Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:32:56.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rationality, Structure, and Agency in Post-Soviet Russian Democratization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2007

Stephen E. Hanson
Stephen E. Hanson
Affiliation:
University of Washington and the Ellison Center for Russian, East European, and Central Asian Studies at the Jackson School of International Studies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Why, more than 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and after repeated elections at both the regional and national levels, has post-Soviet Russia slid back into authoritarianism? Given the increasingly tense relations between the Kremlin and the West, this is a question of growing geopolitical importance. Analyzing it also turns out to be immensely fruitful for sharpening our theoretical understanding of the sources of democracy and autocracy more generally. While the decade and a half since the Soviet collapse has been a time of massive upheaval and hardship for the hundreds of millions of people living in the region, it has also been something of a golden era for the study of comparative politics—as anyone who reads the works reviewed here will readily attest.Stephen E. Hanson is Boeing International Professor at the University of Washington and the Director of the Ellison Center for Russian, East European, and Central Asian Studies at the Jackson School of International Studies. He is the author of Time and Revolution: Marxism and the Design of Soviet Institutions, winner of the 1998 Wayne S. Vucinich Book Award from the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies. He is also a co-editor of Capitalism and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe: Assessing the Legacy of Communist Rule, a co-author of Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy, and the author of numerous journal articles examining post-communist politics in comparative perspective.

Type
REVIEW ESSAY
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 793 - 802
Copyright
© 2007 American Political Science Association

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

Golosov, Grigorii V. 2004. Political Parties in the Regions of Russia: Democracy Unclaimed. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner.
Kitschelt, Herbert, et al. 1999. Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewin, Moshe. 1988. The Gorbachev Phenomenon: A Historical Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Linz, Juan, and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Martin, Terry D. 2001. The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Migdal, Joel. 1988. Strong Societies and Weak States: State–Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shefter, Martin. 1995. Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Solnick, Steven Lee. 1998. Stealing the State: Control and Collapse in Soviet Institutions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thelen, Kathleen. 1999. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 2: 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkov, Vadim. 2002. Violent Entrepreneurs: The Use of Force in the Making of Russian Capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.