Essays in Honor of Karen Dawisha

Sunset at Havighurst


Venelin I. Ganev, Miami University, and Havighurst Center for Russian and Post-Soviet Studies

Originally published in "Essays in Honor of Karen Dawisha" special issue of Demokratizatziya, Venelin I. Ganev and Stephen Norris, co-editors, Vol. 24, No.4 (Fall 2016), pp.421-434.

Karen Dawisha debuted as a scholar in 1972 when she published her first article. Her second appeared three years later. These early texts are notable because they do not contain a single reference to the writings of a female Western academic. Clearly, the young, Colorado-born scholar who was working on her dissertation in the United Kingdom was entering a field from which women were mostly absent. In subsequent years the field would change, at least in part because Karen Dawisha established for herself the reputation of an insightful expert on Soviet politics and a widely admired political scientist and thus became a role model for the cohorts of female graduate students whose careers began in the 1980s and the 1990s.

Her first two essays also make it easy to understand what made Dawisha's success possible. They are written in a clear, jargon-free language; they offer arguments grounded in masterfully crafted analytical frameworks; their central messages are articulated in a lucid and compelling manner. The articles also reveal the sheer scope and depth of the young author's knowledge: the first one, on “The Roles of Ideology in the Decision-Making of the Soviet Union” (published in International Relations), contains references to Barrington Moore, C. Wright Mills, Daniel Bell and Talcott Parsons, as well as philosophical digressions on Karl Marx. The second one, on “Soviet Cultural Relations with Iraq, Syria and Egypt, 1955-1970” (published in Soviet Studies), contains references to James Rosenau, K.J.Holsti, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anastas Mikoyan as well as quantitative analysis of a painstakingly complied data set. Even at this early stage of her career Dawisha demonstrated that she was fully capable of pursuing versatile projects with methodological rigor and analytical dexterity.

Over the next four decades Karen Dawisha made key contributions to at least four areas of substantive knowledge about the Soviet and post-Soviet political universes. The first one is Soviet domestic politics. In her debut article she offers a subtle analysis of the impact of Marxism-Leninism on the decision-making procedures and the policy choices institutionalized by Soviet political elites. Dawisha’s article also placed a special emphasis on how the internal contradictions within the reigning ideology over time generate markedly different forms of governmental action. In the 1980s she continued these explorations and published insightful studies of the organizational evolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the role of state structures in Soviet-type regimes, and the distinct characteristics of Soviet bureaucratic politics.

Secondly, Karen Dawisha is well-known as a perspicacious observer of Soviet foreign policy. Her dissertation – which she defended in 1975 at the London School of Economics, before a committee that included academic luminaries such as Leonard Schapiro and Humphrey Trevelyan – was entitled “Soviet Foreign Policy Toward Iraq, Syria and Egypt.” Over the next dozen years it was precisely to the global entanglements of the Soviet Union that she devoted the bulk of her scholarship. Fairly quickly she became the only Western expert who could competently discuss Soviet foreign policy both in the Middle East and in Eastern Europe (her first book, which came out in 1979, is entitled Soviet Policy Towards Egypt; her second book, published five years later, is entitled The Kremlin and the Prague Spring). And as the decade progressed, she was among the few academics who instantly recognized the significance of Gorbachev’s reforms: her explorations of the effect of perestroika on Marxist regimes in Eastern Europe and the impact of the East European satellites’ growing restlessness culminated in the publication of one of her most widely read and admired monographs, Eastern Europe, Gorbachev and Reform: The Great Challenge.

After the collapse of communism Dawisha’s attention shifted to postcommunist transformations. The four-volume series on politics in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union she edited with Bruce Parrott for Cambridge University Press remains one of the most important contributions to the literature about the turbulent 1990s. In addition, Karen Dawisha published theoretical essays on the notion of democratic consolidation and the impact of electoral politics on divided societies.

Finally, over the last two decades Karen Dawisha’s scholarship turned towards domestic politics in postcommunist Russia, and more specifically the essential characteristics of Putin’s regime. The most important product of her scholarly effort in that regard is the brilliant and controversial Putin’s Kleptocracy. This widely discussed book did elicit some disagreements which focused mostly on the empirical evidence she presented in order to substantiate her claim that a Putin-led “cabal” already existed in the mid-1990s (which critics like Stephen Kotkin deemed to be insufficient) and on the broad concept of kleptocracy which she conjured up (and which critics like Richard Sakwa believed to be under-articulated and one-sided). But it is undeniable that the book expanded the universe of facts available to scholars who study Russia, offered a coherent analytical account of the massive shifts that reshaped institutional and political landscapes in the 1990s and inspired novel ways of thinking about the linkages between money and power in authoritarian regimes.

The five essays in this Festschrift illustrate the heuristic potential, intellectual import, and remarkably broad range of Karen Dawisha’s scholarly work. Valerie Bunce and Aida Hozic build upon her insights about the political calculus that undergirds decision-making in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia. Such insights, the authors argue, are indispensable for understanding enduring patterns in Russian politics, and more specifically ruling elites’ propensity to engage in “diffusion-proofing,” or taking preemptive measures at home and abroad to protect their regimes from possible contagion effects associated with popular uprisings against authoritarian rulers from neighboring countries. Gulnaz Sharafutdinova shows how Dawisha’s explorations of kleptocracy as practiced in Putin’s Russia – and particularly the mechanisms deployed to siphon off stolen assets abroad – illuminate the various ways in which Russia is embedded in the economic structures and transnational institutions of a globalized world. Caress Schenk relies on Dawisha’s analysis of the interplay of domestic and foreign policy considerations in political decision-making in order to examine shifting modes of enforcement and non-enforcement of Russia’s immigration laws. Venelin I. Ganev explores the rarely discussed theoretical dimensions of Putin’s Kleptocracy, and more concretely what a social theorist might learn from Dawisha’s robust descriptions of elite agency in postcommunism, the nature of the assets used by strategically located cadres, and the organizational strategies deployed by Putin and his collaborators in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Finally, Stephen Deets and Jennifer Skulte-Ouaiss emphasize that Dawisha’s conclusions about the divisive effects of postcommunist electoral politics are easily applicable to other contexts, e.g. ethnically and religiously split societies like Lebanon.

What the essays included in this Festschrift demonstrate, therefore, is that irrespectively of what exploratory journey social scientists decide to embark upon today, Karen Dawisha might be among their most desired and cherished intellectual companions.

Beyond scholarly research arguably Karen Dawisha’s most remarkable intellectual achievement is that after the collapse of the Soviet Union she was able to reinvent herself as a sharp observer of postcommunist politics. At first glance, such a transition might appear to be natural. In fact, it is not: few of those who began their careers studying Soviet-type politics were subsequently able to make innovative contributions to the literature on postcommunism (Valerie Bunce, the most distinguished contributor to this special issue, is among them). Some remained trapped in ideological polemics featuring Russia as a place where promising experiments are constantly undermined by a nefarious West (with the IMF, the World Bank and “neo-liberal reformers” cast in the role of villains previously assigned to NATO and American imperialism). Others never grasped the nature of the transformative dynamics that propelled the massive changes of the 1990s and could not separate the analytically important wheat from the sensationalist chaff. Still others chose to focus on current events ensuring that their opinions and conclusions were quickly superseded by subsequent developments. In sum, the number of former Sovietologists who were able to write important articles and books on postcommunist Russia is intriguingly small.

Karen Dawisha is one of these Sovietologists. Her ability to maintain her scholarly presence in a field of study that was increasingly populated by the “young lions and lionesses” of the 1990s and 2000s, recent PhDs who studied postcommunism without ever having done research on communism, should be attributed to her unique talent for detecting and explaining the sometimes bewildering combinations of ruptures and continuities that transpired in the former Soviet world. She is one of the few scholars who can amalgamate analytical accounts of what happened before and after 1991 into compelling interpretative narratives. But there are at least two other reasons why Karen Dawisha gained recognition as an astute observer of postcommunist politics.

The first one is her open-mindedness as a scholar and intellectual. Her research agenda has never been molded by an unwavering commitment to a particular ideology, research program or methodology. To be sure, often she does hold strong opinions and has never shied away from polemical engagements, as her exchanges with Graham Allison in the 1980s and Stephen Cohen in the 2000s amply demonstrate. But she never seeks to impose preconceived notions on complex realities and seems always aware of the fact that interpretative frameworks that have proven to be helpful in the past may have become inadequate. Unlike many of her fellow Sovietologists, Dawisha appeared ready to recognize the obsoleteness of habitually deployed interpretative strategies and to accept the fact that new political realities must be approached from new analytical vantage points.

The other reason why Karen Dawisha was able to metamorphose successfully from a Sovietologist into an expert on postcommunism is her self-restraint (it should be pointed out that this is a scholarly virtue which, alas, only tenured professors can afford; Dawisha was granted tenure in 1976 at the University of Southampton, and became a full professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, in 1985). Amidst the convulsions of the 1990s it was expected that it would be precisely those who claimed to understand the politics of Soviet-type regimes that would serve as reliable explainers of postcommunist transformations. And many did try to play that role: they rapidly published commentaries, analyses and opinions both in scholarly journals and collections of essays, and in mass media outlets. But that is not how Karen Dawisha chose to behave. Here is an interesting fact about her scholarship: in the 1980s Dawisha published 30 articles and book chapters; in the 1990s – only 11, and of those 4 were on the Soviet, not the post-Soviet era. Behind these numbers stands the realization that what is clearly visible and thus easy to discuss may also be analytically unimportant and political inconsequential – and that, more generally, “things growing are not ripe until their season.”[1] That is why efforts to render postcommunism intelligible might easily go astray: interpretative paradigms that invoked instantly recognizable notions such as “neoliberal reforms,” “the arrival of capitalism,” “transition to democracy,” “the rise of electoral politics, political parties and parliamentarism,” “center-periphery relations,” or “the legacies of the past” might indeed help us make sense of what is happening. At the same time, the legibility of the newly emerging contexts is purchased at a very high price: forsaking true understanding. It seems, therefore, that sometimes the intellectually appropriate thing to do is to resist the temptation to declare that what is happening before our eyes is a confirmation of a pet theory, sit back, follow events – and think. While Dawisha remained active in the 1990s – as the above-mentioned Cambridge University Press series attests – she generally refrained from entering the raging debates du jour. When she did begin to publish more ambitious scholarly texts – on the divisive impact of multi-party elections, on the concept of democratic consolidation, and, especially, on Putin – she had strikingly original things to say.

Here, then, are the enduring characteristic of Karen Dawisha’s scholarship: a deep knowledge of a particular region admixed with an alertness of the mind that made it possible for her to see that this region is changing in unpredicted and unpredictable ways; mastery of currently available analytical tool-kits combined with the clear understanding that sometimes the overreliance on such tool-kits is a sign of intellectual laziness; intellectual curiosity and courage tampered by analytical rigor. It is precisely this panoply of intellectual virtues and scholarly skills that enabled Dawisha to gain recognition as one of her generation’s most outstanding political scientists. They have graced her texts since the beginning of her career – and will undoubtedly continue to be on full display in her future work.

From 2000 until her retirement in 2016 Karen Dawisha assumed yet another role: institution-builder. She became the founding Director of Miami University of Ohio’s Havighurst Center for Russian and Post-Soviet Studies, which was established with the help of a generous gift from distinguished Miami professor of English and nationally recognized author Walter Havighurst (1901-1994). Under her leadership the Center became one of the most exciting new academic projects devoted to the study of the former “second world.” Among the reasons for this success are three initiatives that Karen Dawisha conceived, designed and institutionalized.

The first one is the Havighurst Fellowships. Just like other similar programs, these 2-year residential fellowships are intended to allow recent graduates to make progress with their promising research projects. But they are also fairly unique in several respects. To begin with, they provide young scholars with the opportunity to create and teach classes directly related to their area of expertise. In addition, the Fellows can benefit from daily interactions with a number of faculty members who share the commitment to study Russia, Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Finally, the Fellows are provided with the resources they need to hold a conference on a topic of their own choosing. As a result the Havighurst Fellowship which Dawisha introduced in 2000 has become an important stepping stone for recent Ph.D. graduates who are trying to “make it” at a time when departments and programs are downsizing and jobs are scarce: practically all Havighurst Fellows have gone on to positions in major institutions such as Yale, Rochester, Brooklyn College, George Mason, Syracuse, Middlebury and The University of Arkansas.  

The second important initiative that Dawisha launched is the annual Young Researchers’ Conference. This conference brings together ABDs, recent Ph.D. graduates and assistant professors from North America, Europe and the former Soviet Union with Havighurst faculty and senior keynote speakers for a 3-day event that combines public lectures with intensive panel discussions. The topic of the conference is selected by a Havighurst faculty on a rotating basis. Over time this strategy allowed the Center to pursue a diverse agenda unconstrained by disciplinary preferences, undue emphasis of certain periods and regions at the expense of others, and unwarranted reliance on a single metric of scholarly relevance. Undoubtedly, the forum that Karen Dawisha created will continue to generate high-quality scholarship. But it is also a venue that makes possible community-building: it has helped create a growing trans-continental network of former participants, a pool of up-and-coming academics and researchers who continue to interact with each other and on whose collaboration the Center can rely as it contemplates its future projects.

Finally, Karen Dawisha started yet another initiative, the Havighurst lecture, held in the Center’s hometown of Oxford, OH. Delivered by a leading figure from Russia, Eastern Europe or the United States who has made an outstanding contribution to our understanding of the region of former Soviet domination, the Havighurst lectures have featured former presidents, prime ministers, artists and opposition activists. The growing popularity of these lectures confirms that the Havighurst Center has acquired the reputation of a vibrant source of national and international debates. It is solely due to Karen Dawisha’s leadership, therefore, that memories of time spent together in Oxford, OH will feature prominently in the conversations of an increasing number of scholars from around the world. The Havighurst Center has by now become one of the most exciting and talked-about academic destinations for those who study the Russian empire, communism and postcommunism.

It is to Karen Dawisha – an unforgettable teacher, devoted mentor, great colleague, inspiring encourager, loyal comrade-in-arms, skillful leader, gifted raconteur, outstanding scholar, brilliant intellectual – that we present these essays, with admiration and gratitude.


Putin’s Kleptocracy. Who Owns Russia?, author, Simon & Schuster, hb and books on tape 2014, revised pb edition, 2015, 445 pp.

Russia and the New States of Eurasia:  The Politics of Upheaval, co-author, Cambridge University Press, 1994, 437 pp.

Eastern Europe, Gorbachev and Reform: The Great Challenge, 2nd revised and expanded ed., author, Cambridge University Press, 1990, 320 pp.

Eastern Europe, Gorbachev and Reform: The Great Challenge, author, Cambridge University Press, 1988, 268 pp.

The Kremlin and the Prague Spring, author, University of California Press, 1984, 431 pp.

Soviet Policy Towards Egypt, author, Macmillan, 1979, 271 pp.



“The Putin Principle How It Came to Rule Russia,” World Affairs, Vol. 178, No. 1, May 2015, pp. 14-22.

 “Is Russia’s Foreign Policy that of a Corporatist-Kleptocratic Regime?” Post-Soviet Affairs, Vol. 27, No. 4, October-December 2011.

“Soviet Studies, National Security and the Production of ‘Useful’ Knowledge,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 8, No. 4, December 2010, pp. 1158-1163.

“Political Learning in Post-Communist Elections,”(with Stephen Deets) ,”  East European Politics and Society Vol. 20, No. 4, Fall 2006, pp. 691-729.

“Communism as a Lived System of Ideas in Contemporary Russia,”  East European Politics and Society, Vol. 19, No. 3, Summer 2005, pp. 464-494.

“The Role of Ideas in Post-Communist Politics: A Reevaluation,” (with Venelin Ganev) ,”  East European Politics and Society, Vol. 19, No. 3, Summer 2005, pp. 339-343.

“The Question of Questions: Was the Soviet Union Worth Saving?” Slavic Review, Vol. 63, No. 3, Fall 2004, pp. 513-526.

“How to Build a Democratic Iraq,” (with Adeed Dawisha) Foreign Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 3, 2003, pp. 36-50.

“Blueprint for Hope in Iraq,” (with Adeed Dawisha) Prospect (London), No. 89, August 2003. pp. 18-24.

“The Social Sciences and Area Studies: Never the Twain Shall Meet?” Newsnet, American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Fall 2003.

“Electocracies and the Hobbesian Fishbowl of Postcommunist Politics,” East European Politics and Societies , Vol. 13, No. 2, Spring 1999, pp. 256-271.

“ Russian Foreign Policy in the Near Abroad and Beyond,” Current History, Vol. 95, No. 603, October 1996,  pp. 330-335.

"Perestroika, Glasnost and Soviet Foreign Policy," The Harriman Institute Forum, Vol. 3, No. 1, The W. Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union, Columbia University, New York, 1990.

"Socialist Internationalism in Eastern Europe" (with Jonathan C. Valdez), Problems of Communism, Vol. 36, March-April 1987, pp. 1-15.

"Gorbachev and Eastern Europe: A New Challenge for the West?" World Policy Journal, Spring 1986.

"Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union: Fissure Points and Western Opportunities," U.S. Congress, 99th Session, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, European Sub-Committee, 1986, pp. 82-102.

"The USSR in the Middle East: Superpower in Eclipse?," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 61, No. 2, Winter 1982/83, pp. 438-52.

"Moscow in the Middle East," Problems of Communism, Vol. 31, No. 3, May-June 1982, pp. 56-60, and rejoinder to Comments by Robert O. Freedman, Vol. 32, No. 1, January-February 1983.

"Debolezze e punti di forza nella politica mediorientale del l'Urss," Politica Internazionale (Rome), Vol. 10, No. 3, March 1982, pp. 19-31.

"Moscow and the Gulf War," The World Today, Vol. 37, No. 1, January 1981, pp. 8-15.

"Soviet Decision-Making in the Middle East: The 1973 October War and the 1980 Gulf War," International Affairs, Vol. 57, No. 1, Winter 1980/81, pp. 43-60; reprinted in Beitrage zur Konfliktforschung, No. 3, 1981, pp. 33-57.

"The Limits of the Bureaucratic Politics Model: Observations on the Soviet Case," Studies in Comparative Communism (University of Southern California), Vol. 13, No.4, Winter 1980, pp. 300-26.

"Rejoinder" to Comments on "The Limits . . ." by Graham T. Allison, Fred H. Eidlin and Jiri Valenta, in ibid, pp. 342-6.

"Moscow's Moves in the Direction of the Gulf -- So Near and Yet So Far," Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies, Washington, D.C., Occasional Paper Number 122, November 1980; reprinted in Journal of International Affairs (Columbia University), Vol. 34, No. 2, Fall/Winter 1980/81, pp. 219-35.

"Soviet Security and the Role of the Military: The 1968 Czechoslovak Crisis," British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 10, July 1980, pp. 341-63; reprinted in The Journal of Strategic Studies (The Strategic Studies Society of Japan), Vol. 1, Nos. 1 and 2, December 1982, pp. 18-31.

"The Soviet Union in the Middle East: Great Power in Search of a Leading Role," Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 1, Winter 1980, pp. 19-37.

"The Soviet Union in the Middle East: Strategy at the Crossroads?," The World Today, Vol. 35, No. 3, March 1979, pp. 91-100.

"The Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, 1968," Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, Vol. 3, Nos. 2-3, Winter/Spring 1978, pp.143-172.

"Soviet Policy in the Middle East: Present Dilemmas and Future Trends," Millennium, Journal of International Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, Autumn 1977, pp. 182-90.

"Soviet Cultural Relations with Iraq, Syria and Egypt, 1955-1970," Soviet Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3, July 1975, pp. 418-40.

"The Roles of Ideology in the Decision-Making of the Soviet Union," International Relations, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 1972, pp. 156-172.


“Russia and Its World,” in Joel Krieger, ed., Oxford Companion to International Relations OUP, 2014.

“Russia in Comparative Perspective,” in Joel Krieger, ed., Oxford Companion to Comparative Politics, OUP, 2013, pp. 334-40.

“Vladislav Surkov,” in Stephen M. Norris and Willard Sunderland, eds., Russia’s People of Empire, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2012, pp. 339-50.

"Electocracies and the Hobbesian Fishbowl of Postcommunist Politics," in Sorin Antohi and Vladimir Tismaneanu, eds.,  Between Past and Future: The Revolutions of 1989 and Their Aftermath, New York: CEU Press, 2000, pp. 291-306.

“Democratization and Political Participation: Research Concepts and Methodologies,” in each volume of Karen Dawisha and Bruce Parrott, eds., Authoritarian and Democratization in Postcommunist Societies, 4 vols., Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 40-69.

“The Interaction Between Internal and External Agency in Post-Communist Transitions,” (co-author), in  Karen Dawisha, ed., The International Dimension of Post-Communist Transitions in Russia and the New States of Eurasia, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1997, pp. 398-425.

“Constructing and Deconstructing Empire in the Post-Soviet Space,” in Karen Dawisha and Bruce Parrott, eds., The End of Empire? The Transformation of the USSR in Comparative Perspective, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1996, pp. 338-363.

"Imperialism, Dependence, and Interdependence in the Eurasian Space," in Adeed Dawisha and Karen Dawisha, eds., The Making of Foreign Policy in Russia and the New States of Eurasia, New York: M.E.Sharpe, 1995.

"Of Empire and Autocolonialism in Eurasia," Ken Booth, ed., International Security Questions for Our Time, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

"Soviet Behavior during the June 1967 War: lessons from Soviet archives," in Richard Parker, ed., Middle East Institute Report, 1995.

"The New Course," and "Crises in the 1950s and 1960s," in Archie Brown, Michael Kaser, and Gerald S. Smith, eds.,  The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Russia and the Former Soviet Union, Cambridge University Press, 1994.

"The Links that Bind:  Soviet Relations with Eastern Europe," (in Russian), in N.A. Simonia, ed., The USSR in the World Community, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1991, pp. 334-399.

"Soviet Political and Ideological Perception and Policies Toward Eastern Europe Under Gorbachev," in Aurel Braun, ed., The Soviet-East Europe Relationship in the Gorbachev Era, Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1990.

"Eastern Europe and Perestroika Under Gorbachev," in Pressure for Reform in East European Economies, 101st Congress, Vol. II, Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1989, pp. 513-534.

"Policy Toward Eastern Europe," in U.S.-Soviet Relations: 1988, House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, Washington, D.C.:  United States Government Printing Office, 1988, pp. 2-81.

"Soviet Political and Ideological Perceptions and Policies Toward Eastern Europe Under Gorbachev," in East European Perestroika:  United States and Soviet Foreign Policy Options," One Hundredth Congress, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1988, pp. 43-77.

"The New Internationalism in Eastern Europe" (with Jonathan C. Valdez), in Robbin F. Laird, ed., Soviet Foreign Policy, Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, Vol. 36, No. 4, 1987, pp. 119-132.

"Western Security Interests and Policies," in Richard D. Vine, ed., Soviet-East European Relations as a Problem for the West, London: Croom Helm for the Atlantic Institute for International Affairs, Paris, 1987, pp. 207-229.

"Kennan, Containment, and Crises in Eastern Europe," in Terry L. Deibel and John Lewis Gaddis, eds., Containment: Concept and Policy, Vol. I , Washington, D.C.:  National Defense University Press, 1986, pp. 401-415.

"The Correlation of Forces and Soviet Policy in the Middle East," in Robbin F. Laird and Erik P. Hoffmann, eds., Soviet Foreign Policy in a Changing World, New York:  Aldine, 1986, pp. 758-774.

"State and Politics in Developed Socialism:  Recent Developments on Soviet Theory," in John Hall, ed., States in History, Oxford:  Basil Blackwell, 1986, pp. 211-228.

"The Soviet Concept of Europe:  The Role of Ideas and Ideology," in E. Morton and G. Segal, eds., The Soviet Union and Europe, London:  George Allen and Unwin, 1983, pp. 19-39.

"Islam in the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union:  A Double-Edged Sword?," (with Helene Carrere d'Encausse) in Adeed Dawisha, ed., Islam in Foreign Policy, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 160-177.

"Soviet Decision-Making in the Middle East," in William Olson, David McClellan and Fred Sonderman, eds., The Theory and Practice of International Relations, 6th ed., New York: Prentice-Hall, 1983, pp. 87-98.

"The Limits of the Bureaucratic Politics Model," in Paul Lewis, ed., Readings in Soviet Politics, London: Open University Press, 1982, pp. 79-83.

"Soviet Foreign Policy:  The Cold War and After," in A.H. Brown, J.L.I. Fennell, M.C. Kaser, and H.J. Willetts, eds., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Russia and the Soviet Union, Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 479-485.

"Changes in the Soviet Party," (with R. Hill and T. Dunmore) in L. Holmes, ed., The Withering Away of the State, London: Sage, 1982, pp. 197-223.

"Perspectives on Soviet Policy in the Middle East," (with Adeed Dawisha) in Adeed Dawisha and Karen Dawisha, eds., The Soviet Union in the Middle East:  Politics and Perspectives, London: Heinemann and Holmes and Meier, 1982, pp. 1-8.

"The Soviet Union in the Middle East," in E.J. Feuchtwanger and Peter Nailor, eds., The Soviet Union and the Third World, London: Macmillan, 1981, pp. 117-137.

"The 1968 Invasion of Czechoslovakia:  Causes, Consequences and Lessons for the Future," in Karen Dawisha and Philip Hanson, eds., Soviet-East European Dilemmas: Coercion, Competition and Consent, London: Heinemann and Holmes and Meier, 1981, pp. 9-26.

"The Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, 1968," in Michael Brecher, ed., Studies in Crisis Behavior, New York: Transaction Books, 1978, pp. 143-172.


Four-volume series published by Cambridge University Press on Authoritarianism and Democratization in Postcommunist Societies. The volumes are:

The Consolidation of Democracy in East-Central Europe, co-editor and contributor, Cambridge University Press, 1997, 423 pp.

Politics, Power and the Struggle for Democracy in South-East Europe, co-editor and contributor, Cambridge University Press, 1997, 472 pp.

Conflict, Cleavage and Change in Central Asia and the Caucasus,  co-editor and contributor, Cambridge University Press, 1997, 423 pp.

Democratic Changes and Authoritarian Reactions in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, co-editor and contributor, Cambridge University Press, 1997, 386 pp.

The International Dimension of Post-Communist Transitions in Russia and the New States of Eurasia, editor and contributor, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1997, 462 pp.

The End of Empire? The Transformation of the USSR in Comparative Perspective, co-editor and contributor, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 374 pp.

The Making of Foreign Policy in Russia and the New States of Eurasia, co-editor and contributor, New York: M.E.Sharpe, 1995, 360 pp.      

The Soviet Union in the Middle East: Politics and Perspectives, co-editor and contributor, Heinemann and Holmes & Meier for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1982, 172 pp.

Soviet-East European Dilemmas: Coercion, Competition and Consent, co-editor and contributor, Heinemann and Holmes & Meier for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1981, 226 pp.

[1] William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act.2, Sc.2, line 124.