National Environmental Ministries: Managers or Ciphers of European Union Environmental Policy?

European political integration has added a new and exciting dimension to the study of national political and administrative systems. However, comparatively little is know about the precise role of national ministries of state in either facilitating or retarding the shift towards joint rule making at the European level. Taking as an example the UK Department of the Environment's (DoE) involvement in the cumulative development of EU environmental policy since 1970, this paper examines the extent to which national environmental departments manage the process of integration or whether they are dragged along by it. It concentrates on the DoE's role in negotiating the 1987 Single European Act. It suggests that integration in the environmental sector since the Act has proceeded significantly further and faster than British negotiators originally expected, though through little conscious effort by the DoE. In fact, the DoE strongly opposed the introduction of majority voting, but was overruled by the core executive. These findings are examined against two theoretical approaches to European integration in order to reach a fuller understanding of what motivates (parts of) the British state to limit national autonomy in the process of developing European environmental rules.     

Understanding stalinism—the ‘Orwellian discrepancy’ and the ‘rational choice dictator’

This discussion article examines the logical bases of the arguments often encountered in the literature that compares Soviet and Nazi totalitarianism. It analyses the ‘Orwellian discrepancy’ between Marxist ideals and Soviet reality, the comparative differences in numbers of people that were murdered by the Stalin and Hitler regimes, and the distinction between ‘murder’ and ‘execution’ that is sometimes applied to the actions of the two tyrants. It then examines the notion of Stalin as a ‘rational choice’ dictator who, through the use of state-sponsored terror, was simply ensuring the survival of his regime, and suggests that a better model for Stalin's government would be that of ‘pseudo-rational choice irrationality’. Arguments that imply that ‘Team Stalin’ should not be seen as a totalitarian corporate form of government because of some attempted reforms and recently revealed institutional complexity are also considered. It concludes by reaffirming the importance of understanding human belief and intellectual factors to a comprehension of historical development.     

Postsocialist patronage: Expressions of resistance and loyalty

Research on patronage in postsocialist Russia focuses on structural and exchange aspects, but neglects deeper cultural forces that contribute to its reproduction. This study adopts a “bottom-up” approach to understanding the culture of patronage by analyzing the claims of ordinary citizens in “letters to the editor” from a postsocialist Russian locality. The common conventions authors use to legitimize claims share many characteristic features with patronage. Rather than judge authorities based on policy or ability to represent citizen interests, authors evaluate the moral and ethical worth of individuals, making their claims highly personalized. Evidence from these analyses suggests clients help sustain patronage by publicly expressing claims in a language infused with particularlism. Andrew D. Buck is a lecturer in sociology at the University of Reading, England. His interests include social network analysis and postsocialist transitions. He has written on aspects of the privatization process, as well as on the relationship between elite networks and democracy in postsocialist Russia. Research for this article was supported in part by a grant from the international Research and Exchanges Board (IREX). Grateful thanks to Vladimir Levitchev for research assistance. Special thanks to Antonina Bambina for her insightful suggestions and criticisms throughtout different stages of the research. I would also like to acknowledge the helpful comments I received from Roberto Franzosi, Jeff Hass, Jorge Rodriguez, and David Stark on a previous draft.