CEU Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2014
| Author | Asenova, Vera Dimitrova |
|---|---|
| Title | Small State Autonomy in Hierarchical Regimes. The Case of Bulgaria in the German and Soviet Spheres of Influence 1933 - 1956 |
| Summary | This thesis studies international cooperation between a small and a big state in the framework of administered international trade regimes. It discusses the short-term economic goals and long-term institutional effects of international rules on domestic politics of small states. A central concept is the concept of authority in hierarchical relations as defined by Lake, 2009. Authority is granted by the small state in the course of interaction with the hegemonic state, but authority is also utilized by the latter in order to attract small partners and to create positive expectations from cooperation. The main research question is how do small states trade their own authority for economic gains in relations with foreign governments and with local actors. This question is about the relationship between international and domestic hierarchies and the structural continuities that result from international cooperation. The contested relationship between foreign authority and domestic institutions is examined through the experience of Bulgaria under two different international trade regimes – the German economic sphere in the 1930’s and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) in the early 1950’s. These are two very restrictive regimes of administered domestic economies and bilateral clearing international trade. Both core countries of these regimes extend economic benefits to the small states in order to legitimize their rule and build international authority. The Nazi and the Soviet regimes relied on authority to a different extent and used it at different points in time to legitimize their power. Nazi Germany used soft power in the early 1930’s to attract economic cooperation, which evolved to hard power and economic exploitation during WWII. Soviet power at the end of WWII was in the form of military occupation and economic exploitation and gradually took a softer form including economic concessions to its sphere of influence. In both cases the small state had a certain degree of authority and was able to extract short term economic benefits from cooperation with the hegemon. I argue that the small state has more agency than it is usually assumed in the literature. |
| Supervisor | Julius Horvath |
| Department | International Relations PhD |
| Full text | https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2014/asenova_vera.pdf |
Visit the CEU Library.
© 2007-2021, Central European University