Effects of ‘Digital’ Country’s Information Security on Political Stability

Authors

  • Tuan Anh Nguyen Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2609-9550
  • Kalybek Koblandin Department of Regional Studies, L. N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University (ENU), Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan
  • Shukran Suleymanova Department of Public Relations and Media Policy, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation (RANEPA), Moscow, Russian Federation
  • Vladimir Volokh Department of Public Administration and Political Technologies, State University of Management, Moscow, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.13052/jcsm2245-1439.1112

Keywords:

cybersecurity, cyberattack, Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism, Global Cybersecurity Index, Worldwide Governance Indicators, technology

Abstract

In this day and age, information security is becoming a priority not only in the system of international economic relations but also at the state level. This study aims to study the effect of a ‘digital’ country’s information security on its political stability through quantitative analysis. The study is a mixed research design with a focus on the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan. Its methodological basis is represented by the collection and analysis of data on the level and nature of cybersecurity threats (Global Cybersecurity Index, the number of cyber incidents) and on the level of political stability (Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism indicator of the Worldwide Governance Index). The results of the study show that Russia with a GCI 2020 score of 98.06 and Kazakhstan with a GCI score of 93.15 have relatively low levels of political stability. This is evidenced by their 45.7 and 25.7 percentile ranks on Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism and a high frequency of offenses using information and communication technologies. Findings suggest that with a high level of commitment to information security, the growth in cyber incidents will not necessarily affect political stability. The obtained findings provide countries an insight into cybersecurity within the national system as well as present a great deal of data on best practices to work through gaps in the national culture of cybersecurity at the state level. The results and methodology of this study can be used by officials to develop information security strategies and tactics, as well as by other researchers for quantitative analysis of the relationship between information security and political stability of different countries and regions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Tuan Anh Nguyen, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation

Tuan Anh Nguyen is a Postgraduate of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN), Moscow, Russian Federation.

Kalybek Koblandin, Department of Regional Studies, L. N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University (ENU), Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan

Kalybek Koblandin is a Doctor of Historical Sciences and Professor of the Department of Regional Studies at the L. N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University (ENU), Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan.

Shukran Suleymanova, Department of Public Relations and Media Policy, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation (RANEPA), Moscow, Russian Federation

Shukran Suleymanova is a Doctor of Political Sciences of the Department of Public Relations and Media Policy at the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation (RANEPA), Moscow, Russian Federation.

Vladimir Volokh, Department of Public Administration and Political Technologies, State University of Management, Moscow, Russian Federation

Vladimir Volokh is a Doctor of Political Sciences of the Department of Public Administration and Political Technologies at the State University of Management, Moscow, Russian Federation.

References

J. Sperling, ‘Eurasian security governance: new threats, institutional adaptations, in limiting institutions?’, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2018.

C. Anderson, R. L. Baskerville, M. Kaul, ‘Information security control theory: achieving a sustainable reconciliation between sharing and protecting the privacy of information’, J. Manag. Inf. Syst., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1082–1112, 2017.

Z. Syzdykova, N. Medvedev, S. Suleymanova, E. Nazarova, V. Volokh, ‘Governance of cross-border migration in Asia’, Space Cult. India, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 264–273, 2020.

R. Deibert, R. Rohozinski, ‘Liberation vs. control: the future of cyberspace’, J. Democr., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 43–57, 2010.

J. A. Kerr, ‘Authoritarian management of (cyber-) society: Internet regulation and the new political protest movements’, PhD Thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, 2016.

E. Gaufman, ‘Security threats and public perception’, Springer, Switzerland, 2017.

L. Diamond, ‘The road to digital unfreedom: the threat of postmodern totalitarianism’, J. Democr., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 20–24, 2019.

A. Salgiriev, V. Gaziev, M. Soltamuradov, S. Galbatsov, ‘Information threats to the stability of political system in the northern Caucasus’, Cent. Asia Caucasus, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 25–32, 2020.

J. A. Kerr, ‘Information, security, and authoritarian stability: Internet policy diffusion and coordination in the former soviet region’, Int. J. Commun., vol. 12, pp. 3814–3834, 2018.

N. N. Schia, ‘The cyber frontier and digital pitfalls in the Global South’, Third World Q., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 821–837, 2018.

M. Dunn Cavelty, A. Wenger, ‘Cyber security meets security politics: complex technology, fragmented politics, and networked science’, Contemp. Secur. Policy, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 5–32, 2020.

J. Sperling, M. Webber, ‘The European Union: security governance and collective securitization’, West Eur. Politics, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 228–260, 2019.

V. Terziev, N. Nichev, S. M. Bankov, ‘National security of the republic of Bulgaria’, SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017.

A. J. Craig, B. Valeriano, ‘Realism and cyber conflict: security in the digital age’, Realism Pract., vol. 85, pp. 85–101, 2018.

B. Simis, ‘Cybersecurity 2020–2021’, Positive Technologies, 2021.

S. Taillat, ‘Disrupt and restraint: the evolution of cyber conflict and the implications for collective security’, Contemp. Secur. Policy vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 368–381, 2019.

S. Lawson, M. K. Middleton, ‘Cyber Pearl Harbor: analogy, fear, and the framing of cyber security threats in the United States, 1991–2016’, First Monday, vol. 24, no. 3, 2019.

B. Valeriano, R. C. Maness, ‘International relations theory and cyber security, in Oxford Handbook Intern. Pol. Theo.’ Oxford, pp. 259–272, 2018.

M. Michaelsen, ‘Transforming threats to power: the international politics of authoritarian internet control in Iran’, Int. J. Commun. (19328036), vol. 12, pp. 3856–3876, 2018.

S. McKune, S. Ahmed, ‘Authoritarian practices in the digital age the contestation and shaping of cyber norms through China’s internet sovereignty agenda’, Int. J. Commun., vol. 12, p. 21, 2018.

V. Buryak, ‘The problem of cybersecurity in the information society’, Legal Fact, Vol. 32, pp. 25–31, 2018.

C. Tenove, J. Buffie, S. McKay, D. Moscrop, ‘Digital threats to democratic elections: how foreign actors use digital techniques to undermine democracy’, Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 2018.

B. Gunawan, B. M. Ratmono, ‘Social media, cyberhoaxes and national security: threats and protection in Indonesian cyberspace’, Int. J. Netw. Secur., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 93–101, 2020.

M. A. Uddin, M. H. Ali, M. Masih, ‘Political stability and growth: an application of dynamic GMM and quantile regression’, Econ. Model., vol. 64, pp. 610–625, 2017.

M. N. Azimi, M. M. Shafiq, ‘Hypothesizing directional causality between the governance indicators and economic growth: the case of Afghanistan’, Future Bus. J., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2020.

International Telecommunication Union, Global Cybersecurity Index 2020 (GCI 2020), 2021. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Cybersecurity/Pages/global-cybersecurity-index.aspx. Accessed 14 April 2021.

R. Azmi, W. Tibben, K. T. Win, ‘Review of cybersecurity frameworks: context and shared concepts’, J. Cyber Pol., vol. 3, pp. 258-283, 2018.

F. Bustamante, W. Fuertes, T. Tulkeredis, M. Ron, ‘Situational status of global cybersecurity and cyber defense according to global indicators. Adaptation of a model for Ecuador, in International Conference of Research Applied to Defense and Security’, Springer, pp. 12–26, 2018.

Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, Main Information and Analytical Center. Crime Statistics Reports for 2012-2019, 2019. https://мвд.рф/Deljatelnost/statistics. Accessed 14 April 2021.

KZ-CERT, Cyber Incidents Infographics for 2012–2019, 2019. https://cert.gov.kz/press_club/infographics. Accessed 14 April 2021.

D. Kaufmann, A. Kraay, M. Mastruzzi, The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430, 2010. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1682130. Accessed 14 April 2021.

The World Bank, The World Bank country and lending groups, 2021. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups. Accessed 14 April 2021.

United Nations, Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49), 1999. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/. Accessed 14 April 2021.

World Bank and Natural Resource Governance Institute and Brookings, The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI 2012–2019), 2019. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/Home/Documents. Accessed 14 April 2021.

FinCERT, Bank of Russia’s Centre for Monitoring and Responding to Computer Attacks in the Credit and Financial Sphere. Review of transactions not authorised by customers for 2019, 2019, https://www.cbr.ru/eng/analytics/ib/fincert/. Accessed 14 April 2021

N. Golovko, ‘Cyber Threats and Information Security Forecast 2021’, Anti-Malware, 2020, https://www.anti-malware.ru/analytics/Threats_Analysis/2021-Cyber-Threats-and-Information-Security-Forecast. Accessed 14 April 2021.

Downloads

Published

2021-11-20

Issue

Section

Articles