January 24, 1972 |
Elena Korosteleva is Jean Monnet Chair  and Professor of International Politics in the School of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent. Korosteleva is also Director (Professional Studies) of the Global Europe Centre (GEC) at the University of Kent and a Visiting Fellow of the Belarusian State University, Minsk. Until August 2012 Korosteleva was Jean Monnet Chair and Director of the Centre for European Studies (CES), at Aberystwyth University.
Elena Korosteleva is an academic researcher and principal investigator focusing on democratisation and the politics of Europe. She is an expert on the politics of Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova; as well as academic expert on the European External Action Service (EEAS), European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), European Neighbourhood and Partnership Initiative (ENPI) and Eastern Partnership (EaP).
- 1 Research interests
- 2 Widening the European Dialogue in Moldova
- 3 Belarus and Eastern Partnership: National and European Values
- 4 European External Action Service (EEAS)
- 5 European Neighbourhood Policy Research and Eastern Partnership Initiative Research (ENP\EaP Research)
- 6 The Quality of Democracy
- 7 Belarusian Politics
- 8 Teaching Recognition
- 9 Pedagogic Research
- 10 Selected List of Published Work
- 11 Press References
- 12 UK Parliamentary References
- 13 References
- 14 External links
Elena Korosteleva's work centres around the critical analysis of the European Union's (EU) European External Action Service (EEAS), European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), European Neighbourhood and Partnership Initiative (ENPI) and Eastern Partnership (EaP) in relation to the Post-Soviet states of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. She is an expert in the politics of Belarus, third wave democratisation in Eastern Europe and charismatic political leadership. She publishes extensively in monographs, academic journals, book chapters and government briefing and policy papers.
Widening the European Dialogue in Moldova
Professor Korosteleva was commissioned by the Slovak Atlantic Commission as principal investigators to undertake a nation-wide representative survey in Moldova between 19 October and 7 November 2013 aimed at measuring public knowledge, perceptions and preferences in relation to the EU and its policies.
The key findings  suggest public support of the EU and its policies has slightly eroded, which is reflected in the respondents’ perceptions, levels of interest, attitudes and behavioural preferences. The EU remains attractive for Moldova - but is not a default option yet. It requires continuous reinforcement: the fear of uncertainty and negative anticipations of change currently prevail in public perceptions of the EU, causing a loss of trust, and reciprocity in EU-Moldova relations. The Eurasian Customs Union (ECU), on the contrary, tends to be seen as a model which may potentially offer a quick-fix solution for stability, prosperity and security
Belarus and Eastern Partnership: National and European Values
Professor Korosteleva was commissioned by the Office for Democratic Belarus as principal investigators to undertake a nation-wide representative survey in Belarus between 20 May and 4 June 2013 focusing on the country’s relations with the EU and the (Eurasian) Customs Union (ECU); as well as public perceptions, values, and attitudes towards the afore-mentioned entities.
Three particular trends are observable in Belarus’ public relations:
- Comparative trends demonstrate a positive and substantive shift in public attitudes towards the EU; reflected in higher levels of awareness, more knowledge about EU structures and policies, more interest in EU affairs, more perceivable commonalities with the EU as a polity, more appreciation of EU support, and most importantly, identity-based preferences developing in relation to the latter.
- At the same time, normative underpinnings of public behaviour remain firmly rooted in cultural traditions and historical legacies of the past.
- Levels of awareness about the (Eurasian) Customs Union (ECU) are relatively high (90%). Importantly, the majority of respondents see the ECU as more relevant in addressing immediate economic and energy security concerns.
European External Action Service (EEAS)
52. Professor Elena Korosteleva (University of Kent) has studied Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, three of the Eastern Partnership countries. She had observed that the EEAS could be beneficial both as a global force and for overcoming divisions in government and institutions, but thought that a number of management problems needed to be addressed to achieve coherence and continuity in competences at the lower levels of the EEAS, especially in delegations. She also advocated a clearer delineation of roles and responsibilities in relation to Member States and efforts to engage with host countries. Structural reform was needed to replace divided structures, loyalties and competences by “collective service to the common good.”
European Neighbourhood Policy Research and Eastern Partnership Initiative Research (ENP\EaP Research)
Elena Korosteleva's primary research focus is on the conceptual and methodological limitations of the Eastern Partnership initiative, especially concerning the notion of partnership, as the focal point of the initiative. Through a major ESRC research project she examines the EU's relations with Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova in contrast to the international relations approach adopted by Russia. She notes that the top-down EU-centric governance approach (based on EU rule and norm transfer) clashes with the notion of partnership, which is based on reciprocal exchange and cooperation on issues of mutual interest.
Research findings from the ESRC project "Europeanizing or Securitizing the 'outsiders'? Assessing the EU's partnership-building approach with Eastern Europe
Dr Korosteleva's research of the existing EU practices in Eastern Europe has so far revealed two-level tensions.
First, from the examination of official documents, elite interviews and public surveys across the EU border, it has transpired that conceptually the EU has limited uniform awareness of what it is trying to promote in its eastern neighbourhood under the aegis of ‘shared values’, ‘collective norms’ and ‘joint ownership’. Not only is there a discrepancy in the EU’s own rhetoric – juxtaposing its ‘universalist’ values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law (Europeanisation), with its ‘realist’ security ‘needs’ to protect its borders and safeguard its own citizenry (securitisation); there is also an evident clash of the EU’s vision of good governance with what the neighbours perceive to be such, stemming from their own unique historical experiences and cultural traditions.
Second, empirically, the EU seems to favour a ‘top-down’ governance approach (based on rule/norm transfer and conditionality) in its relations with outsiders, which is clearly at odds with a voluntary idea of ‘partnership’, and explicitly limits the input of ‘the other’ in the process of reform. In the absence of a workable notion of partnership, external governance (unintentionally) circumscribes the EU’s actions to the EU-centred vision of governance, without necessarily connecting it to the ‘visions’ and ‘needs’ of the partner states. Consequently, without the substantive knowledge of its partners, the EU encounters protraction even from the most ‘enthusiastic’ neighbours, such as Moldova and Ukraine; and resistance from those who are not sufficiently motivated by the ‘universal’ appeal of EU governance.
Korosteleva's The European Union and its Eastern Neighbours: Towards a more ambitious partnership? (2012) explores the EU’s relations with its eastern neighbours. Based on the extensive original research – including surveys, focus-groups, a study of school essays and in-depth interviews with key people in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia and in Brussels - it assesses why the EU’s initiatives have received limited legitimacy in the neighbourhood has been so poorly received.
The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) of 2004, and the subsequent Eastern Partnership (EaP) of 2009 heralded a new form of relations with the EU’s neighbours – partnership based on joint ownership and shared values – which would complement if not entirely replace the EU’s traditional governance framework used for enlargement. These initiatives, however, have received a mixed response from the EU’s eastern neighbours. It shows how the key elements of "partnership" have been forged mainly by the EU, rather than jointly, and examines the idea and application of external governance, and how this has been over-prescriptive and confusing.
Korosteleva's second major publication from this research is an edited volume entitled Eastern Partnership: A New Opportunity for the Neighbours? (2011). This book, written in partnership with in country experts, offers a collective assessment of the development and impact of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership Initiative on its eastern neighbours – Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova in particular, with Russia’s added perspective. The volume uniquely bridges the perspectives of all parties across the EU’s eastern border, in an attempt to understand advantages and problems related to the effective implementation of the EU policies in the eastern region. The undertaken research points to the prevalence of the top-down and conditional governance approach in EU treatment of the outsiders, which is not only Eurocentric and prescriptive in nature, but also falls short of the declared partnership principles. Without the understanding of partners’ internal dilemmas and needs, which could only be achieved through the equivalence and reciprocity of partnership, the EU would struggle to make the policy effective and legitimate in the region, and to buttress its reputation as a ‘credible force for good’ on the international arena.
The Quality of Democracy
Korosteleva working with Derek Hutcheson (eds) explore how the countries of the former Eastern Bloc and Soviet Union have exhibited remarkable diversity in their post-communist regime paths in The Quality of Democracy in Post-Communist Europe (2005). They argue that whereas some states have become demonstrably more democratic and have moved in the space of fifteen years from the periphery to the centre of European politics, in others the political and economic climates seem hardly to be better, and their societies no more free, than in the final years of the Cold War. Assessing progress towards democracy in the former Eastern Bloc – or the lack of it – requires a qualitative examination of post-communist polities. This research brings together a number of perspectives, both macro and micro-analytical, on the 'quality' of democracy in post-communist Europe.
Korosteleva with Colin Lawson and Rosalind Marsh (eds) argue in Contemporary Belarus between Democarcy and Dictatorship (2003) that Belarus is unique among the states of the former Soviet bloc, in that after a decade of transition', the country remains stalled' and backward-oriented. Political and economic changes are characterised by half-measures, and recently a new suppression of dissent has been introduced; the country balances between the prospect of democracy and a retreat to authoritarianism. These developments contrast starkly with the many democratic changes in neighbouring states and suggest a possible alternative path for future development in Eastern Europe. Korosteleva provides a thorough overview of current developments in Belarus. It looks at historical, political, economic and social changes, and at international relations, especially relations with Russia and the European Union, considering all these factors both in their domestic and international contexts and defines the type of democracy, if any, which exists in Belarus, exploring the prospects for further democratisation.
Korosteleva with Stephen White and John Lowenhardt (eds) continue the analysis of Belarusian politics in Post Communist Belarus (2005). They note that Belarus is one of the least studied European states to emerge from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In fact, few Western specialists paid much attention to its affairs during the Soviet era. Nevertheless, Belarus constitutes an important and sensitive border region between Russia and the western part of the continent. In Postcommunist Belarus, a stellar group of contributors examines the issues and the search for identity that Belarus has confronted in the period leading up to and following independence. The country is run in an authoritarian fashion by President Alexander Lukashenko and many observers, both inside and outside Belarus, would use the term "dictatorship" to describe his rule. Belarusian authorities prefer to emphasize the strong support of the people for the president and his cautious approach to economic reform. It seems unlikely that the country can hold out permanently against the wider pressures of democratization and economic reform that are transforming its neighbors. The country's situation offers political scientists many facets for comparison with established models. Belarus is grappling with challenges that are conceptual and psychological as much as they are political, economic, and social.
Elena Korosteleva is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA) and was awarded the Higher Education Academy BISA-CSAP Teaching Award for Excellence in Teaching International Studies in 2009;.
Selected List of Published Work
Single Authored Books
- Korosteleva, E.A, (2012),The European Union and its Eastern Neighbours: Towards a more ambitious partnership? London: BASEES/Routledge Series on Russian and East European Studies, ISBN 0-415-61261-6 
- Korosteleva, E.A, (1997), Intellektual v socio-kul’turnom kontekste sovremennogo obschestva: dialektika proshlogo i budushchego [The Intellectual in a socio-cultural context of the modern society: the dialectics of the past and the future], ISBN 985-6390-07-9 Minsk: VEDY,(soft cover)]
Single Edited Books
- Korosteleva E.A, (Ed.), (2011), Vostochnoe Partnerstvo: problemy i perspektivy [Eastern Partnership: problems and perspectives], Minsk: Belarusian State University, ISBN 978-985-491-088-8
- Korosteleva E.A, (Ed.), (2011), Eastern Partnership: A New Opportunity for the Neighbours?, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-67607-X 
Joint Edited Books
- (with) Hutcheson, D. (Eds.,),(2006), The Quality of Democracy in Post-Communist Europe, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-34807-2
- (with) White, S. and Löwenhardt, J. (Eds.), (2005), Postcommunist Belarus, N.Y. & Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, ISBN 0-7425-3555-X
- (with) Marsh, R and Lawson, C. (Eds.), (2003), Contemporary Belarus: Between Democracy and Dictatorship, London: RoutledgeCurzon, ISBN 0-7007-1613-0
Chapters in Books
- "The EU and its Eastern Neighbours: why ‘othering’ matters", in Nicolaidis, K. and B. Sebe (eds.) Echoes of Colonialisms: the Present of Europe’s Past (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
- “Belarus : political party system”, in Sagar, D (ed.) Political Parties of the World (London : Harper Publishers, 2008), 7th edition
- “Party system development in Belarus 1988-2001: Myths and Realities”, in Kulik, A. and Pshizova, S (eds.) Political Parties in Post-Soviet Space: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and the Baltics ( London : Praeger Publishers, 2005), pp. 59–75. ISBN 0-275-97344-1
- (with Rontoyanni, C.) “ Belarus : an authoritarian exception from the model of post-communist democratic transition?”, in Flockhart, T.(ed.) Socializing Democratic Norms: The Role of International Organisations for the Construction of Europe ( London : Palgrave, 2005), pp. 202–232. ISBN 1-4039-4521-7
- “Why Belarus is unique: explaining institutional and electoral allegiances”, in Elo, K and Ruutu, K. (eds.) Russia and the CIS – Janus-faced Democracies ( Helsinki : Kikimora Publications, 2005), pp. 89–107. ISBN 952-10-2586-7
- “Belarus : political party system”, in Szajkowski, B (ed.) Political Parties of the World (London : Harper Publishers, 2004), 6 th edition, pp. 52–56. ISBN 0-9543811-4-9
- “Political leadership and public support in Belarus : Forward to the past?”, in Lewis, A. (ed.) The EU and Belarus: Between Moscow and Brussels (London : Kogan Page, 2002), pp. 51–71 ISBN 1-903403-02-2
- “Perspectives on democratic party development in Belarus ”, in Lewis, P. (ed.) Party Development and Democratic Change in Post-Communist Europe – the First Decade (London : Frank Cass, 2001), pp. 141–152 ISBN 0-7146-5155-9
- ‘EU-Ukraine Relations under the EaP: a Deadlock of Ambitions or Ill-Conceived Policy?’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, (under review)
- ‘Questioning Democracy Promotion: Belarus’ Response to the Coloured Revolutions’, Special Issue, Democratization, Volume 19, Number 1, 1 February 2012, pp. 37–59(23)
- ‘Belarus’ Foreign Policy in the Times of Crisis’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Special Issue, 27(3/4) September 2011: 566-86
- ‘Change or Continuity: Is the Eastern Partnership an Adequate Tool for the European Neighbourhood’, International Relations, 25(2) June 2011: 243-62
- ‘Eastern Partnership: a New Opportunity for the Neighbours?’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Special Issue, 27(1) 2011: 1-21
- ‘Moldova’s European Choice: Between Two Stools’, Europe-Asia Studies, 61(8) 2010: 1267-89
- ‘Threshold Concepts through Enactive Learning: How Effective are they in the Study of European Politics?’ International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 10, No.1, February 2010: 37-50
- ‘The Limits of the EU Governance: Belarus’ Response to the European Neighbourhood Policy’, Contemporary Politics, 15 (2) 2009: 229-45
- ‘Changing Belarus? The Limits of EU Governance in Eastern Europe’, Cooperation and Conflict, 44 (2) 2009: 143-165 (with G. Bosse)
- ‘Was it a Quiet Revolution? Belarus after the 2006 Presidential Election’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Special Issue, 25 (2 & 3) 2009: 324-346
- ‘The parliamentary election and referendum in Belarus, October 2004’, Electoral Studies, Vol.25 2006, pp. 147–191 (with S. White)
- 'Values in the New Europe, Special Issue, Contemporary Politics, 12(2) 2006 (co-edited with D. Hutcheson)
- ‘Can theories of social capital explain dissenting patterns of engagement in the new Europe?’, Special Issue, Journal of Contemporary Politics, 12(2) 2006, pp. 175–191
- 'Patterns of participation in post-communist politics: Russia, Belarus and Ukraine since 1989', Journal of Comparative European Politics, Vol.4(1), March 2006, pp. 23–46 (with D. Hutcheson)
- 'The Quality of Democracy in Post-Communist Europe', Special Issue, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 20(1), 2004 (co-edited with D. Hutcheson)
- ‘The quality of democracy in Belarus and Ukraine’, Special Issue, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Vol. 20 (1), 2004, pp. 122–43
- ‘Is Belarus a demagogical democracy?’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 16(3), 2003, pp. 527–35
- ‘Democratic authoritarianism: public preferences in Belarus and its neighbours’, Northwestern Journal of International Affairs, Spring 2003, Vol.5, p. 31-39
- ‘Electoral volatility in post-Communist Belarus: explaining the paradox’, Party Politics, 2000, 6(3): 343-358
- ‘A sudii kto? Sotciologicheskii analiz politicheskogo polya sovremennogo Belaruskogo obschestva’ [What are the judges? The sociological analysis of the political field of modern Belarusian society], Sotciologiya [Sociology] 1, 1997, pp. 71–75
- ‘Filosophiya bezlikogo obschestva: Sotsiologicheskii analiz polya politiki’ [Philosophy of the ‘faceless’ society: A sociological analysis of the field of politics], Gumanitarno-Economicheskii Vestnik [Humanities and Economic Review] 3, 1996, pp. 47–51
- 'BBC News', BBC News Interview on the Ukrainian Crisis, 2014-03-04
- 'Sky News with Kay Burley', Sky News Interview on the Ukrainian Crisis, 2014-03-03
- 'Global with Jon Sopel', BBC World Interview on the Ukrainian Crisis, 2014-02-24
- 'Амплитуда', TUT.BY, 2013-10-31
- 'The Word Tonight', BBC Radio 4, 2012-04-19
- 'Futile Belarus sanctions reflect wider diplomatic game, say experts', Hurriyet Daily News, 2011-01-11
- 'Київ - важливий гравець у Східному партнерстві', BBC Ukrainian, 2011-09-10
- 'Под пристальным взглядом ЕС', Росбалт.RU, 2010-07-30
- 'Moldova most EU-friendly Eastern country, survey reveals', EurActiv, 2010-06-14
UK Parliamentary References
- 'House of Lords European Union Committee 11th Report of Session 2012-13', HL Paper 147, Paragraph 52-59, 19 March 2013
- 'EU Partnership-Building with Eastern Europe', Early Day Motion 1213, from Mark Williams, MP, 2010-12-16
- House of Lords, European Union Committee, The EU's External Action Service Report, The Stationary Office Limited, 19 March 2013, 52-59.
- http://www.c-sap.bham.ac.uk/conferences/nov_conf_09/awards_joint.html BISA C-SAP Joint Teaching Award 2009
- Korosteleva, E.A., "Threshold Concept Through Enactive Learnings: How Effective Are They in the Study of European Politics?", International Studies Perspectives, 2010, 11, 37–50.
- International Affairs, Volume 88, Number 6, 1 November 2012 , pp. 1362-1363 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2012.01137.x
- Book review: Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Volume 12, Issue 3, 2012 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14683857.2012.715276#.UxnjCPl_uSo
- Book review: Eastern Journal of European Studies, Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2013 http://ejes.uaic.ro/articles/EJES2013_0402_MOG.pdf
- Book review: Europe Asia Studies, Volume 66, Issue 2, 2014 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09668136.2014.882640#.UxnlBfl_uSo
- Book review: Journal of Contemporary European Research, Volume 8, Issue 4 (2012) Volume 8, http://www.jcer.net/index.php/jcer/article/download/501/370
- Book review: Journal of Borderland Studies, Volume 27, Issue 3 (2012) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08865655.2012.750955
- Profile on University of Kent website
- Profile on Academia.edu
- BISA Teaching Prize 2009
- British Academy