Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:35:15.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Comparative Politics of Eastern Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Daniel N. Nelson  and
Samuel Bentley
Daniel N. Nelson
Affiliation:
Old Dominion University
Samuel Bentley
Affiliation:
Old Dominion University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During 1989, as Eastern Europe's communist regimes abdicated power in the face of popular coups, Daniel Nelson was asked by a journalist if such changes meant a career change for scholars of communist systems. He answered affirmatively: if such scholars had examined these regimes only as communist systems; yet, for scholars who had studied politics in the arena of Eastern Europe, he said, a full and challenging career lay ahead.

This speculation has since given way to certainty. Comparative communism as a subfield of political analysis passed away during 1989, while the comparative politics of Eastern Europe was rejuvenated.

The Birth and Death of Comparative Communism

Within a few years after Mikhail Gorbachev inaugurated changes that he could not control, practitioners of comparative communism were confronted with new conditions for their research and analysis. Notwithstanding the continuation of communist rule in China, Cuba, North Korea, and Southeast Asia, the subfield lost its raison d'etre. Most of the premises that had generated a subfield of comparative endeavors, no matter how rudimentary they may have sometimes been, became moot.

Comparative communism had come and gone. But, what had comparative communism sought to accomplish? How well did scholars and policy-analysts succeed? Was there any lasting contribution to political studies?

In the late 1940s when communist parties gained power in Eastern Europe, China, and North Korea, the impression was that a single form of totalitarian government had been imposed from Moscow. The “Soviet bloc” aggregated all states' and leaders' behavior within the image of rigid uniformity. Consequently, broadly comparative analyses and rigorous tests of hypotheses were unnecessary. Most scholarly attention appeared to be driven by Western foreign policy interest.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 45 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This article is a revised version of a chapter published in Stephen White et. al., eds. 1993. Developments in East European Politics. London: Macmillan.

References

Bielasiak, Jack. 1983. “Inequalities and the Politicization of the Polish Working Class.” In Communism and the Politics of Inequalities, ed. Nelson, Daniel N., Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Brzezinski, Zbigniew K. 1966. The Soviet Bloc (revised edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bunce, Valerie. 1981. Do Leaders Make a Difference: Executive Succession and Public Policy under Capitalist and Socialist Systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echols, John M. 1981. “Does Socialism Mean Greater Equality? A Comparison of East and West Along Several Major Dimensions.” American Journal of Political Science 25 (February):Google Scholar
Fleron, Frederic J. 1969. Communist Studies and the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Kanet, Roger E. 1971. The Behavioral Revolution and Communist Studies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lindbloom, Charles E. 1977. Politics and Markets. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mesa-Largo, Carmelo, and Beck, Carl, eds. 1975. Comparative Socialist Systems: Essays on Politics and Economics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Center for International Studies.Google Scholar
Nelson, Daniel N. 1986. “The Diffusion of Non-Supportive Participatory Involvement in Eastern Europe.” Social Science Quarterly 67 (Winter):Google Scholar
Neubert, Ehrhart. 1990. “Die Opposition in der demokratischen Revolution der DDR”. In Die Legitimat der Freiheit: Politisch alternative Gruppen in der DDR unter dem Dach der Kirche, ed. Pollack, . Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Olson, David M., and Simon, Maurice D. 1982. “The Institutional Development of a Minimal Parliament: The Case of the Polish Sejm.” In Communist Legislatures in Comparative Perspective, ed. Nelson, Daniel and White, Stephen, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pravda, Alex. 1978. “Elections in Communist Party States.” In Elections Without Choice, ed. Hermet, Guy et al. , London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1986. “Some Problems in the Study of the Transition to Democracy.” In Transitions From Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives, ed., O'Donnell, Guillermo, Schmitter, Philippe C., and Whitehead, Laurence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Skilling, H. Gordon. 1960. “Soviet and Communist Politics: A Comparative Approach.” Journal of Politics 22 (May): 300–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepan, Alfred. 1986. “Paths Toward Redemocratization: Theoretical and Comparative Considerations.” In Transitions From Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives, ed. O'Donnell, Guillermo, Schmitter, Philippe C., and Whitehead, Laurence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Teune, Henry. 1984. “Eastern European Politics and Macro Political Theory.” In Elite Studies and Communist Politics, ed. Linden, Ronald and Rockman, Bert, Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
White, Stephen, and Nelson, Daniel. 1986. Communist Politics: A Reader. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar