¹ Gordon Skilling, H., “Interest Groups and Communist Politics,” World Politics 18 (April 1966), 435–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gordon Skilling, H. and Griffiths, Franklyn, eds., Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971).Google Scholar

² Hough, Jerry F., “Pluralism, Corporatism, and the Soviet Union,” paper presented at Conference on Organizational Participation and Public Policy, Princeton University, September 1–2, 1981, p. 1Google Scholar; published in revised form under the same title in Solomon, Susan Gross, ed., Pluralism in the Soviet Union (London: Macmillan, 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ David Garson, G., Group Theories of Politics (Beverly Hills and London: Sage Library of Social Research, 1978), 153.Google Scholar

⁴ Skilling, and Griffiths, , Pressure Groups in der Sowjetunion (Vienna: Europaverlag, 1974)Google Scholar; Meissner, Boris and Brunner, Georg, Gruppeninteressen und Entscheidungsprozesse in der Sowjetunion (Cologne: Wissenschaft & Politik, 1975)Google Scholar; Nolte, Hans-Heinrich, Gruppeninteressen und Aussenpolitik: Die Sowjetunion in der Geschichte internationaler Beziehungen (Göttingen: Muster-Schmidt 1979).Google Scholar

⁵ Odom, William E., “A Dissenting View on the Group Approach to Soviet Politics,” World Politics 28 (July 1976), 542–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Janos, Andrew C., “Group Politics in Communist Society: A Second Look at the Pluralistic Model,” in Huntington, Samuel P. and Moore, Clement H., eds., Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society (New York: Basic Books, 1970), 437–50Google Scholar; McGrath, Bill and McInnis, Simon, “‘Better Fewer but Better’: On Approaches to the Study of Soviet and East European Politics,” Canadian Slavonic Papers 18 (September 1976), 327–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also the symposium (including a paper by Janos and comments by Odom and others), “Pluralism in Communist Societies: Is the Emperor Naked?” Studies in Comparative Communism 12 (Spring 1979), 3–38. For my comments, see “Pluralism in Communist Societies: Straw Men and Red Herrings,” and a rejoinder by Janos, ibid. 13 (Spring 1980), 82–88, 89–90. See also the critique by Powell, David E., “In Pursuit of Interest Groups in the USSR,” Soviet Union 6, Part 1 (1979), 99–124Google Scholar, according to which interest group theory relating to Soviet politics was based on “intuition, surmise and supposition” (p. 108), and was “not supported by empirical evidence” (p. 124). The article was aimed primarily at the more theoretical writings of Jerry Hough and the empirical study of the role of specialists by Peter Solomon. For their replies, see Hough, “‘Interest Groups’ and ‘Pluralism’ in the Soviet Union,” and Solomon, , “Soviet Policy-Making in Comparative Perspective,” Soviet Union 8, Part 1 (1981), 103–9Google Scholar and 110–18 respectively.

⁶ Brown, , Soviet Politics and Political Science (London: Macmillan, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. chap. 3, “Groups, Interests and the Policy Process.”

⁷ Garson (fn. 3), 153–54; see also pp. 96, 138.

⁸ J. David Greenstone, “Group Theories,” and Salisbury, Robert H., “Interest Groups,” in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., eds., Handbook of Political Science, II and IV, respectively (Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1975).Google Scholar

⁹ Hough (fn. 2), 32.

¹⁰ Hough, , The Soviet Union and Social Science Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977), 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Hough, , How the Soviet Union Is Governed (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979), 528–29.Google Scholar (The definition is Truman's.) This book is a revised and enlarged version of Fainsod, , How Russia Is Ruled (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953Google Scholar, rev. 1963).

¹² Hough (fn. 10), 10–14.

¹³ Whetten, , Current Research in Comparative Communism: An Analysis and Bibliographic Guide to the Soviet System (New York: Praeger, 1976), 24.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Truman, , The Governmental Process, Political Interests and Public Opinion (New York: Knopf, 1951).Google Scholar See also Bentley, Arthur, The Process of Government (Evanston: Ill.: Principia, 1949).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Garson (fn. 3) for a detailed account of the ups and downs of interest group theory: on Beard, 17; on Laski, 18 ff., 48 ff.; on Bentley, 26 ff.; on Herring, 60 ff.; on Dahl, 91 ff. See also Dahl, , Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar, and Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956).

¹⁶ Garson (fn. 3), 110, 177.

¹⁷ Note, for instance, the continuing use of the concepts of interests and groups by critics of Bentley,—e.g., Truman, Dahl, McConnell, and Lowi (Greenstone, fn. 8), 300.

¹⁸ Janos (fn. 5, 1979), 19; Truman (fn. 14), xxii-xxviii.

¹⁹ Cited by Garson (fn. 3), 103; see also pp. 109, 131–32; Truman, , “On the Invention of Systems,” American Political Science Review 54 (June 1960), 494–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Truman (fn. 14), 505.

²⁰ Garson (fn. 3), 112.

²¹ Skilling and Griffiths (fn. 1), 44–45, 335, 413.

²² Garson (fn. 3), 71.

²³ Linz, , “Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes,” in Greenstein and Polsby (fn. 8), III, 191.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., 265–66.

²⁵ Skilling, , “Group Conflict and Political Change,” in Johnson, Chalmers, ed., Change in Communist Systems (Stanford: Stanford Universtiy Press, 1970), at 222–23Google Scholar; see also Skilling, and Griffiths, (fn. 1), 399–400.Google Scholar

²⁶ Hough (fn. 11), 187, 529; also Hough (fn. 10), 12.

²⁷ Shtromas, , Political Change and Social Development: The Case of the Soviet Union (Frankfurt a/M: Peter Lang, 1981), 68.Google Scholar An earlier version of parts of this book was published as “Dissent and Political Change in the Soviet Union,” Studies in Comparative Communism 12 (Summer/Autumn 1979), 212–44; comments and rejoinder, ibid., 245–76.

²⁸ Skilling, in Johnson (fn. 25), 22–28. For a positive appraisal of this classification, see Lowenthal, Richard, “On ‘Established’ Communist Party Regimes,” Studies in Comparative Communism 7 (Winter 1974), 337–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 344–45, 356; and Linz (fn. 23), 245, 277, 336–47.

²⁹ See Skilling, , “Leadership and Group Conflict in Czechoslovakia,” in Barry Farrell, R., ed., Political Leadership in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (Chicago: Aldine, 1970), 276–93Google Scholar, for an application of this typology to successive phases of communist rule in Czechoslovakia.

³⁰ Salisbury (fn. 8), IV, 172–73.

³¹ Garson (fn. 3), 18–20, 120–21.

³² Skilling (fn. 5), 85.

³³ Hough (fn. 10), 61. Hough even suggested that the Soviet system under Brezhnev was closer to the model of pluralism of Western political science than the American political system itself (ibid., 69; also 9–10).

³⁴ Hough, , “The Soviet System: Petrification or Pluralism?” Problems of Communism 22 (March-April 1972), 28–29Google Scholar; see also Hough (fn. 10), 23.

³⁵ Hough (fn. 34), 29, 42; (fn. 10), 24, 43–44. See Ehrlich, Stanislaw, Pluralism on and off Course (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982), 204Google Scholar, 206. See also Solomon (fn. 2) for other discussions of the pluralist concept as applied to Soviet politics.

³⁶ Cf. the “group interaction and organizational process model” advanced by Kelley, Donald R., “Group and Specialist Influence in Soviet Politics: In Search of a Theory,” in Remnek, Richard B., ed., Social Scientists and Policy Making in the USSR (New York and London: Praeger, 1977), chap. 5.Google Scholar

³⁷ Hammer, , “Bureaucratic Pluralism,” mimeo (Moscow, 1979), 17.Google Scholar See also Hammer's earlier book, U.S.S.R.: The Politics of Oligarchy (Hinsdale, Ill.: Dryden, 1974), chap. 6.Google Scholar

³⁸ Lazarev, , Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo (No. 10, 1971), 86Google Scholar, 93; also Hammer (fn. 37, 1979), 10. Brezhnev himself defined the task of the CPSU as “accurately to take into account the interests of the whole nation, as well as the interests of the classes and social groups which make it up and to direct them in one general current” (Report to the 24th Congress, March 30, 1971), in Leninskym kursom; rechi a statya [The Leninist Course; Speeches and Articles] (Moscow: Izd. pol. literatury, 1972), III, 274–75; my translation.

³⁹ Hough (fn. 11), 547; also Hough (fn. 10), 24.

⁴⁰ Bunce, Valerie and Echols, John M. III, “Soviet Politics in the Brezhnev Era: ‘Pluralism’ or ‘Corporatism’?” in Kelley, Donald R., ed. Soviet Politics in the Brezhnev Era (New York: Praeger, 1980).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Garson (fn. 3), 47 ff., 70.

⁴² See Berger, Suzanne, ed., Organizing Interests in Western Europe: Pluralism, Corporatism, and the Transformation of Politics (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; also the Conference on Organizational Participation and Public Policy, Princeton University, September 1–2, 1981—especially Discussion Paper No. 1, by Black, Cyril E., “Organized Participation: Notes on the Literature”; Burke, John P., Organizational Participation and Public Policy: A Conference Report, Center of International Studies, Princeton University, Policy Memorandum No. 41 (Princeton, 1982).Google Scholar See also Black, Cyril E. and Burke, John P., “Organizational Participation and Public Policy,” World Politics 35 (April 1983), 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ Schmitter, , “Still the Century of Corporatism,” Review of Politics 36 (January 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also his introduction to a special issue on corporatism, and his contribution, “Modes of Interest Intermediation and Models of Societal Change in Western Europe,” in Comparative Political Studies 10 (April 1977), 3–6 and 7–38, respectively.

⁴⁴ Full definitions are in Schmitter (fn. 43, 1974), 93–94, 96, 104, 97; also in Bunce and Echols (fn. 40).

⁴⁵ Bunce and Echols (fn. 40), 18, 4.

⁴⁶ Hough (fn. 2), 27. See also discussion of corporatism by A. H. Brown and others in Solomon (fn. 2).

⁴⁷ Black, , “Organizational Participation in Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union,” paper presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Washington, D.C., October 1982, p. 9.Google Scholar See below for further discussion of interest groups in tsarist and Soviet Russia.

⁴⁸ Dahl, , “Pluralism Revisited,” in Ehrlich, Stanislaw and Wootton, Graham, eds., Three Faces of Pluralism: Political, Ethnic and Religious (Farnborough, England: Gower, 1980), 27.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Furtak, Robert K., “Interessenpluralismus in den politischen Systemen Osteuropas,” Osteuropa 24 (November-December 1974), 779–92Google Scholar, esp. 790–91.

⁵⁰ Ruble, , Soviet Trade Unions, Their Development in the 1970's (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ Bunce and Echols (fn. 40), 9–12. On the role of experts, see Brown (fn. 6), 74–76, 85–88.

⁵² Kirstein, in Meissner and Brunner, (fn. 4).

⁵³ Solomon, Peter H. Jr, Soviet Criminologists and Criminal Policy: Specialists in Policy Making (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gustafson, Thane, Reform in Soviet Politics, Lessons of Recent Policies on Land and Water (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Löwenhardt, John, Decision Making in Soviet Politics (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See below for further discussion.

⁵⁴ On the desirability of such case studies, see Brown (fn. 6), 73–74, 85–86. Articles by Stewart, P. D., Schwartz, J. J. and Keech, W. R., and Lodge, Milton, cited in Skilling and Griffiths (fn. 1), 379Google Scholar, will not be discussed here.

⁵⁵ Friedgut, , “Interests and Groups in Soviet Policy-making: the MTS Reforms,” Soviet Studies 28 (October 1976), 524–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁶ Kelley, , “Environmental Policy-making in the USSR: The Role of Industrial and Environmental Interest Groups,” Soviet Studies 28 (October 1976), 570–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; emphasis in original.

⁵⁷ Kelley, , “Interest Groups in the USSR: The Impact of Political Sensitivity on Group influence,” The Journal of Politics 34 (August 1972), 860–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁸ Biddulph, , “The Public Articulation of Territorial Interests at CPSU Congresses,” (Victoria, B.C., 1982)Google Scholar, published as “Local Interest Articulation at CPSU Congresses,” World Politics 36 (October 1983), 28–52. Cf. Hough's analysis of speeches by regional party secretaries at the 23rd Congress in Skilling and Griffiths (fn. 1), 65–66.

⁵⁹ Solomon (fn. 53).

⁶⁰ Gustafson (fn. 53).

⁶¹ Löwenhardt (fn. 53).

⁶² Workshop on Soviet Policymaking, University of California (Berkeley, June 19–20, 1980). Cf. the earlier volume by Remnek (fn. 36).

⁶³ Solomon (fn. 53), 13.

⁶⁴ Löwenhardt (fn. 53), 6, 25, 26.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 86, 184–85.

⁶⁶ Skilling and Griffiths (fn. 1), 24–27, 384–87, 395; on tendency analysis, 342, 344, 352, 412. Hoffmann, Erik P. and Laird, Robbin F., in their study The Politics of Economic Modernization in the Soviet Union (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1982)Google Scholar, chap. 6, discern what they call “policy groups,” which combine the characteristics of Griffiths' “tendencies of articulation” with institutional interests. Their book focuses on the policy group of “economic modernizers,” a coalition that includes economic planners, planning theorists, managers, management theorists, and others who work in a variety of party, government, production, and academic institutions and share many views on the policies needed for economic modernization.

⁶⁷ Meissner and Brunner (fn. 4).

⁶⁸ Nolte (fn. 4).

⁶⁹ Furtak (fn. 49).

⁷⁰ Odom (fn. 5), 562–65.

⁷¹ Black, , “Political Participation: From Estates to Interest Groups,” paper presented at the American Historical Association, Washington, D.C., December 1980, pp. 2Google Scholar, 6.

⁷² Wortman, , “The Autocracy and the Interests, 1861–1905,” paper presented at the American Historical Association, Washington, D.C., December 1980, pp. 3Google Scholar, 11. Donald Treadgold and Richard Pipes have also written of interest groups in tsarist Russia; see Whetten (fn. 13), 25. See also, on the relationship of group interests and Russian despotism, Bentley (fn. 14), 335–37. Cf. my comments, and those of Janos, on this topic in Studies in Comparative Communism (fn. 5, 1980), 84, 90.

⁷³ Black (fn. 47), 7.

⁷⁴ Terry, , in Studies in Comparative Communism (fn. 5, 1979), 29.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ For an earlier analysis of interest groups and opposition in Communist Eastern Europe, see Skilling, , “Background to the Study of Opposition in Communist East Europe,” Government and Opposition 3 (Summer 1968), 294–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar; republished in Schapiro, Leonard, ed., Political Opposition in One-Party States (London: Macmillan, 1972), 72–103Google Scholar, and in Dahl, Robert A., ed., Regimes and Oppositions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), 121–41.Google Scholar See also Brown, A. H., “Pluralistic Trends in Czechoslovakia,” Soviet Studies 17 (April 1966), 453–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁶ Skilling, , Czechoslovakia's Interrupted Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), chap, XVIII, esp. pp. 563Google Scholar, 611. See also my forthcoming article, “Two Interrupted Revolutions,” a comparative analysis of the reform movements in 1968 and 1980–81, to be published in Poland in Crisis, Institute of Soviet and East European Studies, Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada, forthcoming).

⁷⁷ I owe this idea and the term “proto-interest groups” to Robert C. Tucker of Princeton University, who read a draft of this article.

⁷⁸ Skilling, , Studies in Comparative Communism (fn. 5), 87.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See my analysis of dissent in the Soviet Union, Poland, and Czechoslovakia in the final chapter of Skilling, , Charter 77 and Human Rights in Czechoslovakia (London: Allen & Unwin, 1981).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Shtromas (fn. 27), 74–77, 104.

⁸¹ Skilling and Griffiths (fn. 1), 23.

⁸² Victor C. Falkenheim has adopted an interest group approach in a comprehensive symposium which he has edited, entitled Citizens and Groups in Chinese Politics (manuscript only). Referring to Interest Groups in Soviet Politics, Falkenheim writes that interest group approaches “have become virtually universal tools of analysis, reflecting, on the one hand, their almost unarguable indispensability in substantive policy analysis, and on the other, the increasingly salient character of group activity in modernizing socialist systems.” The manuscript focuses on “the role of social aggregates, professional groups and bureaucratic interest groups at the base and intermediate levels” of the Chinese political system, including, for instance, workers, peasants, and the youth, as well as scientists, intellectuals, managers, and the military, and explores the interactions between “social groups” and elite factions.”

⁸³ Skilling and Griffiths (fn. 1), 44.

⁸⁴ Ibid.; see pp. cited in fn. 66.

⁸⁵ Ibid., 45.

⁸⁶ Ibid., 44; also 399, 401–05.

⁸⁷ Shtromas (fn. 27, 1979), 221, 237–39, 272–73.

⁸⁸ Skilling and Griffiths (fn. 1), 404, 405.

⁸⁹ Skilling (fn. 25), 230, 234.