IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/222868.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adapting or Freezing? Ideological Reactions of Communist Regimes to a Post-Communist World

Author

Listed:
  • Dukalskis, Alexander
  • Gerschewski, Johannes

Abstract

This article studies the ideological reactions of communist regimes to the advent of a post-communist world. It examines two cases of reformed communist regimes (China and Vietnam) with two relatively unreformed cases (North Korea and Cuba) to understand different legitimation strategies employed during and after the downfall of the Soviet Union. Theoretically, the article compares two ideal-type approaches to ideology in autocratic regimes. The first approach emphasizes semantic ‘freezing’ over time. The consistency and coherence of ideology is underlined. The second approach argues that the success of an ideology lies in its ability to be a dynamic, adaptive force that can react with changing circumstances. Four parameters help to distinguish the freeze-frame end from the adaptation pole: (1) the autonomy over semantic changes, (2) the timing, (3) the velocity and (4) the distance that an ideology moves. Using qualitative case-based analysis that is enriched with quantitative text analysis of communist party documents, this article compares these contending conceptions of ideology with each other in the four cases. Sharing similar starting conditions in the 1970s, the article shows how China and Vietnam harnessed a flexible legitimation strategy while North Korea and Cuba adopted a comparatively rigid legitimation approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Dukalskis, Alexander & Gerschewski, Johannes, 2020. "Adapting or Freezing? Ideological Reactions of Communist Regimes to a Post-Communist World," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 55(3), pages 511-532.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:222868
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/222868/1/Full-text-article-Dukalskis-et-al-Adapting-or-freezing.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Noland, Marcus & Haggard, Stephan, 2007. "Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform," MPRA Paper 92548, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Grauvogel, Julia & von Soest, Christian, 2013. "Claims to Legitimacy Matter: Why Sanctions Fail to Instigate Democratization in Authoritarian Regimes," GIGA Working Papers 235, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    3. Gerschewski, Johannes, 2013. "The three pillars of stability: legitimation, repression, and co-optation in autocratic regimes," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 20(1), pages 13-38.
    4. King, Gary & Pan, Jennifer & Roberts, Margaret E., 2013. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 326-343, May.
    5. Margaret E. Roberts & Brandon M. Stewart & Dustin Tingley & Christopher Lucas & Jetson Leder‐Luis & Shana Kushner Gadarian & Bethany Albertson & David G. Rand, 2014. "Structural Topic Models for Open‐Ended Survey Responses," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 1064-1082, October.
    6. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    7. Gerschewski, Johannes, 2018. "Legitimacy in Autocracies: Oxymoron or Essential Feature?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(3), pages 652-665.
    8. Leader Maynard, Jonathan & Mildenberger, Matto, 2018. "Convergence and Divergence in the Study of Ideology: A Critical Review," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 563-589, April.
    9. Carlyle A. Thayer, 2009. "Political Legitimacy of Vietnam’s One Party-State: Challenges and Responses," Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, Institute of Asian Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, vol. 28(4), pages 47-70.
    10. Knight, Kathleen, 2006. "Transformations of the Concept of Ideology in the Twentieth Century," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(4), pages 619-626, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Boussalis, Constantine & Dukalskis, Alexander & Gerschewski, Johannes, 2022. "Why It Matters What Autocrats Say: Assessing Competing Theories of Propaganda," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 70(3), pages 241-252.

    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. Seraphine F. Maerz & Carsten Q. Schneider, 2020. "Comparing public communication in democracies and autocracies: automated text analyses of speeches by heads of government," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 517-545, April.
    2. Boussalis, Constantine & Dukalskis, Alexander & Gerschewski, Johannes, 2022. "Why It Matters What Autocrats Say: Assessing Competing Theories of Propaganda," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 70(3), pages 241-252.
    3. Tannenberg, Marcus & Bernhard, Michael & Gerschewski, Johannes & Lührmann, Anna & von Soest, Christian, 2021. "Claiming the right to rule: regime legitimation strategies from 1900 to 2019," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(1), pages 77-94.
    4. Ferrara, Federico M. & Masciandaro, Donato & Moschella, Manuela & Romelli, Davide, 2022. "Political voice on monetary policy: Evidence from the parliamentary hearings of the European Central Bank," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. James Evans, 2022. "From Text Signals to Simulations: A Review and Complement to Text as Data by Grimmer, Roberts & Stewart (PUP 2022)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(4), pages 1868-1885, November.
    6. Camilla Salvatore & Silvia Biffignandi & Annamaria Bianchi, 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility Activities Through Twitter: From Topic Model Analysis to Indexes Measuring Communication Characteristics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1217-1248, December.
    7. Fenja Søndergaard Møller, 2019. "Blue blood or true blood: Why are levels of intrastate armed conflict so low in Middle Eastern monarchies?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(5), pages 517-544, September.
    8. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Okoh, Marvin & Keles, Dogan, 2022. "Assessing technology legitimacy with topic models and sentiment analysis – The case of wind power in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    9. Ulrich Fritsche & Johannes Puckelwald, 2018. "Deciphering Professional Forecasters’ Stories - Analyzing a Corpus of Textual Predictions for the German Economy," Macroeconomics and Finance Series 201804, University of Hamburg, Department of Socioeconomics.
    10. Margaret E. Roberts & Brandon M. Stewart & Richard A. Nielsen, 2020. "Adjusting for Confounding with Text Matching," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 887-903, October.
    11. Rebecca Cordell & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch & Florian G Kern & Laura Saavedra-Lux, 2020. "Measuring institutional variation across American Indian constitutions using automated content analysis," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 777-788, November.
    12. Peter Grajzl & Cindy Irby, 2019. "Reflections on study abroad: a computational linguistics approach," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 151-181, July.
    13. Keith Carlson & Michael A. Livermore & Daniel N. Rockmore, 2020. "The Problem of Data Bias in the Pool of Published U.S. Appellate Court Opinions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 224-261, June.
    14. Howoldt, David, 2024. "Characterising innovation policy mixes in innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    15. Sergei Guriev & Daniel Treisman, 2019. "Informational Autocrats," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(4), pages 100-127, Fall.
    16. Edward Kerby & Alexander Moradi & Hanjo Odendaal, 2022. "African time travellers: what can we learn from 500 years of written accounts?," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _201, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    17. Caroline E Nowacki & Ashby Monk & Bertrand Decoster, 2021. "Who do sovereign wealth funds say they are? Using structural topic modeling to delineate variegated capitalism in their official reports," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(4), pages 828-857, June.
    18. Mourtgos, Scott M. & Adams, Ian T., 2019. "The rhetoric of de-policing: Evaluating open-ended survey responses from police officers with machine learning-based structural topic modeling," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Lundberg, Ian & Brand, Jennie E. & Jeon, Nanum, 2022. "Researcher reasoning meets computational capacity: Machine learning for social science," SocArXiv s5zc8, Center for Open Science.
    20. von Haldenwang, Christian, 2016. "Measuring legitimacy: new trends, old shortcomings?," IDOS Discussion Papers 18/2016, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).

    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:zbw:espost:222868. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.