Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T09:12:43.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Revolution of 1989: Postcommunism and the Social Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Philip G. Roeder
Philip G. Roeder*
Affiliation:
The Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From Prague to Ulan Bator, the decade since 1989 has witnessed a revolution both deep and broad. It was simultaneously a national revolution that created new nation-states, a political revolution that sundered the most fully institutionalized authoritarian regimes of the twentieth century, and an economic revolution that replaced administered systems of production and distribution with markets. Separate national, democratic, and capitalist revolutions that had rocked western European countries in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries swept almost in an instant across nine countries that quickly became twenty-eight.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 58 , Issue 4: Special Issue: Ten Years after 1989: What Have We Learned? , Winter 1999 , pp. 743 - 755
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1999

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, for example, the brief essays by Bates, Robert H., Johnson, Chalmers, and Lustick, Ian in “Controversy in the Discipline: Area Studies and Comparative Politics,” PS: Political Science and Politics 30, no. 3 (June 1997): 166–79Google Scholar; Shea, Christopher, “Political Scientists Clash over the Value of Area Studies,” Chronicle of Higher Education 58 (10 January 1997): A13–A14.Google Scholar

2. Seton-Watson, Hugh, Nations and Stales: An Enquiry into the Origins of Nations and the Politics of Nationalism (London, 1977), 1.Google Scholar

3. The data are from the annual editions of The Europa World Yearbook (London, 1991 — 99)Google Scholar; Heleniak, Tim, “The Changing Nationality Composition of the Central Asian and Transcaucasian States,” Post-Soviet Geography and Economics 38, no. 6 (June 1997): 357–78Google ScholarPubMed; and Bromlei, Iu. V., ed., Narody mira: Istoriko-etnograficheskii spravochnik (Moscow, 1988)Google Scholar. Throughout this introduction, all comparisons with countries in other parts of the world include all independent states with a population greater than one million in 1990.

4. The data are from the annual editions of Freedom House, Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties (New York, 1989–1999)Google ScholarPubMed.

5. Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven, 1968), 55 Google Scholar.

6. The data are from Wallensteen, Peter and Sollenberg, Margareta, “Armed Conflict and Regional Conflict Complexes, 1989–97, “Journal of Peace Research 35, no. 5 (September 1998): 621–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. The data are from Taylor, Charles Lewis and Jodice, David A., World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators, III: 1948–1982 [computer file], 2d ICPSR ed. (Ann Arbor, 1986)Google Scholar.

8. The data are from Johnson, Bryan T., Holmes, Kim R., and Kirkpatrick, Melanie, The 1999 Index of Economic Freedom (Washington, D.C., 1999)Google Scholar.

9. Estimates of the ethnic composition are taken from Europa World Yearbook; Heleniak, “The Changing Nationality Composition”; and Bromlei, ed., Narody mira. Significant ethnic conflicts are public ethnoconstitutional crises in which either central governmental leaders or ethnopoliticians challenged the current constitutional status of the ethnic group within the state; these data are from my article in this issue. Successor states that emerged from an ethnoconstitutional crisis of a multiethnic federation are assigned pluses if the successor state has not itself suffered an internal ethnoconstitutional crisis. This first distinction, like the others in this chart, is a blunt test that overlooks nuances, such as whether an ethnic group like the Albanians constitute a cohesive nation; nonetheless, this distinction provides a reasonable basis for comparison.

10. Dahl, Robert, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven, 1971), 1–9Google Scholar. The data are from Freedom House, Freedom in the World, and International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Voter Turnout from 1945 to 1997: A Global Report on Political Participation (Stockholm, 1998)Google Scholar.

11. I elaborate on this distinction in my own essay.

12. Friedrich, Carl J. and Brzezinski, Zbigniew K., Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (Cambridge, Mass., 1956)Google Scholar; Skilling, H. Gordon and Griffiths, Franklyn, eds., Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton, 1971)Google Scholar.

13. Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed. (Chicago, 1970)Google Scholar; Lakatos, Imre, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge, Eng., 1970), 91–195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Lijphart, Arend and Waisman, Carlos H., eds., Institutional Design in New Democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America (Boulder, Colo., 1996)Google Scholar.

15. Moore, Barrington, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston, 1966), 418 Google Scholar.

16. Putnam, Robert D., Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, 1993)Google Scholar.