Economic nationalism after empire: A comparative perspective on nation, economy, and security in post-Soviet Eurasia

All post-Soviet states were economically dependent on Russia during the 1990s. Some post-Soviet governments, such as Belarus's, decided that dependence was a good reason for economic reintegration with Russia. Other post-Soviet governments, such as Lithuania's, interpreted the very same dependence differently; they considered economic dependence on Russia a security threat and sought to reorient their economies. Still a third group of post-Soviet governments, represented by Ukraine, did not choose a coherent economic strategy and remained neither oriented away from nor oriented toward the Russian economy. Thus post-Soviet governments had contrasting preferences for the political-economic future of the region, particularly whether the Eurasian economy should disintegrate or reintegrate. This dissertation shows that differences in the national identities of post-Soviet societies have, in important part, caused these different government preferences and therefore led to the complex patterns of disintegration and reintegration of the regional economy.;This dissertation also explains how nationalisms and national identities in general affect the economic relations among states. Such an explanation is important because the study of international relations currently lacks one. International political economy scholars have tended to conflate economic nationalism and economic statism, also known as mercantilism. This is an analytical mistake: nations are not equivalent to states; economic nationalism is not equivalent to mercantilism; and a Nationalist perspective on international political economy (which emphasizes the causal power of nationalism) cannot be equivalent to the Realist perspective (which emphasizes the causal power of statism). A Nationalist perspective on international political economy differs fundamentally from the field's dominant theoretical alternatives, Realism and Liberalism. Building upon distinct traditions in international relations theory, this dissertation outlines those fundamental arguments that must compose a framework linking nationalism and the economy. A core argument distinguishes each approach's understanding of the state: the Nationalist state is purposive, while the Realist state is self-interested, and the Liberal regulative.;The empirical focus of the dissertation is the political economy of post-Soviet international relations. Case studies of Lithuanian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian foreign economic policy-making since 1991 provide a means to test the dissertation's theoretical claims. While these three cases share a number of politically meaningful similarities, they also represent the full range of the dependent variable: economic relations with other states. In addition, this study puts the post-Soviet experience of political dissolution and economic reconstitution in the comparative context of post-Habsburg eastern Europe, thereby expanding the number of cases linking national identities and foreign economic policies. Nationalism also determined the reorganization of trade and currencies in post-Habsburg eastern Europe during the interwar years.