The collapse of communist systems in Europe and the break-up of the Soviet Union have opened a completely new field for political, economic and social study: post-communism. Since then, several efforts have been made to explain the quite different outcomes of what has often been regarded as a common starting point. This cannot surprise: the concept of postcommunism itself implies that the similarities between formerly communist countries overweigh their differences, and a comparative study is hoped to uncover the set of theories that could be applicable to at least most of the region, if not beyond that.
But has this approach been successful so far? Or do the current results rather suggest that post-communist studies after merely ten years of existence are lacking behind twenty years already, as it has been put provocatively for the political field? Is there a useful way of comparing the experiences of the formerly communist states, or might such an approach be initially a fraud?
This essay tries to answer these questions in the following way: first of all, it gives an overview over post-communist experiences, in order to come, secondly, to a characterisation of the phenomenon. Thirdly, the main theoretical approaches on the subject that are based on comparison are discussed. As a conclusion of these comparative studies, the author argues that post-communism can only be generalised as a phenomenon if seen as an experience of, and challenge to, collective identity.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Post-Communist Experiences
3. Holmes' Fourteen-Point Model
4. Theories of Imperial Collapse
5. Transitology
6. Political Constructivism
7. Sociocultural Explanations
8. Identity and Political Organization
9. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay aims to evaluate whether the diverse experiences of formerly communist states can be analyzed through a systematic and meaningful comparative framework. It critically examines existing political science theories, such as transitology and institutionalism, to determine their limitations in explaining the varied post-communist trajectories, ultimately proposing a focus on sociocultural factors and identity formation.
- The critical assessment of post-communist transition models.
- The limitations of transitology and Western-centric democratic frameworks.
- The impact of state-building, nationalism, and national identity formation.
- The role of sociocultural factors versus rationalist constitutional explanations.
- A proposed path toward more nuanced, sub-regional comparative analysis.
Excerpt from the Book
Can the recent experiences of the formerly communist states be compared in any systematic and meaningful fashion?
The collapse of communist systems in Europe and the break-up of the Soviet Union have opened a completely new field for political, economic and social study: post-communism. Since then, several efforts have been made to explain the quite different outcomes of what has often been regarded as a common starting point. This cannot surprise: the concept of post-communism itself implies that the similarities between formerly communist countries overweigh their differences, and a comparative study is hoped to uncover the set of theories that could be applicable to at least most of the region, if not beyond that. But has this approach been successful so far? Or do the current results rather suggest that post-communist studies after merely ten years of existence are lacking behind twenty years already, as Kubicek (2000) provocatively has put it for the political field? Is there a useful way of comparing the experiences of the formerly communist states, or might such an approach be initially a fraud?
In this essay I will try to answer these questions in the following way: first of all, I want to give an overview over post-communist experiences, in order to come, secondly, to a characterisation of the phenomenon. Thirdly, I will turn to discuss the main theoretical approaches on the subject that are based on comparison. By giving my own understanding of post-communism I shall, finally, come to a conclusion on the matter. For practical reasons, I will limit the wide-ranging concept of post-communism mainly to the one sub-field of political science.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the emergence of post-communism as a field of study and questions the validity of current comparative efforts.
Post-Communist Experiences: Details the immense regional variation in transformation paths, including differences in regime change and economic restructuring.
Holmes' Fourteen-Point Model: Analyzes Holmes' characterization of the communist "common heritage" and the baggage inherited by post-communist states.
Theories of Imperial Collapse: Evaluates the utility of imperial decline theories in explaining post-communist institutional choices.
Transitology: Critically discusses the application of democratization theories from Southern Europe to the post-communist context.
Political Constructivism: Reviews Fish's approach, focusing on civil society, constitutional form, and economic reform as determinants of success.
Sociocultural Explanations: Argues that sociocultural factors, including historical and ethnic backgrounds, are vital to understanding post-communist developments.
Identity and Political Organization: Proposes that the transition is best understood as a societal quest for new corporate identities and legitimate political forms.
Conclusion: Summarizes the need for pre-sorting post-communist countries into sociocultural sub-groups to achieve more meaningful comparative research.
Keywords
Post-communism, Transitology, Political Economy, Democratization, Institutionalism, Sociocultural explanations, Identity formation, Nationalism, Comparative politics, State-building, Political culture, Transition studies.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this essay?
The essay investigates whether it is possible to compare the diverse experiences of post-communist states in a systematic and scientifically meaningful way.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The work covers themes such as the transition from communist rule, the adequacy of transitology, the role of national identity, and the limitations of Western-centric comparative theories.
What is the author's primary research objective?
The goal is to determine if current comparative approaches are effective or if they oversimplify reality, ultimately arguing for a more contextualized approach based on sociocultural similarities.
Which scientific methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a critical literature review and a qualitative assessment of various comparative theories in political science, such as new institutionalism and political constructivism.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body evaluates different theoretical frameworks, including theories of imperial collapse, transitology, and sociocultural explanations, identifying their strengths and weaknesses.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Keywords include Post-communism, Transitology, Identity formation, Comparative politics, and Democratization.
Why does the author critique the concept of "transitology"?
The author argues that transitology is too "political" and focuses too much on elites, often ignoring how economic and social structures persist and undermine democratic goals.
What does the author propose as a solution for better comparative research?
The author suggests that instead of viewing post-communism as a monolithic block, scholars should pre-sort countries into sub-groups based on sociocultural similarities to draw more systematic and accurate conclusions.
- Quote paper
- Christopher Selbach (Author), 2001, Can the recent experiences of the formerly communist states be compared in any meaningful fashion?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/16466
