Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:51:23.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Convergence: An Empirical Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Daniel N. Nelson
Daniel N. Nelson
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Abstract

When detente emerged as the focal point of American foreign policy in the early 1970's, the issue of whether or not communist political systems were becoming more like Western democracies over time (i.e., “converging”) was raised. This paper assesses political scientists' efforts to analyze such a hypotheses, particularly the implication that socioeconomic changes called “development” and “modernization” co-vary with fundamental political change. After identifying three components of the convergence hypothesis—pluralism, nationalism, and legitimacy—the author examines published research for empirical evidence regarding these phenomena. He stresses the similarities and differences of political change among communist states. Convergence theory is found to be inadequate in most respects for understanding the relationships between socioeconomic and political changes, although various political trends (such as pluralization) are evident.

Type
Research Note
Information
World Politics , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , April 1978 , pp. 411 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1978

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 Meyer, , “Theories of Convergence,” in Johnson, Chalmers, ed., Change in Communist Systems (Stanford: Stanford University Press 1970), 337Google Scholar.

2 See, for instance, Jan Tinbergen, “Do Communist and Free Economies Show a Converging Pattern?” in Bornstein, Morris, ed., Comparative Economic Systems (Homewood, LLL.: Dorsey 1965), 455–64Google Scholar.

3 Black, , The Dynamics of Modernization (New York: Harper and Row 1966), 49Google Scholar.

4 Huntington, Samuel P. and Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Political Power: USA/USSR (New York: Viking Press 1964)Google Scholar.

5 Meyer, , “USSR Incorporated,” in Treadgold, Donald W., ed., The Development of the USSR (Seattle: University of Washington Press 1964)Google Scholar, 21–28; see also Meyer, , The Soviet Political System (New York: Random House 1965)Google Scholar.

6 Brzezinski, , “The Soviet Political System: Transformation or Degeneration,” Problems of Communism (January-February 1966)Google Scholar.

7 Brzezinski, , ed, Dilemmas of Change in Soviet Politics (New York: Columbia University Press 1969), 30–34Google Scholar.

8 Fainsod, “Roads to the Future,” ibid., 134.

9 Mehnert, , “Westerly Winds Over Eastern Europe,” in London, Kurt, ed., Eastern Europe in Transition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1966), 309–23Google Scholar.

10 Kassof, , “The Future of Soviet Society,” in Kassof, , ed., Prospects for Soviet Society (New York: Praeger 1968), 504–5Google Scholar.

11 Hough, Jerry, “The Soviet System: Petrification of Pluralism,” Problems of Communism XXI (March-April 1972)Google Scholar, Matejko, Alexander, Social Change and Stratification in Eastern Tiurope (New York: Praeger 1974)Google Scholar.

12 Daniels, , “Soviet Politics Since Khrushchev,” in Strong, John W., ed., The Soviet Union Under Brezhnev and Kosygin (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold 1971), 22–23Google Scholar.

13 Skilling, and Griffiths, , eds., Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1971)Google Scholar; see particularly Skilling's article “Groups in Soviet Politics: Some Hypotheses.” Also interesting is Stewart, Philip D., “Soviet Interest Groups and the Policy Process,” World Politics, XXII (October 1969)Google Scholar.

14 For example, see Kautsky, John H., Political Change in Underdeveloped Countries (New York: Wiley 1963), 79–89Google Scholar. My article, “The Early Success of Ostpolitik: An Eastern European Perspective,” World Affairs, Vol. 138 (Summer 1975), 32–50Google Scholar, discusses increasing contact with Western Europe and the independence from Soviet positions.

15 Gilison, , British and Soviet Politics: A Study of Legitimacy and Convergence (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1972)Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., XII.

17 Ibid., 37.

18 Ibid., 93.

19 Ibid., 105.

20 Ibid., 169.

21 See for instance, Korbonski, Andrzej, “Liberalization Processes,” in MesaLago, Carmelo and Beck, Carl eds., Comparative Socialist Systems (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Center for International Studies 1975), 192–214Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., 196.

23 These data are available in machine-readable form from the Eastern European Elite Archive, University of Pittsburgh, William Jarzabek, archivist.

24 Beck, , “Leadership Attributes in Eastern Europe: The Effect of Country and Time,” in Beck, and others, , Comparative Communist Political Leadership (New York: McKay 1973) 126–27Google Scholar

25 Ludz, , The Changing Party Elite in East Germany (Cambridge: The MIT Press 1972), 321Google Scholar.

26 Nelson, “Background Characteristics of Local Communist Elites,” forthcoming in Polity (1978). My assessment of the Romanian political elite at a local level was based upon numerous interviews with such individuals in four counties (judete).

27 Ludz (fn. 25), 321.

28 Beck (fn. 24), 129.

29 Ibid., 143.

30 Nelson, , “Socio-economic and Political Change in Communist Europe,” International Studies Quarterly XXI (June 1977), 359–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 These data are available at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Publications from these data include, among others, Philip Jacob and others, Values and the Active Community (New York: Free Press 1971)Google Scholar, Teune, Henry and Ostrowski, Krystof, “Political Systems as Residual Variables,” Comparative Political Studies, VI (April 1973), 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 See Zaninovich, “Elites and Citizenry in Yugoslav Society: A Study of Value Differentiation,” in Beck (fn. 24), 226–97; Triska and Barbie, “Evaluating Citizen Performance on the Community Level,” paper delivered at the 1975 meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.

33 Zaninovich (fn. 32), 285.

34 Triska and Barbie (fn. 32), 46.

35 Zaninovich (fn. 32), 285.

36 Lodge, , “Soviet Elite Participatory Attitudes in the Post-Stalin Period,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 62 (September 1968), 827–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Attitudinal Cleavages Within the Soviet Political Leadership,” in Beck (fn. 24), 202–25.

37 Lodge, “Soviet Elite Participatory Attitudes” (fn. 36), 838.

38 Nelson, , “Sub-National Political Elites in a Communist System,” East European Quarterly X (December 1976), 459–94Google Scholar.

39 Schwartz, and Keech, , “Group Influence and the Policy Process in the Soviet Union,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 62 (September 1968), 840–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Public Influence and Educational Policy in the Soviet Union,” in Kanet, Roger E., ed., The Behavioral Revolution and Communist Studies (New York: Free Press 1971), 151–86Google Scholar.

40 Ibid., 152.

41 Ibid., 181.

42 Tarkowski, , “A Study of the Decisional Process in Rolnowo Powiat,” Polish Sociological Bulletin, XVI, No. 2 (1967), 89–96Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., 93–94.

44 Pirages, , “Socio-economic Development and Political Access in the Communist Party-States,” in Triska, Jan F., ed., Communist Party-States (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill 1969), 249–81Google Scholar.

45 Ibid., 273.

46 Brzezinski, , The Soviet Bloc: Unity and Conflict (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1967), IXGoogle Scholar.

47 Lowenthal, Richard, World Communism: The Disintegration of a Secular Faith (New York: Oxford University Press 1966)Google Scholar.

48 Lendvai, Paul, Eagles in Cobwebs (New York: Doubleday-Anchor 1969), 447Google Scholar.

49 Kintner, and Klaiber, , Eastern Europe and European Security (New York: Dunellen 1971), 254Google Scholar.

50 Conformity to Soviet policies was also operationalized through the construction of an index from many component measurements, as described Ibid., chap. 13.

51 Ibid., 255.

52 Tucker, , “Measuring Cohesion in the International Communist Movement, 1957–1970,” mimeo (Indiana University, February 1973), 38Google Scholar.

53 Ibid., 23, 29.

54 Hopmann, “The Effects of International Conflict and Detente on Cohesion in the Communist System,” in Kanet (fn. 39), 335.

55 Triska and Johnson, “Political Development and Political Change,” in Mesa-Lago and Beck (fn. 21), 267.

56 Ibid., 282.

57 For a study of the political role played by schools in communist states, see Grant, Nigel, Society, Schools and Progress in Eastern Europe (New York: Pergamon Press 1969)Google Scholar esp. chap. 5. Perhaps the most complete treatment of socialization efforts in the U.S.S.R. is Soviet Political Indoctrination by Hollander, Gayle D. (New York: Praeger 1972)Google Scholar. The best country-specific study of political education is Georgeoff, Peter John, The Social Education of Bulgarian Youth (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 1968)Google Scholar.

58 Zaninovich (fn. 32), 272.

59 Ibid., 248.

60 Ibid., 258–67.

61 Cary, , “Political Socialization of Soviet Youth and the Building of Communism,” in Bertsch, Gary K. and Ganschow, Thomas W., eds., Comparative Communism (San Francisco: Freeman & Co. 1976), 289–99Google Scholar.

62 Inkeles, Alex and Bauer, Raymond, The Soviet Citizen (New York: Atheneum 1968)Google Scholar.

63 Ibid., chap. X.

64 Ulc, Politics in Czechoslovakia (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman 1974)Google Scholar.

65 Ibid., 9.

66 Ibid., 19.

67 Ibid., 23.

68 Nelson (fn. 30).