Regime type, domestic authority, and international risk-taking: A comparison of Russia and China

Authoritarian states are frequently treated as a single category in international relations, despite internal differences and foreign policy differences. This article has shed light on the different types of regimes, focusing especially on the authoritarian regimes as these are generally portrayed to be homogeneous in nature despite being incredibly diverse in their approach to geopolitics, international expansions and decision making. The key aim of the research was to examine how variations in authoritarian regime type and domestic authority structures shape patterns of international risk-taking. In order to achieve this objective, a comparative analysis of Russia and China was carried out with the help of the Geddes, Wright, and Frantz (GWF) framework. In personalist systems such as Russia, decision-making authority is highly centralised around the leader, formal institutions do not hold much power in such settings. Simultaneously, such concentration of power allows the leader to take bold and high-cost foreign policy choices as domestic barriers are marginally low due to common people not having a say in such regimes. However, party-based authoritarian systems such as China functions through strong bureaucratic conditions, planning and monitoring. As a result, such institutionalised party regimes exhibit more constrained and calculated risk behaviour due to organisational oversight and collective decision structures. While foreign policies of such countries can achieve an assertive position, they are more controlled than authoritarian systems. The findings of the research are significant as it can help policymakers, analysts and security planners to better understand these regimes and their foreign policy behaviour, and improve their response to future geopolitics crisis