Soviet Politics and Political Science PDF
Preview Soviet Politics and Political Science
STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS The purpose of the collection 'Studies in Comparative Politics' is to provide the students of politics with a series of up-to-date, short and accessible surveys of the progress of the discipline, its changing theoretical approaches and its methodological reappraisals. The format of the individual volumes is understandably similar. All authors examine the subject by way of a critical survey of the literature on the respective subject, thus providing the reader with an up-to-date bibliographie raisonnee (either separate or contained in the text). Each author then proposes his own views on the future orientation. The sfyle tries to bridge the often lamented gap between the highly specialised language of modern political science and the general reader. It is hoped that the entire collection will be of help to the students who try to acquaint themselves with the scholarly perspectives of contemporary politics. S. E. Finer Ghi~a Ionescu Alrearfy published A. H. BROWN: Soviet Politics and Political Science BERNARD CRICK: Basic Forms ofGovernment C. H. DoDD: Political Development GHI'fA IoNEscu: Comparative Communist Politics DENNIS KAVANAGH: Political Culture LESLIE J. MACFARLANE: Political Disobedience W.J. M. MACKENZIE: The Study of Political Science Today GEOFFREY K. RoBERTS: What is Comparative Politics? WILLIAM WALLACE: Foreign Policy and the Political Process RoGER WILLIAMS: Politics and Technology LESLIE WoLF-PHILLIPS: Comparative Constitutions Forthcoming titles S. E. FINER: The Study of Interest Groups DAVID NICHOLLS: Pluralism PAUL WILKINSON: Terrorism STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS published in association with GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION a quarterly journal of comparative politics, published by Government and Opposition Ltd, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2 2AE EDITORIAL BOARD Professor Leonard Schapiro, Universiry Q[ London (Chairman) Professor David Apter, Tale UniversitY, New Haven, Conn. Professor Bernard Crick, Universiry of London Professor Julius Gould, Universiry Q[ Nottingham Professor JamesJoll, Universiry Q[ London Dr Isabel de Madariaga, Universiry Q[ London EDITOR Professor Ghita Ionescu, Universiry Q[ Manchester ADVISORY BOARD ProfessorS. E. Finer, Universiry Q[ Manchester (Chairman) Professor Daniel Bell, Harvard Universiry, Cambridge, Mass. Professor K. D. Bracher, Bonn Universiry Professor Robert A. Dahl, Tale Universiry, New Haven, Conn. F. W. Deakin, St Antony's College, Oxford Professor Jacques Freymond, Director Q[ the Institut des Etudes Internationales, Geneva Professor Bertrand de Jouvenel, Paris Professor Masao Maruyama, Universiry Q[ Tokyo Asoka Mehta, former Minister Q[ Planning, New Delhi Professor John Meisel, Q]teen's Universiry. Kingston, Ontario Professor Ay o Ogunsheye, Universiry Q[ Ibadan Professor Giovanni Sartori, University Q[ Florence Professor G. H. N. Seton-Watson, Universiry Q[ London Professor Edward Shils, Universiry of Chicago and King's College, Cambridge Professor E. Tierno Galvan, late Q[ the Universiry Q[ Salamanca Soviet Politics and Political Science A. H. BROWN Fellow of St Antony's College and Lecturer in Soviet Institutions in the University of Oxford Macmillan Education © Government and Opposition 1974 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission. First published 1974 by THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD London and Basingstoke Associated companies in New York Dublin Melbourne Johannesburg and Madras SBN 333 13751 5 ISBN 978-0-333-13751-2 ISBN 978-1-349-01567-2 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-1-349-01567-2 The paperback edition of this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent, in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. CONTENTS Preface 7 1 A Survey of the Field 9 2 Political Institutions 52 3 Groups, Interests, and the Policy Process 71 4 Political Culture 89 References 105 PREFACE This short book lays no claim to cover the entire literature necessary for an understanding of the Soviet system as a whole. Its emphasis is on Soviet politics and political science (excluding work on Soviet foreign policy and international relations) rather than upon Soviet studies and the social sciences. This limitation is imposed not because it is thought desirable to attempt to under stand the Soviet system without reading the works of historians/ economists2 and sociologists3 who have taken a specialist interest in the Soviet Union (for such a view would be absurd), but for three simple and connected reasons. Firstly the study of Soviet politics is in itself a subject of great interest and importance. Secondly the body of analysis devoted to it is of sufficient size, scope and scholarly weight to merit separate consideration. Thirdly an attempt to extend the range of this book, especially given the limitations imposed upon its size by the format of the series, could only be at the expense of critical appraisal and reasoned argument. I am greatly indebted to a number of friends who read my manuscript either as a whole or in part. The perceptive criticism of my former colleagues in Glasgow University, Pro fessor W. J. M. Mackenzie and Mr Michael Lessnoff, and of my present colleagues in Oxford, Mr Michael Kaser and Dr Richard Kindersley, has helped clarify my mind on a number of points and to improve the text, and I have also derived much benefit from the experienced editorial judgement of Professor Ghita Ionescu of Manchester University. Since I have not, how ever, accepted every piece of advice proffered, none of the above mentioned scholars can be held responsible for such sins of omission and commission as remain. I should like to express my gratitude to the editors of Soviet 7 Studies for pennitting me to draw upon my review article, 'Policy Making in the Soviet Union', which was published in that journal in July 1971. 1973 ARCHIE BROWN 8 1. A SURVEY OF THE FIELD Recent studies of Soviet politics have indicated a significant shift of interest on the part of political scientists. Enthusiasm for a new focus of interest is often combined with foolish attacks upon the old. Thus in this field (as in others) there has been excessive criticism of the legal-institutional approach to the study of Soviet politics since, more often than not, 'legal institutional' has been a misnomer for historical-institutional, and one could scarcely begin to understand the Soviet political system without some knowledge of the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, of its structure, and of the distribu tion of power within it. Fortunately there have been a few signs of a growing realisation that different approaches to the study of the Soviet political system may be complementary rather than competing. Taken in addition to the best of the existing institutional analyses, many of the contemporary approaches not only draw attention to unfamiliar facets of Soviet politics but add greatly to an understanding of the SoViet system in a com parative context. If 'traditional' studies have tended to emphasise the sui generis aspect of Soviet Communism, many recent studies have emphasised what the· Soviet political system has in common with other polities. Since an understanding both of the differences and the similarities is desirable, and since different approaches tend to draw attention to one or the other, there is much to be said against methodological exclusiveness. From the mid-sixties onwards approaches to and emphases in the study of Soviet politics began to change rapidly. The change of emphasis can be connected with what is often called the 'behavioural revolution' in political science. As a school in political science, behaviouralism first began to make rapid pro gress soon after the Second World War, but there was a con- 9 siderable delay before some scholars began to argue that the study of Soviet politics had been too cut off from developments in the discipline of political science, and it was not until almost two decades later that the behaviouralist emphasis could be detected with any frequency in work published on the Soviet Union. The debate between those who regard themselves as be haviouralists and those whom the behaviouralists dub as traditionalists has all too often been characterised by a lack of imagination on both sides, and a good deal of energy has been dissipated in useless point-scoring. In a number of respects the somewhat artificial dichotomy between 'behaviouralists' and 'traditionalists' has been an academically harmful one. While a number of the most important areas of political study in the Soviet context belong to the area which it has become conven tional to call 'behavioural', other vital areas of study (certainly no less crucial to an understanding of the Soviet polity) fall within the range of approaches characterisOO. as 'traditional'. The categories themselves stand in the way of what (without paradox) may be called a discriminating methodological eclecticism, of which the study of Soviet politics remains in great need. In view of the extent to which 'behaviouralism' has led to changes of emphasis and orientation in the analysis of Soviet politics, some brief discussion of this orientation is called for. In so far as there is a behaviouralist school, membership of it can more easily be defined in subjective terms, of people feeling that they belong to it, than by objective criteria. Behaviouralism nevertheless can be seen as a reaction against a number of per ceived weaknesses in the discipline of political science : firstly against the concentration of study upon political institutions in stead of on the way people actually behave; secondly against the lack of precision of the language and concepts of political science; thirdly against the failure to make use of either quantitative methods or mathematical models as other sciences do; and fourthly against the accumulation of a great deal of unrelated knowledge without any attempt to systematise it through the con struction of theory. As a corollary behaviouralism has been for a greater 10
The list of books you might like
