Communist Legacies, Postcommunist Transformations, and the Fate of Organized Labor in Russia and China

This study aims to generate fresh hypotheses concerning emergent variations in labor politics across postcomunist settings. Although labor may be weak throughout the postcommunist world, a historical comparison of labor politics in Russia and China reveals consequential differences in the extent and sources of union weakness. Taking these differences seriously, the study asks why organized labor in Russia—in spite of a steeper decline in union membership, greater fragmentation, and a conspicuously low level of militancy—wasrelatively more effective in advancing working-class interests during economic liberalization than the growing, organizationally unified trade union apparatus in China. The comparisons suggest that some constraints on organized labor are more malleable than others, allowing for openins where labor can affect outcomes in ways that surprise, if not scare, state and business. Specifically, key differences in historical legacies and in the pace and ynamics of institutional transformation have conferred upon Russian unions key organizational, material, and symbolic resources that Chinese unions do not possess to the same degree. These differences reflect mechanisms capable of generating increasingly divergent prospects for organized labor mobilization over long-time horizons. Calvin Chen is Luce Assistant Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College. His research interests include the industrialization of the Chinese countryside, the political economy of East Asia, and labor politics in postsocialist countries. He is presently working on a book on the role of social ties and networks of trust in China’s township and village enterprises. Rudra Sil is associate professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. His research interests include the political economy of development, comparative labor relations, postcommunist transitions, Russian and Asian studies, and the history and philosophy of social science. He is author ofManaging “Modernity”: Work, Community, and Authority in Late-Industrializing Japan and Russia (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002) and coeditor ofThe Politics of Labor in a Global Age (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). He is presently working on a book comparing the evolution of labor politics across postcommunist countries. We gratefully acknowledge helpful comments and suggestions offered by Hilary Appel, Harley Balzer, Ruth Collier, Eileen Doherty, Todor Enev, Tulia Falleti, David Ost, Lü Xiaobo, and three anonymous reviewers on drafts of this article.     

Revolution,racism and sexism: Challenges for world-system analysis

Terry R. Kandal is professor of sociology at California State University, Los Angeles. He is the author ofThe Woman Question in Classical Sociological Theory (Florida International University Press: Miami, 1988) and co-editor ofStudies of Development and Change in the Modern World (Oxford University Press, 1989). He is editor ofCalifornia Sociologist. Currently his research is focused on the history of Marxian theories of revolution.     

Industrial convergence,globalization, and the persistence of the North-South divide

This article demonstrates empirically that widespread convergence in the degree of industrialization between former First and Third World countries over the past four decades hasnot been associated with convergence in the levels of income enjoyed on average by the residents of these two groups of countries. Our findings contradict the widely made claim that the significance of the North-South divide is diminishing. This contention is based on a false identification of “industrialization” with “development” and “industrialized” with “wealthy”. Elaborating from elements of Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of innovation, Raymond Vernon’s product cycle model, and Pierre Bourdieu’s concept ofillusio, the article offers an explanation for the persistence of the North-South income divide, despite rapid Third World industrialization and despite dramatic changes in the world political-ideological context for development (that is, the shift around 1980 from the “development” project to the “globalization” project or “Washington Consensus”). While emphasizing the long-term stability of the Northern-dominated hierarchy of wealth, the article concludes by pointing to several contemporary processes that may destabilize not only the “globalization project”, but also the global hierarchy of wealth that has characterized historical capitalism. Giovanni Arrighi is professor of sociology at The Johns Hopkins University. His latest books areThe Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our Times (1994) and (with Beverly J. Silver et al.)Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System (1999). Beverly J. Silver is professor of sociology at The Johns Hopkins University. She is the author ofForces of Labor: Workers’ Movements and Globalization Since 1870 (2003) and co-author (with Giovanni Arrighi et al.) ofChaos and Governance in the Modern World System (1999). Benjamin D. Brewer is a graduate student in the Department of Sociology at The Johns Hopkins University. His dissertation is a commodity chains analysis of the professional-sport economy. He has also published articles on sport and globalization. Previous versions of this paper were presented at the American Sociological Association Meeting, Anaheim, August 2001; Lingnan University, Hong Kong, May 2001; the Graduate School, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, May 2001; the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Chicago, February 2001; the Center for International Studies, University of Southern California, November 2000; the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C., September 2000; the Universidad Nacional Pedro Henriquez Urena, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, March 2000; and at the Conference on Ethics and Globalization, Yale University, April 2000. We benefited greatly from the comments of Hayward Alker, Charles Beitz, Peter Evans, Walter Goldfrank, Michael Mann, David Smith, Ann Tickner, and two anonymous reviewers forSCID.     

Modelling peruvian debt rescheduling in the 1980s

International debt rescheduling has continued to be a crucial issue in the international political economy. This article develops a political-economic model to examine debt rescheduling between private banks and debtors. The model provides a means of developing bargaining games by allowing the analyst to deduce game payoffs based on actors' “individual situations” as defined by their overall capabilities, their debt-specific resources, and their coalitional stability. Based on these games, it predicts the likely bargaining outcomes in terms of the degree to which banks will make lending concessions and the degree to which debtors will agree to adjust their economies. The model is operationalized based on written sources and interviews and then applied to four periods of rescheduling between the banks and Peru from 1982 to 1990. It proves successful in predicting bargaining outcomes in these cases, and we argue that it should prove helpful in investigating other debt bargaining episodes. Vinod K. Aggarwal is associate professor of political science and affiliated professor in the Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author ofLiberal Protectionism: The International Politics of Organized Textile Trade (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press),International Debt Threat (Berkeley: Institute for International Studies), and articles on the politics of trade and finance. His forthcoming book is entitledDebt Games: Strategic Interaction in International Debt Rescheduling Maxwell A. Cameron is assistant professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University. He is the author ofDemocracy and Authoritarianism in Peru: Political Coalitions and Social Change (New York: St. Martin's Press, forthcoming), as well as a number of articles on Peruvian politics. He recently coeditedThe Political Economy of North American Free Trade (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993) with Ricardo Grinspun.     

The New Commons vs. The Second Enclosure Movement: Comments on an Emerging Agenda for Development Research

The relationship between property rights and development has always been a central concern for both theorists and policy makers. The growing role of information and communications technology in the economies of both North and South intensifies the salience of this issue. This commentary extends the discussion of the two visions of property rights that are introduced by Weber and Bussell (2005). In one, property rights are restructured along the lines pioneered by the open-source software community to create a “new commons” of productive tools; in the other, Northern corporations successfully defend their politically protected monopoly rights over intangible assets and even extend them through a “second enclosure movement” to an ever larger set of ideas, information, and images. Currently, the second enclosure movement remains dominant, but which of these visions is likely to predominate in the longer run depends on the interests and potential power of key actors and on the possibilities for alliances among them—not just Northern corporations, but Southern states and private entrepreneurs, as well. Peter Evans is professor of sociology and Marjorie Meyer Eliaser Chair of International Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. His research has focused on the comparative political economy of developing countries, particularly industrialization and the role of the state, as exemplified byEmbedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). He has also worked urban environmental issues, producing the edited volumeLivable Cities: Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability (University of California Press, 2002). His current interest in the politics of globalization is reflected in his chapter, “Counter-hegemonic Globalization: Transnational Social Movements in the Contemporary Global Political Economy,” forthcoming in theHandbook of Political Sociology (Cambridge University Press).     

Pitfalls of power to the people: Decentralization,local government performance,and system support in Bolivia

Across the developing world, many governments have implemented political reforms—heavily promoted by international donors—designed to transfer greater power to subnational levels of government and to provide a more substantial policymaking and oversight role to citizens. Although economic analyses have frequently argued that such decentralization programs improve the efficiency of public expenditures, far less is known about their political impact. Based on an analysis of two large national public-opinion surveys from Bolivia, a country that has recently implemented one of the most comprehensive decentralization reforms yet attempted in Latin America, we analyze the role decentralized local institutions are playing in shaping citizen attitudes toward their political system. Our findings support the contention that decentralization can bolster citizen levels of system support at the national level. Equally important, however, we also demonstrate that the renewed emphasis on local government can have the opposite effect of producingmore negative views of the political system when the performance of local institutions falters. Jonathan T. Hiskey is assistant professor of political science at the Univeristy of California, Riverside. His most recent research focuses on subnational processes of political and economic development taking place across Latin America. Mitchell A. Seligson is Daniel H. Wallace Professor of Political Science, research professor of international studies, and professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. His research centers on surveys of democratic values and behaviors in Latin America.     

Bonanza and dependency in Botswana

This article compares the recent history of economic growth in Botswana with Becker’s model of “bonanza development.” While the Becker model generally applies to Botswana, the case also manifests some areas of disagreement. “Bonanza development” in Botswana is characterized by the continuation of dependency and related social inequalities. Perhaps the Botswana experience is described best as “dependent bonanza development.” Thomas Meisenhelder is a professor of sociology at California State University in San bernardino, California 92407. He spent 1986–1987 as a Fulbright Lecturer in the department of sociology at the University of Botswana (Gaborone) and lived in Harare Zimbabwe during 1992. He has recently published inMonthly Review andNature, Society and Thought. His current research includes a study of the adoption of a structural adjustment program in Zimbabwe and an interpretation of the references to Africa in the writings of Marx and Engels.     

Teachers’ strikes in Argentina: Partisan alignments and public-sector labor relations

In a context of increasing teachers’ militancy in Argentina, this article provides the first empirical analysis of teachers’ strikes in all twenty-four Argentine provinces during the 1990s. Using a cross-provincial statistical analysis, it explains the wide variation across provinces and across time of Argentine teachers’ strikes. It demonstrates that political alignments between provincial governors and teachers’ unions explain these patterns better than organizational and institutional variables, which strongly shape public-sector labor relations in other countries. We emphasize the discretion of provincial governors, for both the application of labor regulations and budgetary appropriations in the politicization of provincial public-sector labor relations in Argentina, especially after the decentralization of education resulted in the provincialization of teachers’ protests. Maria Victoria Murillo is associate professor of political science and international affairs at Columbia University. She was previously an assistant professor at Yale University, a Peggy Rockefeller Fellow at the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, and a Fellow at Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies. She is the author ofLabor Unions, Partisan Coalitions, and Market Reforms in Latin America (Cambridge University Press 2001) and various articles on the politics of market reforms, labor protest, and privatization of public utilities in Latin America. the authors acknowledge the useful suggestions of the editor and three anonymous reviewers, and the comments of Ernesto Calvo, Javier Corrales, Tulia Faletti, Miriam Golden, Frances Rosenbluth, Andrew Schrank, Kenneth Scheve, J. Samuel Valenzuela, James Vreeland; and the participants in the Seminar on Globalization and Labor Struggle at Columbia University, the Latin American Seminar of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University, the seventh annual meeting of LACEA, and the Business School seminar at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella. M. V. Murillo acknowledges the support of the Yale Center for International and Area Studies and the Carnegie Program for the Study of Globalization, and L. Ronconi acknowledges the support of the CEDI at the Universidad de San Andrés.     

Cultural and economic prerequisites of democracy: Reassessing recent evidence

The purpose of this article is to reassess two influential theories of democratic development: the theory of democratic culture and the theory of economic development. The leading predecessors in each domain—Ronald Inglehart and Adam Przeworski—are the prime targets of analysis. We take issue with recent evidence presented by these authors on three grounds: the evidence (1) confuses “basic” criteria of democracy with possible “quality” criteria (Inglehart); (2) conceptualizes democracy in dichotomous rather than continuous terms (Przeworski); and (3) fails to account for endogeneity and contingent effects (Inglehart). In correcting for these shortcomings, we present striking results. In the case of democratic culture, the theory lacks support; neither overt support for democracy nor “self-expression values” affect democratic development. In the case of economic development, earlier findings must be refined. Although the largest impact of modernization is found among more democratized countries, we also find an effect among “semi-democracies.” Axel Hadenius is professor of political science at Uppsala University in Sweden. He is the author ofDemocracy and Development (Cambridge University Press, 1992) andInstitutions and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2001). Jan Teorell is associated professor of political science at Uppsala University. His articles on intra-party democracy, social capital, and political participation appear in international journals.     

Categorically wrong? Nominal versus graded measures of ethnic identity

Ethnic identity is a fundamental concept for understanding the dynamics of contemporary political change, but there has been very little exploration of how to measure ethnic identity and even less discussion of the implications of these measurements for understanding ethnic conflict. Through an analysis of Estonians and Slavs (Russians, Byelorussians, and Ukranians) in Estonia, we show that the ethnic identity of different groups is “salient” to different degrees and that this has significant implications for within-group agreement about political issues and for between-group differences. We show that nominal ethnic identity fully predicts political attitudes when ethnicity is highly salient because a highly salient ethnic identity sets in motion forces that cause individuals within a group to form similar attitudes based upon their ethnic identity. These forces were fully active for Estonians in Estonia in the early 1990s. In this case, nominal ethnic identity was sufficient to explain the attitudes of Estonians. But ethnicity must be treated as graded when it is not highly salient, as with Slavs in Estonia, because only degrees of ethnicity can explain the within-group differences in political attitudes that arise because of a lack of salient identity. Researchers, therefore, should typically treat ethnicity as if it were graded, and they should devise graded measures of it. Although nominal measures are sometimes appropriate (i.e., when ethnicity is highly salient), they will cause the researcher to miss something important in other situations. For example, our work suggests that if events discrupt the social processes that maintain a group’s sense of itself, then a graded measure of ethnicity is useful for predicting attitudes concerning ethnic identity and survival. In short, it is not categorically wrong to treat ethnicity as nominal, but it is best to begin by treating it as graded. Henry E. Brady, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, is co-author ofVoice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics andLetting the People Decide: The Dynamics of a Canadian Election. He has also written on elections, referendums, polotical behavior, and political methodology. Cynthia S. Kaplan, an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, received her Ph.D. from Columbia University and has conducted extensive research in Russia, Estonia, and Tatarstan. She is the author ofThe Party and Agricultural Crisis Management in the USSR and numerous articles on comparative ethnicity, social movements, and political culture in the former Soviet Union.     

Will Information Technology Reshape the North-South Asymmetry of Power in the Global Political Economy?

Digital technologies are sufficiently disruptive to current ways of doing things to call into question assumptions about the “inevitability” or “natural state” of many economic processes and organizational principles. In particular, the impact of digital technologies on our conceptions of property rights has potentially dramatic implications for the North-South divide and the distribution of power in the global political economy. Drawing on recent experiences with open-source property rights regimes, we present two scenarios, the “imperialism of property rights” and the “shared global digital infrastructure,” to highlight how debates over property-rights could influence the development of the global digital infrastructure and, in turn, contribute to significantly different outcomes in global economic power. Steve Weber is director of, the Institute of International Studies and professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book,The Success of Open Source, was published in April 2004 by Harvard University Press. Jennifer Bussell is a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of California, Berkeley. Her research is on the political determinants of information and communication technology access in developing countries.     

Withering away of the iron rice bowl? The reemployment project of post-socialist China

This paper explores the transformation of labor relations in China through an examination of the policy ofxiagang and the reemployment project. The old style of labor relations, featuring permanent employment within work-units, is being dismantled, as shown by recent mass lay-offs. Meanwhile, the socialist party-state is reinventing its old propaganda technique of “thought work” in the new task of shaping individuals, but it now does so without taking responsibility for their welfare, thereby creating a paradox of post-socialist labor transformation in China.This paper discusses four major elements used to transform the mindset of the old socialist discusses four major elements used to transform the mindset of the old socialist workers: (1) job guidance at reemployment centers, (2) the reemployment market, (3) the withering away of the reemployment centers, and (4) the mystification of the “stars of reemployment.” My finding is that the present Chinese unemployment policy is a hybrid of socialist and new-market rationalities; an ethic of self-reliance is drawn from the market economy, but the ethical work (thought work) is taken from socialism. Jaeyoun Won holds a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley, and has taught at UC Berkeley and at Yonsei University in South Korea. He is currently a post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute of Asian Research, University of British Columbia. His research focuses on labor and political economy in East Asia, particularly post-socialist transformation in China and North Korea. For their meticulous and thoughtful comments, I am deeply grateful to Gil Eyal, Mary Gallagher, Tom Gold, Amy Hanser, Bill Hayes, Russell Jeung, Ching Kwan Lee, and Mark Selden. Their comments were extremely helpful in clarifying my ideas, elaborating arguments, and most of all, improving the structure and organization of this paper. My appreciation also goes to the reviewers and editors atSCID, as well as to Jenny Chun, Mark Frazier, and Young Eun Lee.     

Democracy without democratic values: A rejoinder to Welzel and Inglehart

In reply to Welzel and Inglehart in this issue, we deploy three lines of criticism. First, we argue that their newly invented construct “effective democracy” is conceptually and empirically flawed. Second, we show that their results are highly sensitive to model specification. Regardless of the time period, their supportive evidence vanishes if a more pertinent measure of democracy is used instead of measures based on the absence of corruption, if a broader index of socioeconomic modernization is controlled for, and if their compound index of emancipative values is replaced by its core component; liberty aspirations. Third, we find that emancipative values are not a coherent syndrome at the individual level within countries, rendering the causal mechanism linking these values to democracy through collective action unintelligible. We conclude that democratic values are not a robust determinant of democratization. Jan Teorell is associate professor of political science at Lund University. He has published on intra-party politics, social capital and political participation, and, together with Axel Hadenius, is now involved in a project on the determinants of democratization. Axel Hadenius is professor of political science at Lund University. He is the author ofDemocracy and Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) andInstitutions and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).     

Democracy in Spain: Legitimacy, discontent, and disaffection

This article examines changes in perceptions of democracy in Spain over the last two decades. A variety of empirical indicators gleaned from numerous surveys are used to distinguish between democratic legitimacy and political discontent, as well as between this (which includes the well-known indicator of dissatisfaction with the way democracy works) and political disaffection. The article traces the different ways in which these attitudes have evolved in Spain over the last twenty years, and demonstrates that they belong to different dimensions. It also includes the results of two tests showing that these two sets of attitudes are conceptually and empirically distinct: a factor analysis confirms the distinct clustering of the indicators at the, individual level, whilst cohort analysis identifies different patterns of continuity and change across generations. José Ramón Montero is Professor of Political Science at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. He obtained his doctorate in Law at the Universidad de Santiago and has taught, at the Universities of Granada, Santiago, Zaragoza, Cádiz and the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. He has been Visiting Professor at the Universities of Harvard, California at Berkeley, and Ohio State University, as well as Secretary and Dean of the School of Law, Universidad de Cádiz, and Deputy Director of the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. Richard Gunther is Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University. He has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California at Berkeley, and is co-Chair of the Subcommittee on Southern Europe of the Social Science Research Council. Mariano Torcal is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. He holds a doctorate from the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and a Ph.D candidacy in Political Science from the Ohio State University. He has been a Visiting Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Univeristy of Michigan, and Visiting Fellow at the Kellogg Institute for International Studies, Notre Dame University.     

Democratization in Namibia: Soft state,hard choice

Independent Namibia’s struggles to create a functioning democracy have made great strides, including a successful regional and local election process in 1992. Soft state problems such as external dependence, weak state capacity for development, and penetration of the state by particularistic class and ethnic interests threaten at independence. In Namibia’s case the economic dominance and potential for military intervention by South Africa restricted the options available to the new SWAPO government. The intimidation and sabotage in the UNSCR 435 election left the government fragmented and weakened its effectiveness in redressing past injustices. Despite adopting moderate economic and progressive social policies, the rewards from trade and investment have been minimal. The independence honeymoon and modest improvements have bought the government time, but a soft state situation limits success and has created openings for new class formations. William A. Lindeke is Associate Professor and Chair of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, 1 University Ave., Lowell, MA 01854. He is currently writing a book on Namibia’s independence period. His recent publications have appeared in the inaugural issue ofJournal of African Policy Studies, Africa Today andNew Solutions.     

After pension reform: Navigating the “Third Rail” in China

Studies of pension reform in developing and transition economies tend to take for granted the capacity of states to implement ambitious and complicated new schemes for the provision of old-age income to pensioners. This article explains the fragmented, decentralized pattern of pension administration in China as an unintended consequence of pension reform. Policy legacies from the command-economy period, principal-agent problems in the reform period, and the threat of pension protests left urban governments largely in control of pension administration. The central government thus succeeded in its policy goals of pension reform but failed to gain administrative control over pension funds. Mark W. Frazier is assistant professor of political science and the Luce Assistant Professor of East Asian Political Economy at Lawrence University. He is the author ofThe Making of the Chinese Industrial Workplace: State, Revolution, and Labor Management (Cambridge University Press, 2002). His current research focuses on how central and local governments in China compete over pension reform. The author gratefully acknowledges helpful comments from Mary E. Gallagher, William Hurst, Dorothy Solinger, Jaeyoun Won, and two anonymous reviewers fromStudies in Comparative International Development. Funds for this research were provided by the Luce Foundation, the University of Louisville, and Lawrence University.     

Foreign capital in Korea’s economic development, 1960–1985

The relationship between foreign capital and state autonomy is investigated in the rapidly developing South Korean economy. The changing composition and the sectoral distribution of the different types of foreign capital, the role of the Korean state in the acquisition and distribution of foreign capital, and the implications of foreign capital on the autonomy and capacity of the state are studied. The findings show that public loans and state-guaranteed commercial loans in the 1960s and 1970s have supported and strengthened state autonomy, while direct foreign investment (DFI) and commercial loans in the 1980s could potentially undermine it. Significant changes in the 1980s—rapid increase of Japanese DFI in hotels, commerical loans behaving more like DFI, and changing industrial orientation of the Korean economy toward more high-technology sectors—suggest that the types of foreign capital which are more independent of state control and more keen on market signals will increase in the future. This has importnat implications for future Korean economic development. Eun Mee Kim is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Southern California. Kim has been conducting research on various topics of economic development and political development in South Korea and East Asia, and has published inPacific Focus, andThe Journal of Developing Societies. Kim’s current research includes the industrial organization and growth of the “chaebol” (business conglomerates) in Korea; the political economy of MNC investment by U.S. and Japanese corporations; and economic liberalization and political democratization in Korea and Taiwan.     

The public costs of private blessings: Fundamentals of the economic role of government

The main thrust of this overview is to demonstrate how the shift of government authority over time—from a defense of the realm against foreign intruders to an adjudication of conflicting citizen claims—has created a new set of problems and challenges for the modern state in search of development. It is argued that the power of the state expands as traditional forms of economic rivalries and class claims weaken, and as recourse to legal decision-making becomes widely accepted by all social and economic sectors. Government has proven better able to satisfy existing claims than at initiating new forms of social relations. Experiences in a variety of economic structures thus argue for a continued interplay of public and private, federal and personal claims. Irving Louis Horowitz is Hannah Arendt Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Political Science at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08933. Among his major works on development theory and practice areThree Worlds of Development: The Theory and Practice of International Stratification (Oxford University Press, 1965, 1972), andBeyond Empire and Revolution: Militarization and Modernization in the Third World (Oxford University Press, 1982). He was founding editor ofStudies in Comparative International Development.