Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:48:44.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personal Networks and Postrevolutionary State Building: Soviet Russia Reexamined

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Gerald M. Easter
Gerald M. Easter
Affiliation:
Miami University
Get access

Abstract

The article contends that personal networks may facilitate state-building efforts under postrevolutionary conditions. With the breakdown of formal political structures, personal networks provide an informal social structure along which information may be exchanged, resources may be allocated, and collaborative activities may be planned. To demonstrate this argument, the article returns to the case of Soviet Russia. Using newly available archival sources, the case study shows how informal personal networks intersected with formal political organizations to develop a capacity for territorial administration in the decade following the civil war. The article concludes by suggesting answers to larger questions concerning the success of Soviet state building, the subsequent collapse of the Soviet state, and the implications for comparative state-building theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , July 1996 , pp. 551 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1996

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.)

References

1 See, for example, Krasner, Stephen, Defending the National Interest: Raw Material Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions: Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Nordlinger, Eric, On the Autonomy of the Democratic State (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

2 Almond, Gabriel, A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989), chap. 8Google Scholar.

3 Jessop, Bob, State Theory: Putting Capitalist States in Their Place (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1990), 2Google Scholar.

4 For an excellent overview of this literature, see Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Evans, Peter, Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

5 Mann, Michael, “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results,” in Hall, John, ed., States in History (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986)Google ScholarPubMed.

6 The classic definition is found in Weber, Max, Economy and Society: An Interpretive Outline of Sociology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 2:901–5Google Scholar.

7 Among the many good examples of this work, see Tilly, Charles, ed., Formation of the National States of Western Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Shue, Vivienne, The Reaches of the State: Sketches of the Chinese Politic (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Brewer, John, Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Anderson, Lisa, The State and Social Transformation in Libya and Tunisia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Katzenstein, Peter, Small States in World Markets (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Skorownek, Stephen, Building a New American State: Expansion of National Administrative Capacities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hall, Peter, Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in England and France (Oxford: Oxford University, 1986)Google Scholar.

8 Migdal, Joel, Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Societal Relations and State Capabilities in Third World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 4–7Google Scholar. A good critique of the way in which comparativists have attempted to measure state capacity is Jackman, Robert, Power without Force: The Political Capacity of Nation-States (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993), chap. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Robert Putnam has recently developed a more sophisticated comparative measurement of institutional performance, which includes comprehensiveness, internal consistency, reliability, and correspondence to objectives. Putnam, See, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), chap. 3Google Scholar.

9 Weaver, R. Kent and Rockman, Bert, eds., Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1993)Google Scholar; Ikenberry, G. John, Reasons of State: Oil Politics and the Capacities of the American Government (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

10 Skocpol (fn. 1), 19–33; and Hall, John and Ikenberry, G. John, The State (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989)Google ScholarPubMed.

11 Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Peter Evans, “The State and Economic Transformation,” in Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol (fn. 4); and Amsden, Alice, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

12 Geddes, , “Building State Autonomy in Brazil, 1931–1964,” Comparative Politics 22 (January 1990), 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Levi, , Of Rule and Revenue (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

14 Geddes, , Politician's Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

15 Migdal, , Kohli, , and Shue, , eds., State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), introduction, chap. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Fainsod, Merle, How Russia Is Ruled (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955)Google Scholar; Schapiro, Leonard, The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (New York: Vintage Books, 1960)Google Scholar; Daniels, Robert, “The Secretariat and the Local Organizations in the Russian Communist Party, 1921–1923,” American Slavonic and East European Review 6 (March 1957)Google Scholar; and Service, Robert, Bolshevik Party in Revo lution:A Study in Organizational Change, 1917–1923 (London: Macmillan, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A notable exception, which pointed out the shortcomings in the organizational structure of the center, was Fainsod, Merle, Smolensk under Soviet Rule (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958)Google Scholar.

17 Ulam, Adam, Stalin: The Man and His Era (New York: Viking, 1973), 258, 259Google Scholar.

18 Huntingdon, , Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 1, 137, 336–41Google Scholar, quote at 400. Huntington followed theses remarks by directly quoting from Schapiro's study.

19 Skocpol (fn. 1), 162,215, quote at 226.

20 Getty, J. Arch, Origin of the Great Purges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Pethyridge, Roger, One Step Backwards, Two Steps Forward (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Gill, Graeme, Origins of the Stalinist Political System (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hughes, James, Stalin, Siberia, and the Crisis of the New Economic Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Pethyridge (fn. 20), 294.

22 The classic treatment is Patrick, Sheila Fitz, Russian Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982)Google Scholar.

23 See Hagen's, Von review article in Slavic Review 48 (Winter 1989)Google Scholar.

24 Fainsod (fn. 16), 236, 237; Hann, C. M., Tazlar: A Village in Hungary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Willerton, John, Patronage and Politics in the USSR (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Rigby, T. H. and Harasymiw, Bohdan, Leadership Selection and Patron-Client Relations in the USSR and Yugoslavia (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983)Google Scholar; Hough, Jerry, Soviet Prefects: Local Party Organs in Industrial Decision-Making (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walder, Andrew, Communist Neo-Traditionalism: Work and Authority in Chinese Industry (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Oi, Jean, State and Peasant in Contemporary China (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

25 A notable exception was Gill (fn. 20), 44, 128, 129, 217. But Gill ultimately concluded that informal relations undermined the process of institution building in the new state.

26 For charismatic authority, see Weber (fn. 6), 2:1111–23; for patrimonialism, see Roth, Guenther, “Personal Rulership, Patrimonialism, and Empire-Building in the New States,” World Politics 20 (January 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 A personal network is distinguishable from charismatic relations in that it is not a leader-follower relationship, and it is distinguishable from patrimonialism in that it is not based on mutual obligation. A personal network does not by definition exhibit structural inequality in the connecting “ties,” as it would in these other two types. In this case, personal networks originated with peerlike ties of camaraderie, based on shared experiences in the illegal underground and in the civil war. As network ties became enmeshed with the formal organizational structures of the new state, some network ties began to exhibit more of a hierarchical structure.

David Knoke has distinguished between “influence” networks, in which information is exchanged among relatively equal members, and “domination” networks, in which scarce goods are controlled in unequal relationships. See Knoke, , Political Networks: The Structural Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Personal networks in postrevolutionary Soviet Russia exhibited elements of both types of networks.

28 Warner, W. Lloyd and Lunt, P. S., The Social Life of a Modern Community (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941)Google Scholar; see also Scott, John, Social Network Analysis (London: Sage Publications, 1991), 16Google ScholarPubMed–26.

29 Wellman, Barry and Berkowitz, S. D., “Introduction: Studying Social Structures,” in Wellman, and Berkowitz, , eds., Social Structures: A Network Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 4Google Scholar.

30 The pioneers of this approach were Barnes, J. A., “Class and Committees in a Norwegian Fishing Parish,” Human Relations 7, no. 1 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Both, Elizabeth, Family and Social Network (London: Tavistock, 1957)Google Scholar. Some of the best-known works are represented in Mitchell, J. Clyde, ed., Social Net-works in Urban Situations (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

31 The work of Harrison White has been at the forefront of this effort; see White, , “Where Do Markets Come From?” American Journal of Sociology 87 (November 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burt, Ron S., Corporate Profits and Cooptation: Networks of Market Constraints and Directorate Ties in the American Economy (New Academic Books, 1983)Google Scholar; and Granovetter, Mark, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology 78 (May 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Knoke (fn. 27) is a notable exception.

33 Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956)Google Scholar; and Hunter, , Community Power Structure (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953)Google Scholar.

34 Perucci, Robert and Pilisuk, Marc, “Leaders and Ruling Elites: The Interorganizational Bases of Community Power,” American Sociological Review 35 (December 1970)Google Scholar; Laumann, Edward and Pappi, Franz, Networks of Collective Action: A Perspective on Community Influence Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1976)Google Scholar; and Galaskiewicz, Joseph, Exchange Networks and Community Politics (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1979)Google Scholar. Their conclusions contrasted sharply with the images of power projected by pluralists. The classic example of a pluralist approach to community politics is Dahl, Robert, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar. See the critique of pluralism in Domhoff, G. William, Who Really Rules: New Haven and Community Power Re-Examined (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1978)Google Scholar.

35 See the excellent case studies of health and energy policy formation in the Carter administration by Laumann, Edward and Knoke, David, The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987)Google Scholar; and Useem, Michael, The Inner Circle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

36 One of the early organizational theorists to make this observation was Barnard, Chester, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937)Google ScholarPubMed.

37 A core network member is an individual with a high degree of “centrality” in the network. Centrality is simply a measure of the number of direct network ties of an individual member. Scott (fn. 28), 86.

38 See Elwood, Ralph, Russian Social-Democrats in the Underground (Assen, Holland: Van Gorcum, 1974)Google Scholar.

39 Trust here refers to a system in which an intermediary acts to assure one actor of the performance reliability of another actor. For different systems of trust, see Coleman, James, Foundations of Social Theory (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar, chap. 8. For the importance of trust in the internal workings of illegal groups, see Gambeta, Diego, ed., Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988)Google Scholar.

40 See Rigby, T. H., “Early Provincial Cliques and the Rise of Stalin,” Soviet Studies 38 (July 1986)Google Scholar.

41 Izvestiia TsK RKP(b), no. 24 (1920).

42 L. Maleiko, “Iz istorii razvitiia apparata partiinykh organov” (From the history of the development of the party apparat), Voprosy istorii KPSS (February 1976), 113–15.

43 The center's efforts to work through the soviet structure was described by Iakov Sverdlov, who among the early Bolshevik state builders was considered “the organizational genius” of the revolution. Sverdlov, See, Izbrannye stat'i i rechi (Collection of articles and speeches) (Moscow: Gospolizdat, 1939), 92Google Scholar.

44 Izvestiia TsKRKP(b), no. 3 (March 1922), 20; and Trinadtsatyi s'ezd RKP(b): stenograficheskii otchet (Thirteenth congress of RCP[b]: Stenographic report) (Moscow: Gospolizdat, 1963), 118Google Scholar.

45 Pianadtsatyi s'ezd VKP(b): stenograficheskii otchet (Fifteenth congress of ACP [b]: Stenographic report) (Moscow: Gospolizdat, 1961), 1:115Google Scholar.

46 Center-regional institutional relations evolved somewhat differently in industrial regions, where economic administrators emerged as powerful players in local politics.

47 Mikoian, Anastas, V nachale dvadtsatykh (In the beginning of the 1920s) (Moscow: Politizdat, 1975), chap. 2Google Scholar.

48 Izvestiia TsKRKP(b), no. 33 (October 1921), 22.

49 Aleksandrov, I. G., “Ekonomicheskoe raionirovanie rossii,” in Krzhizhanovskii, G., ed., Voprosy eko-nomicheskogo raionirovaniia sssr: sbornik materialov i statet, 1917—1929 gg. (Questions of the economic regionalization of the USSR: Handbook of materials and articles, 1917–1929) (Moscow: Gospolizdat, 1957)Google Scholar.

50 N. Petukhova, “Sozdanie oblastnykh biuro TsK RKP(b) i nekotorye storonye ikh deiatel'nosti, 1920–1922” (Creation of the regional bureaus of the CC RCP [b] and several aspects of their activities, 1920–1922), Voprosy istorii KPSS (April 1965).

51 The central leadership refers to full and candidate members of the politburo, the main policymaking organ, and the secretariat, the organizational head of the territorial party apparatus. Regional leaders refers to individuals who worked for at least two years in a particular region during the civil war (1918–21) and/or the postwar political consolidation (1920–23).

52 A network tie is determined by two criteria: (1) evidence of a working relationship (two or more years) in at least one of three milieus (prerevolutionary underground, civil war, postwar consolidation); and/or (2) evidence of friendship or family relationship. Below are the source materials used to determine the informal ties of the regional leadership listed in Figure 1. They include personal correspondence, memoirs, and biographies; RTsKhlDNI refers to the Russian Center for the Preservation and Investigation of Documents of Recent History.

—A. Andreev: RTsKhlDNI, f. 73, op. 1, d. 1–9;

Vospominaniia, pis'ma (Moscow: Politizdat, 1985)Google Scholar.

—L. Beria: RTsKhlDNI, f. 80, op. 24, d. 166,11. 1, 2.

—R. Eikhe: RTsKhlDNI,

f. 124, op. 1, d. 2215,

U. 1–6;

Voprosy istorii KPSS, no. 7 (1965), 92–97.

—Gamarnik, I.: Vospominaniia druzei i soratnikov (Moscow: Vbenizdat, 1978)Google Scholar.

—N. Gikalo: RTsKhlDNI, f. 85, op. 15, d. 34,11.1–5; RTsKhlDNI, f. 80, op. 8, d. 25, 11.3–9.

—F. Goloshchekin: RTsKhlDNI, f. 124, op. 1, d. 484, 11.1–12.

—A. Ikramov: RTsKhlDNI, f. 79, op. 1, d. 708, 11.1–7;

Pravda, April 9, 1964.

—L. Kartvelishvili: RTsKhlDNI, f. 80, op. 29,1. 1; f. 124, op. 1, d. 835,11. 16–17.

—M. Khataevich: RTsKhlDNI, f. 124, op. 1, d. 2043,11. 2–6;

Voprosy istorii KPSS, no. 6 (1963), 98–101.

—S. Kosior: RTsKhlDNI, f. 124, op. 1, d. 951,1. 1;

Vospominaniia, ocherki.stat'i (Moscow: Politizdat, 1989)Google Scholar.

—A. Kostanian: Kommunist (Erevan), July 28, 1967.

—A. Krinitskii: Voprosy istorii KPSS, no. 12 (1964).

—L. Mirzoian: RTsKhlDNI, f. 80, op. 7, d. 3,1. 1; Voprosy istorii KPSS, no. 1 (1965), 101–4.

—M. Orakhelashvili: RTsKhlDNI, f. 85, op. 11, d. 28,11.1–4;

Mamiia Orakhelashvili (Tbilisi: Izdatel'stvo sabchota sakartvelo, 1986)Google Scholar.

—I. Rumiantsev: RTsKhlDNI, f. 124, op. 1, d. 1662,11. 3–5.

—B. Semenov: Izvestiia TsKKPSS, no. 12 (1989), 110.

—B. Sheboldaev: RTsKhlDNI, f. 124, op. 1, d. 2138,11. 1, 2.

—V. Shubrikov: Izvestiia TsKKPSS, no. 12 (1989), p. 112.

—I. Vareikis: RTsKhlDNI, f. 124, op. 1, 302,11. 1–5; Lappo, D., Iuozac Vareikis (Voronezh: Tsentral'no-chernozemone izdatel'stvo, 1989)Google Scholar.

53 Voprosy istorii KPSS, no. 1 (1965), 101–4.

54 The archival sources are from the former Central Party Archive of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, which has been renamed the Russian Center for the Preservation and Investigation of Documents of Recent History (RTsKhlDNI).

55 Suny, Ronald, The Making of the Georgian Nation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; and idem, The Baku Commune, 1917–1918 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972)Google Scholar.

56 Mikoyan, Anastas, The Path of Struggle (Madison, Wis.: Sphinx Press, 1988), 450Google Scholar.

57 For Ordzhonikidze's official appointments, see RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 85, op. 1, d. 15,1.1; f. 85, op. 1, d. 18,1.1; for Kirov's official appointments, see RTsKhlDNI, f. 80, op. 3, d. 34,1.1; f. 80, op. 4, d. 47,1. 1; f. 80, op. 5, d. 24,1.1.

58 For Kirov, see RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 4, d. 44,11.1–4; d. 94,11. 2–4; op. 5, d. 13,11.1–4; d. 20,1. 1; d. 25,1. 1.; op. 85, op. 11, d. 8,11. 1–7. For Kvirikeli, see RTsKhlDNI, f. 85, op. 11, d. 13,11. 3–18; d. 14,11. 1–3; d. 19,11. 1, 2; d. 34,11. 2–7. For Gikalo, see RTsKhlDNI, f. 85, op. 11, d. 28,11. l-4jd.34.il. 1–5; d. 59,11. 1,2.

59 For the coordination of military and political tasks, see RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 85, op. 15, d. 57, 1.1; d. 61,1.1; d. 71,11.1,2; d. 103,1.1. For the placement of network members in positions of power, see RTsKhlDNI, f. 85, op. 15, d. 182,11. 4–9; d. 243,1.1; d. 246,11.1–5.

60 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 22, d. 11,11. 3–7; 15,11.1–10.

61 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), £ 80, op. 3, d. 20,11.1–8.

62 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 85, op. 24, d. 261,1.1.

63 RTsKhlDNI, (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 3, d. 15,11.1, 4; f. 80, op. 4, d. 7,11. 3–7.

64 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 85, op. 11, d. 28,11.1–4; f. 85, op. 15, d. 246,11. 2–5.

65 Pravda, June 10, 1963.

66 Dolunts, G. K., Kirov v revoliutsii (Kirov in the revolution) (Krasnodar: Krasnodarskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1967), 65Google Scholar.

67 For evidence of Nazaretian's close ties with Orjonikidze, see RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 85, op. 11, d. 85,11. 2–5; for Nazaretian's ties with Kirov, see RTsKhlDNI, f. 80, op. 4, d. 117,1.1.

68 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80. op. 7, d. 3,1.1; op. 8, d. 25,11. 3–9.

69 See the remarks of politburo member Lazar Kaganovich delivered to the Sixteenth Party Congress in the summer of 1930. XVI s'ezd vsesoiuznoi kommunisticheskoipartii (b): stenograficheskii otchet (Sixteenth congress of the all-union Communist Party (b): Stenographic report) (Moscow: Gospolizdat, 1935), 156Google Scholar.

70 Spravochnikpartiinogo rabotnika (Handbook for party workers) (Moscow: Partizdat, 1934), 8:272, 273Google Scholar.

71 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 85, op. 27, d. 127, 11.2–12; d. 140,11.1,2; d. 300,11.1–26.

72 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 85, op. 27, d. 304,1.1.

73 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 85, op. 27, d. 308,11. 5–52; f. 85, op. 1, d. 317,11. 1–17; f. 85, op. 27, d. 321,11.1–9.

74 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 25, d. 11,11.1–14; op. 26, d. 40,11.1–5.

75 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 12, d. 29,1.1.

76 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 15, d. 45,1.1.

77 See, respectively, RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 10, d. 42,1.1; op. 12, d. 22,11.1,2; op. 13, d. 16, 1.1.

78 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 85, op. 27, d. 307,11.3–15; op. 27, d. 308,11.16–29,33–50; op. 27, d. 312, 11. 10–18; op. 27, d. 315,11. 1, 2; op. 27, d. 321,11. 1–9. See also Amy Knight's excellent biography of Lavrenti Beria, Stalin's secret police chief, who worked in Transcaucasia at this time and was a protege of Orjonikidze's; Knight, Beria: Stalin's First Lieutenant (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), chaps. 2, 3Google Scholar.

79 RTsKMDNI (fn. 54), f. 85, op. 27, d. 308,11. 36–48; d. 317,11. 8, 9; f. 80, op. 15, d. 13,11.1–8.

80 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 14, d. 10,11. 9–64.

81 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 15, d. 45,1.1; op. 17, d. 58,1. 1. 82.

82 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 17, d. 55,1. 1; op. 18, d. 103,11.1,2; op. 18. d. 105,1. 1.

83 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 18, d. 107,11.1, 2.

84 Davies, R. W., The Soviet Economy in Turmoil (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 283–309Google Scholar.

85 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 15, d. 51,1.1; f. 80, op. 15, d. 49,1.1; f. 80, op. 17, d. 57, 1.1; f. 80, op. 14, d. 49, 1.1.

86 For Sheboldaev, see RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 124, op. 1, d. 2138, 1. 1; for Rumiantsev, see RTsKhlDNI, £ 124, op. 1, d. 1662,1. 5; for Vareikis, see Lappo, D., Iuozas Vareikis (Voronezh: Tsen-tral'no-chernozemnoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1989), 85—99Google Scholar.

87 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 16, d. 45, 1.1.

88 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 80, op. 17, d. 58, 1.1.

89 RTsKhlDNI (fn. 54), f. 85, op. 27, d. 317, 11. 6–10; f. 79, op. 1, d. 744,1. 2.

90 Zaleski, Eugene, Stalinist Planningfor Economic Growth, 1933—1952 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 115–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Franco Benevenuti, Kirov in Soviet Politics, 1933–1934 (Birmingham, England: CREES Papers on Soviet Industrialization), no. 8 (1977); A. Vaksberg, “Kale zhivoi s zhivnyi” (As alive as the living), Literaturnaia gazeta, June 19, 1988, p.13.

91 For examples of Orjonikidze's and Kirov's intervention to protect fellow network members, sefe Pravda, March 17, 1964; Pravda, January 29,1991.

92 Khlevniuk, Oleg, In Stalin's Shadow: The Career of Sergo Ordzhonikidze (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1995), 35Google Scholar.

93 Suny (fn. 55,1988), 243–54.

94 Confirmation of this aborted conspiracy comes from the memoirs of Anastas Mikoian, who was also a member of the Transcaucasian network. See “V pervyi raz bez lenina” (The first time without Lenin), Ogonei, no. 50 (December 1989), 27–29. The chief conspirators included Boris Sheboldaev, Iosif Vareikis, and Mamia Orakhelashvili.

95 Pravda, April 1, 1937.

96 Clark, William, Soviet Regional Elite Mobility after Khrushchev (New York: Praeger, 1989)Google Scholar; Urban, Michael, An Algebra of Soviet Power: Elite Circulation in Belorussia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Willerton, John, Patronage and Politics in the USSR (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

97 Rutland, Peter, The Politics of Economic Stagnation: The Role of Local Party Organs in Economic Management (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

98 Medding, Mapai in Israel: Political Organisation and Government in a Neiv Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 136, 137Google Scholar.

99 Nee, , “Between Center and Locality: State, Militia and Village,” in Nee, Victor and Mozingo, David, eds., State and Society in Contemporary China (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983), 232, 242Google Scholar.

100 Stark, David and Nee, Victor, “Toward an Institutional Analysis of State Socialism,” in Nee, and Stark, , eds., Remaking the Economic Institutions of Socialism: China and Eastern Europe (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1989), 15Google Scholar. See also Solinger, Dorothy, “Urban Reform and Relational Contracting in Post-Mao China: An Interpretation of the Transition from Plan to Market,” in Baum, Richard, ed., Reform and Reaction in Post-Mao China (New York: Routledge, 1991)Google Scholar.

101 Kirkow, , “Regional Warlordism in Russia: The Case of Primorskii Krai,” Europe-Asia Studies 47, no. 6 (1995), 923CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 Among comparative state theorists, the “state in society” approach exemplifies this redirection of analytical focus; see Migdal, Kohli, and Shue (fn. 15). More generally, a recognition of the informal dimensions of institutions has been associated with the work of William Riker; see, for example, Riker, , “Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions,” American Political Science Review 74 (June 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Several notable recent studies include Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalise! in Comparative Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knight, Jack, Institutions and Social Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Putnam (fn. 8).