioeconomic situation and increasing the effectiveness of investment programs implemented jointly with the Russian Federation to promote the socio-economic development of the RSO and the Republic of Abkhazia.

1. Ambrosio T., Lange W. A. 2016. The Architecture of Annexation? Russia’s Bilateral Agreements with South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Nationalities Papers. 44(5). P. 673–693. DOI: 10.1080/00905992.2016.1203300.

2. Ayunts A., Zolyan M., Zakaryan T. 2016. Nagorny Karabakh Conflict: Prospects for Conflict Transformation. Nationalities Papers. 44(4). P. 543–559. DOI: 10.1080/00905992.2016.1157158

3. Bakke K.M., Linke A.M., O'Loughlin J., Toal G. 2018. Dynamics of State-Building after War: External-Internal Relations in Eurasian De Facto States. Political Geography. №63. P. 159–173. DOI: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.06.011.

4. Beacháin D.Ó, Comai G., Tsurtsumia-Zurabashvili A. 2016. The Secret Lives of Unrecognised States: Internal Dynamics, External Relations, and Counter-Recognition Strategies. Small Wars & Insurgencies. 27(3). P. 440–466. DOI: 10.1080/09592318.2016.1151654

5. Berg E., Kuusk E. 2010. What Makes Sovereignty a Relative Concept? Empirical Approaches to International Society. Political Geography. 29(1). P. 40–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2010.01.005.

6. Blakkisrud H., Kolstø P. 2012. Dynamics of De Facto Statehood: the South Caucasian De Facto States between Secession and Sovereignty. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. 12(2). P. 281–298. DOI: 10.1080/14683857.2012.686013

7. Caspersen N. 2015. Degrees of Legitimacy: Ensuring Internal and External Support in the Absence of Recognition. Geoforum. №66. P. 184–192. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.10.003.

8. Caspersen N., Stansfield G. 2012. Unrecognized States in the International System. Exeter Studies in Ethno Politics. University of Exeter. UK. Taylor & Francis. 261 p.

9. Doboš B., Riegl M. 2020. Neomedievalism and International Recognition: Explaining the Level of Recognition Via Networking. Riegl M., Doboš B. (eds). Perspectives on Secession. Frontiers in International Relations. Springer. Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-48274-9_5

10. Emerson R. 1971. Self-Determination. American Journal of International Law. 65(3). P. 459–475. DOI: 10.2307/2198970

11. Harguindéguy J.-B., Sánchez E.S., Sánchez A.S. 2021. Why do Central States Accept Holding Independence Referendums? Analyzing the Role of State Peripheries. Electoral Studies. №69. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102248.

12. Harzl B. 2018. The Law and Politics of Engaging De Facto States: Injecting New Ideas for an Enhanced EU Role. Washington, DC. Center for Transatlantic Relations. 91 p.

13. Heraclides A. 2020. Self-determination and Secession: the Normative Discourse Yesterday and Today. Riegl M., Doboš B. (eds). Perspectives on Secession. Frontiers in International Relations. Springer. Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-48274-9_2

14. Kereselidze N. 2015. The Engagement Policies of the European Union, Georgia and Russia towards Abkhazia. Caucasus Survey. 3(3). P. 309–322. DOI: 10.1080/23761199.2015.1102451

15. Monastiriotis V., Zilic I. 2020. The Economic Effects of Political Disintegration: Lessons from Serbia and Montenegro. European Journal of Political Economy. №65. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2020.101938.

16. Olsson O., Baaz M. E., Martinsson P. 2020. Fiscal Capacity in “post”-Conflict States: Evidence from Trade on Congo River. Journal of Development Economics. №146. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2020.102506.

17. Oltramonti G. P. 2020. The Viability of De Facto States: Cases from the Caucasus and the Horn of Africa. Riegl M., Doboš B. (eds). Perspectives on Secession. Frontiers in International Relations. Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-48274-9_8

18. Pegg S., Kolstø P. 2015. Somaliland: Dynamics of Internal Legitimacy and (Lack of) External Sovereignty. Geoforum. №66. P. 193–202. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.09.001.

19. Pigliucci M. 2020. “Free Trieste Movement”: a First Russian Intervention in Domestic Politics of a Western Country? Riegl M., Doboš B. (eds). Perspectives on Secession. Frontiers in International Relations. Springer. Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-48274-9_10.

20. Qvortrup M. 2020. Democracy, Realism and Independence Referendums. Riegl M., Doboš B. (eds). Perspectives on Secession. Frontiers in International Relations. Springer. Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-48274-9_4

21. Relitz S. 2019. The Stabilisation Dilemma: Conceptualizing International Responses to Secession and De Facto States. East European Politics. 35(1). P. 1–21. DOI: 10.1080/21599165.2019.1580191.

22. Toomla R. 2016. Charting Informal Engagement between De Facto States: a Quantitative Analysis. Space and Polity. 20(3). P. 330–345. DOI: 10.1080/13562576.2016.1243037

23. Vanschoonbeek J. 2020. Regional (In)stability in Europe a Quantitative Model of state Fragmentation. Journal of Comparative Economics. 48(3). Pp. 605–641. DOI: 10.1016/j.jce.2020.01.001.

24. Bashmakova E.P., Toropushina E.E. 2019. Sotsialnoe predprinimatelstvo kak faktor samorazvitiya territoriy rossiyskoy Arktiki [Social Business as a Factor of Self-Development of the Russian Arctic Territories]. Ekonomika, predprinimatelstvo i pravo. 9(4). P. 481–496. (In Russian)

25. Belyaev, V.I., Bocharov S.N., Chernysheva E. V. 2015. O znachenii marketinga territorij dlya obespecheniya vosproizvodstvennyh processov v regione [On the Importance of Territory Marketing for Ensuring Reproduction Processes in the Region]. Fundamental research. 11(3). P. 544–548. (In Russian)

26. Borodin V.A., Erohin A.V. 2015. Regional'naya integraciya kak faktor povysheniya potenciala samorazvitiya Territorii [Regional Integration as a Factor of Increasing the Potential of Self-Development of the Territory]. Regional Economics: theory and practice. №47. P. 2–12. (In Russian)

27. Voroshilov N.V. 2017. Vozmozhnosti i perspektivy samorazvitiya municipal'nyh obrazovanij [Opportunities and Prospects for Self-Development of Municipalities]. Problems of territory's development. 4(90). P. 79–95. (In Russian)

28. Zharikov E.P. 2015. Ekonomika okrainnogo regiona v usloviyah transgranichnosti [The Economy of the Marginal Region in the Conditions of Cross-Border]. PACIFIC RIM: Economics, Politics, Law. 17(3). P. 69–76. (In Russian)

29. Kislaya T.N., Golubcova O.A. 2017. Mekhanizm formirovaniya strategii samorazvitiya nepriznannoj Respubliki [The Mechanism of Formation of the Strategy of Self-Development of the Unrecognized Republic]. Vestnik fakul'teta upravleniya SPbGEU. №2. P. 30–39. (In Russian)

30. Kolosovskij A. M. 2010. Vospitanie nacii. O problemah, sderzhivayushchih innovacionnoe predprinimatel'stvo, kak faktora samorazvitiya territorij [Education of the Nation. About the Problems that Hinder Innovative Entrepreneurship as a Factor of Self-Development of territories]. Kreativnaya ekonomika. 2(38). P. 27–33. (In Russian)

31. Korchak E. A., Skuf 'ina T. P. 2018. Trudovoj potencial kak social'nyj faktor samorazvitiya regionov i mestnyh soobshchestv Arkticheskoj zony Rossii [Labor Potential as a Social Factor of Self-Development of Regions and Local Communities of the Arctic Zone of Russia]. Theory and Practice of Social Development. 10(128). P. 44–48. DOI: 10.24158/tipor.2018.10.7. (In Russian)

32. Kovalchuk Yu., Stepnov I. 2019. Research of the Technological Future’s Uncertainty. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 12(6). P. 214–224. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2019-6-69-214-224

33. Minakov A.V. 2020. Ocenka sovremennogo sostoyaniya finansovoj ustojchivosti byudzhetnoj sistemy Rossii [Assessment of the Current State of Financial Stability of the Budget System of Russia]. The Eurasian Scientific Journal. 12(3). P. 1–12. (In Russian)

34. Molchanova M. Yu. 2013. Kriterii samorazvitiya regionov kak osnova formirovaniya mezhbyudzhetnyh otnoshenij [Criteria of Self-Development of Regions as the Basis of Formation of Interbudgetary Relations]. Fundamental research. № 6–1. P. 131–135. (In Russian)

35. Najdenova T.A., Shvecova I.N. 2017. Metodicheskij instrumentarij ocenki finansovoj ustojchivosti byudzhetov sub"ektov Rossijskoj Federacii [Methodical Toolkit for the Assessment of the Russian Federation Constituent Territories’ Financial Stability]. PNRPU Sociology and Economics Bulletin. №2. P. 222–233. DOI: 10.15593/2224-9354/2017.2.17. (In Russian)

36. Rumyancev A.A. 2015. Nauchno-innovacionnoe prostranstvo makroregiona: perspektivy innovacionnogo razvitiya territorij [Scientific and Innovative Space of the Macroregion: Prospects for Innovative Development of Territories]. Studies on Russian Economic Development. 4(151). P. 85–95. (In Russian)

37. Syatchihin S.V. 2015. Social'nyj kapital kak faktor samorazvitiya territorij [Social Capital as a Factor of Self-Development of Territories]. Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Economics and Law. 25(1). P. 103–109. (In Russian)

38. Tishkina T.M. 2017. Harakteristika potenciala social'nogo partnerstva kak faktora samorazvitiya territorii [Characteristics of the Potential of Social Partnership as a Factor of SelfDevelopment of the Territory]. Kontentus. 1(54). P. 52–62. (In Russian)

39. Toropushina E.E. 2018. Social'naya infrastruktura kak faktor samorazvitiya territorii rossijskoj Arktiki [Social Infrastructure as a Factor of Self-Development of the Territory of the Russian Arctic]. Sever i rynok: formirovanie ekonomicheskogo poryadka. 5(61). P. 14–23. DOI: 10.25702/KSC.2220-802X.5.2018.61.14-23. (In Russian)

40. Shelomencev A.G., Doroshenko S.V., Dzhabiev V.V., Goncharova K.S. 2021. Endogennye faktory social'no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya Respubliki Yuzhnaya Osetiya (nepriznannogo gosudarstva) v usloviyah ee ekonomicheskoj izolyacii [Endogenous Factors of Socio-Economic Development of the Republic of South Ossetia (an Unrecognized State) in the Conditions of its Economic Isolation]. Human Progress. 7(1). DOI: 10.34709/IM.171. (In Russian)