Political Systems of Post-Soviet States and China in the Process of Inter-System Transformation


Vinogradov A.V.,

Director of Center for Political Studies and Forecasting, Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences; Professor, RUDN University, vinogradov_a.v@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 619969 |

Ryabov A.V.,

Leading Researcher, Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Russian Academy of Sciences, andreyr@imemo.ru

elibrary_id: 500082 |

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2019.03.05

For citation:

Vinogradov A.V., Ryabov A.V. Political Systems of Post-Soviet States and China in the Process of Inter-System Transformation. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No 3. P. 69-86 (In Russ.) . DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.03.05



   Buy a digital version in Polismag

Abstract

The article analyses why market reforms in the post-Soviet states led them to a state of prolonged stagnation, while the PRC was able to demonstrate significant progress in its socio-economic and technological development and became the second economic power of the world. The object of the research is the transformation of the political systems of the PRC and the post-Soviet countries in the process of intersystem transition. The authors argue that the success of China was due not only to authoritarian modernization, which has repeatedly demonstrated its effectiveness in the process of transitioning from an agrarian society to an industrial one. The CCP’s adherence to Chinese political tradition played a huge role, according to which the state, with its professional bureaucracy, remains the constant basis of social order despite any other changes. Dynasties and political elites replacing each other in power do not destroy the state, but improve it, turning it into an effective tool for the adaptation of society to new challenges. During reforms, China succeeded in keeping the balance between stability and development. The post-Soviet countries, with the exception of Russia, were in significantly different conditions: they did not have developed traditions of statehood so had to start building new ones; in some of them, in the 1990s, the predominant opinion was that in the process of transitioning to a market the role of the state should be minimized; Post-Soviet elites were not interested in creating strong and stable institutions of state power. Their activity was subordinated to realizing groups’ interests. 

Keywords
political systems, effectiveness of the authorities, post-Soviet states, China, authoritarianism, democratic transit.


   Buy a digital version in Polismag
References

Hale H.E. 2015. Patronal Politics: Euroasian Regimes Dynamics in Comparative Prospective. New York: Cambridge University Press. 542 p.

Heilmann S. 2017. China’s Political System. Ed. by Sebastian Heilmann. London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 422 p.

Hellman J. 1998. Winners Take All. The Politics of Partial Reforms in Postcommunist Transition. – World Politics. Vol. 50. No. 2. P. 203-234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100008091

Huntington S. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Heaven; London: Yale University Press. 268 p.

Leib E.J., He B. 2006. The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 343 р.

Lo B., Shevtsova L. 2012. A 21st Century Myth – Authoritarian Modernization in Russia and China. Moscow: Carnegie Moscow Center. 68 p.

Korolev A. 2016. Regime Responsiveness to Basic Needs: A Dimensional Approach. – Studies in Comparative International Development. Vol. 51. No. 4. P. 434-455. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12116-015-9209-z (accessed 06.03.2019).

Korolev A. 2017. De-ideologized Mass Line, Regime Responsiveness, and State-Society Relations. – China Review. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 7-36. URL: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/664741/summarys (accessed 06.03.2019).

Nathan A.J. 2003. China’s Changing of the Guard: Authoritarian Resilience. – Journal of Democracy. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 6-17. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2003.0019

Shambaugh D. 2016. Contemplating China’s Future. – The Washington Quarterly. Vol. 39. No. 3. P. 123. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2016.1232639

 

Berezhnoi I.V., Vol’chik V.V. 2008. Issledovanie ekonomicheskoi evolutsii instituta vlasti-sobstvennosti [Research of Economic Evolution of the Institution of Power-Property]. Moscow: YuNITI-DANA, Zakon i Pravo. 239 р. (In Russ.)

Bogaturov A.D., Vinogradov A.V. 2002. Anklavno-konglomeratnyi tip razvitiia. Opyt transsistemnoi teorii [Enclave-Conglomerate Type of Developments. Experience of Trans-System Theory]. – Vostok – Zapad – Rossia [East – West – Russia]. Moscow: Progress – Traditsia. P. 109-130. (In Russ.)

Deng Xiaoping. 1988. Osnovnye voprosy sovremennogo Kitaya [The Main Issues of Modern China]. Moscow: Politiizdat. 259 p. (In Russ.)

Fisun A. 2007. The Post-Soviet Neo-Patrimonial Regimes: Genesis, Peculiarities, Typologies. – Otechestvennye zapiski. Vol. 39. No. 6. P. 8-28. (In Russ.)

Fukuyama F. 1990. Konets istorii? [The End of History?]. – Voprosy Philosophii. No. 3. P. 134-155. (In Russ.)

Karozers T. 2003. The End of Transit Paradigm. – Political Science (RU). No. 2. P. 42-65. (In Russ.)

Kitaiskii opyt sovremennoi modernizatsii [Chinese Experience of Contemporary Modernization]. 2011. – Fundamentalnost’ universitetskoi podgotovki ekonomistov: rol’ ekonomicheskoi teorii [The Fundamental Nature of University Education: Role of Economic Theory. Ed. by K.A. Khubiev and Yu.M. Pavlov]. Moscow: Economic Faculty of MSU. P. 141-149. (In Russ.)

Kravtsova M.E. 2007. “Tyan Ming”. – Dukhovnaya Kultura Kitaya. T. 2. Mifologia, Religia [Spiritual Culture of China. Vol. 2. Mythology, Religion]. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura. P. 614-618. (In Russ.)

Melville A.Yu. 2007. Demokraticheskie tranzity [Democratic Transitions]. – Politologicheskii leksikon [Political Science Lexicon. Ed. by A.I. Solovyev]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. P. 123-134. (In Russ.)

Nisnevich Yu.A. 2017. Politika i korruptsia: korruptsia kak factor mirovogo politicheskogo protsessa [Politics and Corruption: Corruption as a Factor of the World Political Process]. Moscow: Yurait. 240 p. (In Russ.)

Nureev R.M., Latov Yu.V. 2016. Ekonomicheskaya istoriia Rossii (opyt institutsional’nogo analiza) [Economic History of Russia (Experience of Institutional Analysis)]. Moscow: KNORUS. 268 p. (In Russ.)

Perelomov L.S. 2007. Konfutsianstvo i sovremennyi strategicheskii kurs KNR [Confucianism and Modern Strategic Course of PRC]. Moscow: LKI. 256 p. (In Russ.)

Perelomov L.S. 2017. Uchenie Konfutsia i problema razdelenia vlastei [Doctrine of Confucius and the Problem of Separation of Powers]. – Konfutsii. Suzhdenia i besedy [Confucius: Judgments and Conversations]. Moscow: RIPOL-Classic. P. 18-19. (In Russ.)

Pliskevich N.M. 2006. “Power-Property” in Modern Russia. – Mir Rossii. Vol. XV. No. 3. P. 62-113. (In Russ.)

Political Modernization of China (part 1). 2011. – Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia. No. 6. Р. 88-98. (In Russ.)

Political Modernization of China (part 2). 2011. – Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia. No. 7. Р. 81-92. (In Russ.)

Polo M. 2005. Divisament du monde. (Russ. ed.: Polo M. Kniga o raznoobrazii mira. Moscow: EKSMO. 480 p.).

Ryabov A.V. 2011. Post-Soviet Social Model: Characteristics and Current Situation. – The Russian Public Opinion Herald. No. 1. Vol. 107. P. 5-10. (In Russ.)

Sun Yat-sen. 1985. Predstavlenie Li Hunchangu [Submissions to Li Hung-Chang]. Izbrannye proizvedeniia [Selected works]. Moscow: Nauka. P. 46-50. (In Russ.)

Toynbee A. 1991. A Study of History. (Russ. ed.: Toynbee A. Postizhenie istorii. Moscow: Progress. 736 p.)

Tsentralnaya i Vostochnaya Evropa pered litsom sovremennykh ekonomicheskikh vyzovov i ugroz. 2012. [Central and Eastern Europe in the Face of Current Economic Challenges and Threats. Ed. by N.V. Kulikova]. Moscow: IE RAS. 379 p. (In Russ.)

Vasiliev L.S. 1982. Phenomen vlasti-sobstvennosti. K probleme tipologii dokapitalisticheskikh struktur [The Phenomenon of Power-Property. To the Problem of Typology of Pre-Capitalist Structures]. – Tipy obschestvennykh otnoshenii na Vostoke v Srednie veka [Types of Social Relations in the East in the Middle Ages]. Moscow: Nauka. P. 60-99. (In Russ.)

Vinogradov A.V. 2014. Government, Business and Corruption in China. – Problemy Dal’nego Vostoka. No. 1. P. 89-96. (In Russ.)

Vol’chik V.V. 2009. An Evolution of Russian Institution of Power-Property. – The Political Conceptology: Journal of Metadisciplinary Research. No. 1. P. 154-178.  

Content No 3, 2019

See also:


Dakhin A.V.,
State Power System in Russia: Phenomenological Transit. – Polis. Political Studies. 2006. No3

Nisnevich Yu.A., Ryabov A.V.,
Modern Authoritarianism and Political Ideology. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No4

Rutland P.,
Russia’s Post-Soviet Elite. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No3

Akhremenko A.S., Petrov A.P.,
Political institutions, efficiency and deprivation: essay of analogue computation. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No6

Baranovsky V.G.,
Basic parameters of modern system of international relations. Part III. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No5

 

   

Introducing an article



Polis. Political Studies
5 2016


Chugrov S.V.
Russian Politics through Prism of Sociological Measurements

 The article text
 

Archive

   2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991