Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T10:24:39.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Science and Soviet Administrative Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Erik P. Hoffmann
Erik P. Hoffmann
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access

Extract

Few scholars have utilized contemporary social science theory in designing research on Communist countries. And fewer still have in systematically incorporated data from Communist countries into the existing body of social science theory. That is, middle-range theories such as organization, development, and socialization theory have not significantly shaped Western research on Communist systems. And surprisingly few one-, two-, and multivariable generalizations from the existing social science literature have been confirmed, rejected, or refined—even tentatively—with data from Communist countries.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , April 1972 , pp. 444 - 471
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1972

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 Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2d enl. ed., Chicago 1970). 35–42 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure (rev. enl. ed., New York 1968), 44Google Scholar. Cf. Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (New York 1970), 5–8 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 See Fleron, Frederic J. Jr., ed., Communist Studies and the Social Sciences: Essays on Methodology and Empirical Theory (Chicago 1969)Google Scholar.

4 See Wilson, Richard W., “Chinese Studies in Crisis,” World Politics, xxiii (January 1971), 295–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Merton (fn. 2); Gross, Neal and others, Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendency Role (New York 1958)Google Scholar; Kahn, Robert and others, Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity (New York 1964)Google Scholar; Rommetveit, Ragnar, Social Norms and Roles (Oslo 1954)Google Scholar; Biddle, Bruce and Thomas, Edwin, eds., Role Theory: Concepts and Research (New York 1966)Google Scholar. See also Theodore Sarbin and Allen, Vernon, “Role Theory,” in Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, Elliot, eds., The Handbook °f Social Psychology (2d ed., Reading, Mass. 1968), 488–567Google Scholar.

6 E.g., Sartori, Giovanni, “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics,” American Political Science Review, LXIV (December 1970), 1033–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 For a forceful defense of this view, see ibid.

8 Cf. Wahlke, John and others, The Legislative System: Explorations in Legislative Behavior (New York 1962)Google Scholar; Davidson, Roger, The Role of the Congressman (New York 1969)Google Scholar.

9 See fn. 5. “Role-taking” is used here to refer to one's conscious or subconscious understandings of his own roles, not his perceptions or “imaginative reconstruction” of other people's roles. This usage follows, among others, Selznick, Philip, Leadership in Administration (New York 1957)Google Scholar, and Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York 1966)Google Scholar, rather than Mead, George H., Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist (Chicago 1934)Google Scholar, Turner, Ralph H., “Role-Taking, Role Standpoint, and Reference-Group Behavior,” American Journal of Sociology, LXI (January 1956), 316–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Role-Taking: Process Versus Conformity,” in Rose, Arnold, ed., Human Behavior and Social Processes (Boston 1962), 20–40Google Scholar, and others. See also Magid, Alvin, “Dimensions of Administrative Role and Conflict Resolution among Local Officials in Northern Nigeria,” Administrative Science Quarterly, xii (September 1967), 321–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “Methodological Considerations in the Study of African Political and Administrative Behavior: The Case of Role Conflict Analysis,” African Studies Review, xiii (April 1970)Google Scholar, and Men in the Middle: Leadership and Role Conflict in a Nigerian Society (forthcoming).

10 A few of these questions were adapted from Rizzo, John and others, “Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, xv (June 1970), 150–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 See Hoffmann, Erik P., “Role Conflict and Ambiguity in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,” in Kanet, Roger, ed., The Behavioral Revolution and Communist Studies (New York 1971), 233–58Google Scholar.

12 Selznick (fn. 9), 82-895.

13 For a first attempt to do the latter, see Hoffmann, Erik P., “Ideological Administration under Khrushchev: A Study of Intra-Party Communication,” Canadian Slavic Studies, IV (Winter 1970), 736–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A purely illustrative list of general literature pertinent to Hough's central concerns might include: March, James and Simon, Herbert, Organizations (New York 1958)Google Scholar; Katz and Kahn (fn. 9); March, James, ed., Handbook of Organizations (Chicago 1965)Google Scholar; Thayer, Lee, Communication and Communication Systems in Organization, Management, and Interpersonal Relations (Homewood, Ill. 1968)Google Scholar; Price, James, Organizational Effectiveness: An Inventory of Propositions (Homewood, Ill. 1968)Google Scholar; Golembiewski, Robert, Organizing Men and Power: Patterns of Behavior and Line-Staff Models (Chicago 1967)Google Scholar; Buckley, Walter, Sociology and Modern Systems Theory (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1967)Google Scholar; Richardson, Harry, Regional Economics (New York 1969)Google Scholar; and many articles in Administrative Science Quarterly.

14 Lindblom, Charles E., The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Maying through Mutual Adjustment (New York 1965)Google Scholar; Braybrooke, David and Lindblom, Charles, A Strategy of Decision (New York 1963)Google Scholar.

15 Thompson, James D., Organizations in Action (New York 1967)Google Scholar.

16 ibid., 159. Thompson's study does not employ role analysis.

17 Crozier, Michel, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago 1964)Google Scholar.

18 From my own interviews I gather that about one-third of the school budget of some republics is provided by local “patrons”—mostly factories and, to a lesser extent, state and collective farms that assist schools in diverse ways. This support may be financial, technical, or in kind. Under the general supervision of the local Party organs, city Soviets assign, and schools themselves solicit, as many as three or four “patrons” per school. Local Party organs have created and direct these systems of interinstitutional assistance. Sometimes Party officials must prod factories to increase or maintain systematic aid to other local institutions. But these arrangements, once established, can become mutually beneficial and self-sustaining. In return for support to a local school, a factory may be able to recruit more and better young workers, secure additional instructional and recreational facilities, and help give the children of its employees a better education. In these and many other ways—for example, by speeding up or bypassing entirely the cumbersome state ministerial funding process—the local “prefects” help to foster regional economic integration.

19 Schurmann, Franz, Ideology and Organization in Communist China (Berkeley 1966), 191Google Scholar. See also Barnett, A. Doak, Cadres, Bureaucracy, and Political Power in Communist China (New York 1967)Google Scholar.

20 Nisbet, Robert A., Social Change and History: Aspects of the Western Theory of Development (New York 1969), 240 ffGoogle Scholar.

21 Hempel, Carl G., Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York 1965), 155–71Google Scholar.

22 E.g., Martindale, Don, “Sociological Theory and the Ideal Type,” in Gross, L., ed., Symposium on Sociological Theory (New York 1959), 58–59 ffGoogle Scholar.

23 See Diamant, Alfred, “The Bureaucratic Model: Max Weber Rejected, Rediscovered, Reformed,” in Heady, Ferrel and Stokes, Sybil, eds., Papers in Comparative Public Administration (Ann Arbor 1962), 81–82 ffGoogle Scholar; and Udy, Stanley, “‘Bureaucracy’ and ‘Rationality’ in Weber's Organization Theory: An Empirical Study,” American Sociological Review, xxiv (December 1959), 791–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For criticism of the latter effort, see Burns, Tom, “The Comparative Study of Organizations,” in Vroom, Victor, ed., Methods of Organizational Research (Pittsburgh 1967), 142–45 ffGoogle Scholar.

24 Burns (fn. 23), 123.

25 See Linden, Carl, Khrushchev and the Soviet Leadership, 1957-1964 (Baltimore 1966)Google Scholar; and Daniels, Robert, The Conscience of the Revolution: Communist Opposition in Soviet Russia (Cambridge, Mass. 1960)Google Scholar.

26 Kuhn (fn. 1), 52-53.

27 “The Party Apparatchiki,” in Skilling, H. Gordon and Griffiths, Franklyn, eds., Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton 1971), 47–92Google Scholar; “The Prerequisites of Areal Deconcentration: the Soviet Experience,” in Heaphey, James, ed., Spatial Dimensions of Development Administration (Durham, N. C. 1972)Google Scholar.