Rawi Abdelal. National Purpose in the World Economy: Post-Soviet States in Comparative Perspective. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. Index. Cloth.As the Soviet Union disintegrated, a central question is why some newly independent republics chose complete separation from Russia, others sought to maintain close relations, and still others adopted policies somewhere in between complete severance of ties with Russia and re-integration. Republics advocating a break with Russia and a reorientation, generally towards the West, were also advocating greater short-run sacrifice from their citizenry in exchange for greater autonomy from Moscow. Why did some countries make this choice while others did not? In this book Rawi Abdelal argues that nationalism, as opposed to alternative theories of international political economy, is an essential construct to explain differences in the international political economy of post Soviet states. How did the states of the former Soviet Union (FSU) assert their nationalist interests, without resorting to military or otherwise aggressive means? The author posits that, generally speaking, the former republics asserted their national interests through what Abdelal refers to as economic nationalism-that is, their choice of policies concerning monetary relations and trade relations with Russia.The challenge Abdelal sets in the first two chapters is to make a coherent concept distinct from protectionism and mercantilism, and to demonstrate its potential in explaining choice of international policies versus the more common and liberalist explanations. One key is the fact that these nations were nations of ambiguous or newly formed identities.The central question is how to explain these differences in approaches using standard tools of international political economy (IPC). The author considers the ability of realist liberalism and an innovative approach, building on earlier work in international political economy, that employs nationalism to explain policy choice among republics of the FSU. Whereas a purely liberalist interpretation of IPE would predict co-operation and trade among the FSU republics in a mutually beneficial arrangement, realists would posit that states seek autonomy based on military and potential leading to low levels of co-operation and otherwise strained relations among the republics of the FSU. While both the liberal and the approaches shed light on the motivations of the policymakers in the FSU, the author argues that the two theories are unsatisfactory in explaining the variation in policy choices within the FSU.The substance of the argument is constructed from three case studies, which adopted very different relations with Russia: Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus. Whereas Lithuania sought to distance itself from Moscow as quickly and completely as possible, Belarus sought to integrate and re-unify with Russia while Ukraine adopted a set of policies somewhere in between.While, individually, liberalist theory might explain the desire of Belarus to integrate with Russia, it does a poor job of explaining the behaviour of Lithuania which arguably had more to lose by distancing itself from Moscow. The author finds the predictions of theory also problematic in explaining the IPE of the three republics. Whereas Belarus was much larger than Lithuania, possessed nuclear weapons, and would, therefore, be in an excellent position to exercise any desire to seek autonomy from Russia, it adopted the opposite approach. The behaviour of Ukraine also does not fit neatly into either the or liberal paradigms.The first two chapters lay out the basic theoretic framework of the book that is an important factor to consider in understanding the behaviour of states in their international political/economic relations. Chapter 3 summarizes the various currency and trade policies adopted by the 15 FSU republics. …