Post Communist Studies And Political Science

Serious stock-taking is in progress now among practitioners of whathas been called Sovietology, meaning studies of the Union of SovietSocialist Republics. The reason is that the field for the most part hadnot been expecting what happened in 1991: The USSR collapsed andwent out of existence as a unified state system governing a sixth ofthe world's territory, having allowed its East European empire tofree itself from Soviet dominance somewhat earlier.It might be said in defense of Sovietology that, by the beginningof the 1980s, it understood that economic and political crises werebrewing in the Soviet Union and its outer empire. But the field asa whole failed to grasp the full depth of the systemic crisis in SovietRussia and the destructive or self-destructive potentialities inherentin it. As the editors of this valuable volume write in the Introduction:"Sovietology was not prepared for perestroika and postcommunism."

Serious stock-taking is in progress now among practitioners of whathas been called Sovietology, meaning studies of the Union of SovietSocialist Republics. The reason is that the field for the most part hadnot been expecting what happened in 1991: The USSR collapsed andwent out of existence as a unified state system governing a sixth ofthe world's territory, having allowed its East European empire tofree itself from Soviet dominance somewhat earlier.It might be said in defense of Sovietology that, by the beginningof the 1980s, it understood that economic and political crises werebrewing in the Soviet Union and its outer empire. But the field asa whole failed to grasp the full depth of the systemic crisis in SovietRussia and the destructive or self-destructive potentialities inherentin it. As the editors of this valuable volume write in the Introduction: "Sovietology was not prepared for perestroika and postcommunism.

This book makes the case that several East Central European countries have emerged as fully consolidated democracies. As such, they may be integrated into the mainstream of political science research, and not consigned forever to a transitional category encompassing countries that are now fully democracies as well as some that are not democratic at all. The author outlines the steps of another transition - from post-communist studies to political science research. He demonstrates how institutionalist, or rational choice, theories can be applied to the analysis of political processes in the successfully democratized countries, and proposes a new research agenda for political scientists studying the region. The results of this work can enrich political science as well as our understanding of both democracy and the polities of contemporary Eastern Europe.

In this first extended reassessment of Sovietology in over two decades, Frederic Fleron and Erik Hoffmann argue that the field’s isolation from the social sciences has diminished analysts’ ability to explain the dramatic changes in the USSR. The editors’ collection of key essays elucidates Sovietology’s theories and methodologies and underscores the need to adapt them in order to understand both the Communist past and the transition to a post-Communist future.

This book seeks to explain the divergent political pathways of twenty six post-communist states, following the breakdown and eventual collapse of communism in 1989-1991. Considering the trajectories of individual states between 1990 – 2007, this book challenges two central bodies of theory relating to democratization and regime change. Through a sustained analysis of global and post-communist developments within this time period, the author shows that claims of an increasing asymmetry between the ‘electoral’ and ‘liberal’ elements of modern democracy have been greatly exaggerated. The author goes on to contend that in accounting for the geographical dispersion of post-communist regime forms, deeper structural factors should be considered as crucial. The book is divided into the following parts: Part I demonstrates how different conceptualisations of democracy can lead to very different conclusions about the empirical dynamics of democratization. Part II contrasts different explanations of post-communist political change and provides an integrated framework for explaining the political pathways encountered within the former Eastern Bloc. This book will be of interest to students and scholars of post-communist studies, democratization studies, comparative politics and regime change.

This book brings together several of the author’s empirical studies that demonstrate the strength and utility of sociologist Robert Merton’s classic middle-range theory for understanding aspects of both Soviet and post-Soviet Russian politics. Some of those studies demonstrate that testing middle-range social science theory could take place even in the Soviet era when there were significant limitations of access to empirical data, and meaningful field research in the USSR was all but impossible. In the introductory chapter, the author explains the need for and advantages of studying Russian and Soviet politics from the perspective of middle-range social science theory. Then follow three chapters analyzing methodological issues in Soviet/post-Soviet studies. The author presents his six empirical studies employing middle-range social science theories to explore in Russia/USSR dimensions of organizations, ideology and decisionmaking, technology transfer and cultural diffusion, political culture, public opinion and democratization, and congruence of authority patterns in state-society relations. The book concludes with a chapter arguing the advantages of thinking theoretically about Russian and Soviet politics with the establishment of a new epistemic community organized around studies employing middle-range theory. This book presents examples of solutions to long-standing debates between area studies and the academic disciplines and between idiographic and nomothetic approaches to knowledge in the social sciences. In contrast to the tradition of Carnivals and Cockfights in Russian/Soviet area studies since the mid-20th Century, the book offers a new way of approaching the study of Russian politics for the 21st Century.

The political outlook of young people in the countries of the former Soviet Union is crucial to their countries’ future political development. This is particularly relevant now as the first generation without firsthand experience of communism at first hand is approaching adulthood. Based on extensive original research and including new survey research amongst young people, this book examines young people’s political outlook in countries of the former Soviet Union; it compares and contrasts Russia, where authoritarianism has begun to reassert itself, and Ukraine, which experienced a democratic breakthrough in the aftermath of the Orange Revolution. The book examines questions such as: How supportive is this new generation of the new political order? What images of the Soviet Union prevail in the minds of young people? How much trust does youth place in current political and public institutions? Addressing these questions is crucial to understanding the extent to which the current regimes can survive on the wave of public support. The book argues that Russian adolescents tend to place more trust in the incumbent president and harbour more regrets about the disintegration of the Soviet Union than their peers in Ukraine; it demonstrates that young people distrust political parties and politicians, and that patriotic education shapes social and political values.