IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v16y1998i3p225-246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development, Dependency, and Devolution: The Anomalous Political Economy of Communist and Postcommunist Societies

Author

Listed:
  • S E Hanson

    (Department of Political Science, University of Washington, Mail Stop DO-30, Scuttle, WA 98195, USA)

Abstract

The problem of situating economic transitions from communism to postcommunism within more general theories of comparative political economy has received surprisingly little scholarly attention. In this paper the author argues that the reason for the lack of integration between these two literatures is that the dynamics of the formation and decline of the Stalinist socioeconomic system remain basically anomalous for each of the three dominant theoretical frameworks in the field of political economy: the modernization approach, the world-systems approach, and the rational choice approach. Moreover, none of these paradigms by itself appears to account satisfactorily for the diverse economic trends in postcommunist societies. Modernization theory is apparently consistent with economic ‘development’ in the most successful areas within the Leninist and post-Leninist world; world-systems theory appears to fit the type of ‘dependency’ emerging in places such as Central Asia and the Caucasus; rational choice analysis elucidates the continuing ‘devolution’ of Leninist state structures in places where rent-seeking bureaucrats still directly or indirectly control most of the national wealth—but no single approach explains the overall pattern of mixed results. It is concluded that making sense of the puzzling emergence, destruction, and aftermath of the Stalinist economic model requires the integration of ideological modes of coordinating collective action into a more comprehensive political economy paradigm.

Suggested Citation

  • S E Hanson, 1998. "Development, Dependency, and Devolution: The Anomalous Political Economy of Communist and Postcommunist Societies," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 16(3), pages 225-246, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:16:y:1998:i:3:p:225-246
    DOI: 10.1068/c160225
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c160225
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c160225?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caporaso,James A. & Levine,David P., 1992. "Theories of Political Economy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521425780, October.
    2. Kiren Aziz Chaudhry, 1993. "The Myths of the Market and the Common History of Late Developers," Politics & Society, , vol. 21(3), pages 245-274, September.
    3. Duch, Raymond M., 1993. "Tolerating Economic Reform: Popular Support for Transition to a Free Market in the Former Soviet Union," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 590-608, September.
    4. David Lipton & Jeffrey D. Sachs, 1990. "Creating a Market Economy in Eastern Europe: The Case of Poland," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 21(1), pages 75-148.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John S. Earle & Scott Gehlbach, 2003. "A Spoonful of Sugar: Privatization and Popular Support for Reform in the Czech Republic," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 1-32, March.
    2. Denisova, Irina & Eller, Markus & Frye, Timothy & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2012. "Everyone hates privatization, but why? Survey evidence from 28 post-communist countries," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 44-61.
    3. Martin Raiser, 1993. "Old habits die hard," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 28(4), pages 170-177, July.
    4. Walsh, Patrick Paul & Whelan, Ciara, 2001. "Firm performance and the political economy of corporate governance: survey evidence for Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 85-112, June.
    5. repec:zbw:bofitp:2022_012 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Blangiewicz, Maria & Charemza, Wojciech W., 1999. "East European Economic Reform: Some Simulations on a Structural Vector Autoregressive Model," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 535-557, September.
    7. Bennett, John & Dixon, Huw David, 1995. "Macroeconomic equilibrium and reform in a transitional economy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1465-1485, October.
    8. Bennett, John & Estrin, Saul & Hare, Paul, 1999. "Output and Exports in Transition Economies: A Labor Management Model," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 295-317, June.
    9. Andrew Austin & Tatyana Kosyaeva & Nathaniel Wilcox, 2005. "Believe but Verify? Russian Views and the Market," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp278, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    10. Natkhov, Timur & Pyle, William, 2023. "Revealed in transition: The political effect of planning's legacy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    11. Jane Hardy, 1998. "Cathedrals in the Desert? Transnationals, Corporate Strategy and Locality in Wroc ^ aw," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(7), pages 639-652.
    12. Roberts, B.W., 1993. "The J-Curve is a Gamma-Curve: Initial Welfare Consequences of Price Liberalization in Eastern Europe," Research Paper 114, World Institute for Development Economics Research.
    13. Irina Denisova, 2016. "Institutions and the support for market reforms," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 258-258, May.
    14. Irina Denisova & Markus Eller & Timothy Frye & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2007. "Who Wants to Revise Privatization and Why? Evidence from 28 Post-Communist Countries," Working Papers w0105, New Economic School (NES).
    15. Noland, Marcus & Son, Hyun H., 2012. "Editors’ introduction transitional economies: Progress and pitfalls," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 107-110.
    16. S. Fisher & R. Sahay & C. A. Vegh, 1997. "Stabilization and Growth in Transition Economies: The Early Experience," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, vol. 5.
    17. Megan V. Teague & Virgil Henry Storr & Rosemarie Fike, 2020. "Economic freedom and materialism: an empirical analysis," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 1-44, March.
    18. García-Kuhnert, Yamileh & Marchica, Maria-Teresa & Mura, Roberto, 2015. "Shareholder diversification and bank risk-taking," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 602-635.
    19. Dalibor Roháč, 2013. "What Are the Lessons from Post-Communist Transitions?," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 65-77, February.
    20. Kennedy, Robert E., 1997. "A tale of two economies: Economic restructuring in post-socialist Poland," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 841-865, June.
    21. Kyriacou, Andreas, 2004. "Economic integration, legitimacy and European Union enlargement," MPRA Paper 115932, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:16:y:1998:i:3:p:225-246. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.