Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Political Evolution and Institutional Change ((PEIC))

  • 75 Accesses

Abstract

In the study of the current East European transitions from communist autocracy to liberal democracy, there are two distinct questions we should ask. First, what does it take to make the democratic transition? Second, what will the transition lead these nations into? The answer to the first query seems to be a lot less difficult than what political theorists of many persuasions have supposed. Some of the East Europeans did it or are doing it with remarkable quickness. The answer to the second query is much harder. In part, it is the question of whether these polities will turn out to be like the liberal democracies of the West. This is a more complex question than it might seem for the reason that the democracies of the West, as will be exemplified for present purposes by the United States, are themselves far from any liberal ideal that one might think they represent. They can increasingly be characterized as corporate democracies, in the sense spelled out later.

I wish to thank Bruce Ackerman, Alberto Diaz-Cayeros, April Flakne, János Kornai, Susan Rose-Ackerman, and Alexandra Vacroux for acute written comments on this chapter. I also wish to thank participants in colloquiums and a conference at the Collegium Budapest, and James Fearon and colleagues of the Thursday faculty lunch seminar at Stanford University for discussions of the chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aberg, Martin. 2000. “Putnam’s Social Capital Theory Goes East: A Case Study of Western Ukraine and L’viv.” Europe-Asia Studies 52: 295–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arato, Andrew and Jean L. Cohen. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barfield, Edward C. 1958. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. NewYork: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berle, Adolph A. and Gardner C. Means. 1932. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. NewYork: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, Isaiah. 1992. The Crooked Timber of Humanity. NewYork: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boix, Caries. 1997. “Political Parties and the Supply Side of the Economy: The Provision of Physical and Human Capital in Advanced Economies, 1960–90.” American Journal o_f Political Science 41: 814–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, Frank. 2002. “Protesters in Ronne Accuse Berlusconi of Exploiting His Power.” New York Times September 15, p. 1.9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, Frank. 2003. “Italy’s Leader Balances Ambitions and Trials.” New York Times February 16, p. 1.3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruszt, Laszlo and David Stark. 1998. Postsocialist Pathways: Transforming Politics and Property in East Central Europe. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, John C. [ 1853 ] 1992. “A Disquisition on Government” In R. M. Loss (ed.), Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, pp. 5–78. Indianapolis IN: Liberty Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, Thomas. 1999. “Western Civil-Society Aid to Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union” East European Constitutional Review 4: 54–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Jean. 1999. “Trust, Voluntary Association and Workable Democracy: The Contemporary American Discourse of Civil Society.” In M. Warren (ed.), Democracy and Trust, pp. 208–48. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Creppell, Ingrid. 2003. Toleration and Identity: Foundations in Early Modern Thought. NewYork: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1968. “In Praise ofThrasymachus” In R. Dahrendorf, Essays in the Theory of Society, pp. 129–50. Palo Alto CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doran, Jaunes. 2002. “Grubman Inquiry Questions Nursery Board Members.” Times of London, November 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, Émile. [ 1893 ] 1933. The Division of Labor in Society. NewYork: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, Amitai. 1993. The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda. New York: Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, M. Steven. 1998. “Mongolia: Democracy Without Prerequisites.” Journal of Democracy 3: 127–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fish, M. Steven and Robin S. Brooks. 2000. “Bulgarian Democracy’s Organizational Weapon.” East European Constitutional Review 3: 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellner, Ernest. 1987. Culture, Identity, and Politics. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James L. 2001. “Social Networks, Civil Society, and the Prospects for Consolidating Russia’s Democratic Transition” American Journal of Political Science 45: 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greider,William. 2002. “The Grubman” The Nation, December 16, pp. 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Russell. 1985. “Sanction and Obligation.” The Monist 68 (July): 403–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Russell. 1995. One for All: The Logic of Group Conflict. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Russell. 1999. Liberalism, Constitutionalism, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Russell. 2000. “The Public Trust.” In S. J. Pharr and R. D. Putnam (eds.), Disaècted Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Democracies, pp. 31–51. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Russell. 2001. “Seeing Like Hayek.” The Good Society 2: 36–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Russell. 2002a. “Liberal Distrust” European Review 1: 73–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Russell 2002b. “The Street-Level Epistemology of Democratic Participation” Journal of Political Philosophy 10: 212–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Russell. 2002e. Trust and Trustworthiness. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Russell. 2003a. “Rational Choice Political Philosophy.” In I. L. Morris, J. Oppenheimer, and K. Soltau (eds.), Politics from Anarchy to Democracy. Palo Alto CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Russell. 2003b. “Citizens’ Knowledge, Politicians’ Duplicity.” In A. Breton, G. Galeotti, P. Salmon, and R. Wintobe (eds.), Rational Obfuscation and Transparency in Politics. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Russell. 2004. “Representing Ignorance. Social Philosophy and Policy.” Special issue of Morality and Politics. Presented at Bowling Green State University, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayoz, Nicolas and Victor Sergeyev. 2003. “Social Networks in Russian Politics.” In G. Badescu and E. M. Uslaner (eds.), Soci.ri G;pir:r.•’,md the Democratic Transition. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellman, Joel. 1998. “Winners Take all: The Politics of Partial Reform in Post-Communist Transition” World Politics 50: 203–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, Thomas. [ 1651 ] 1968. Leviathan. London: Penguin, C. B. Macpherson (ed.), Originally published, London: Andrew Cooke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, David E. 2002. The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in the New Russia. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krygier, Martin. 1999. “Traps for Young Players in Times of Transition” East European Constitutional Review 4: 63–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, Howard. 2003. “Media Notes” Washington Post January 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledeneva, Alena V. 1998. Russia’s Economy of Favors: Blat, Networking, and Informal Exchange. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledeneva, Alena V. 2004. “Underground Financing in Russia” In J. Kornai, B. Rothstein, S. Rose-Ackerman (eds.), Creating Social Trust in Post-Socialist Tru,sirion, pp. 71–90. NewYork: Palgrave, Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of R1’resent:uive Government. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Means, Gardner C. 1959. Power Without Property: A New Development in American Political Economy. NewYork: Harcourt, Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michels, Roberto. [ 1911 ] 1949. Political Parties. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, Paul and John Roberts. 1992. Economics, Organization and Management. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, Paul and John Roberts. 1993. Johnson Controls, In Automotive Systems Group: The Georgetown Kentucky Plant, Case #S-BE-9 Stanford Graduate School of Business, Palo Alto CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Edmund S. 1994. “Pioneers of Paranoia” New York Review of Books, October 6, pp. 11–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestor (Benjamin Rush). 1786. “To the People of the United States” Independent Gazetteer (Philadelphia) June 3 [in microfiche at Bobst Library, NewYork University].

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, the State, and Utopia. NewYork: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons,Talcott. [1937] 1968 The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone:The Collapse and Revival ofAmerican Community. NewYork: Simon and Shuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Radaev, Vadim. 2004a. “How Trust is Established in Economic Relationships When Institutions and Individuals are Not Trustworthy: The Case of Russia.” In J. Kornai, B. Rothstein, and S. Rose-Ackerman (eds.), Creating Social Trust in Post-Socialist ansition pp. 91–110. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radaev, Vadim. 2004b. “Coping with Distrust in Emerging Russian Markets.” In R. Hardin (ed.), Distrust. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richie, Rob. 2002. Fair Elections Update: Election 2002 and the Case for Reform. Washington DC: Center for Voting and Democracy, November 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Richard. 2000. “Uses of Social Capital in Russia: Modern, Pre-modern, and Anti-modern” Post-Soviet Affairs 16: 33–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1999. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, William T. 2001. Saving the World: Chen Hongmau and Elite Consciousness in Eighteenth-Century China. Palo Alto CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SajÓ,Andras. 1999. Limited Gonernuncnr:An Introduction to Constitutionalism Budapest: Central European University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SajÓ,Andras. 1998. “Corruption, Clientelism, and the Future of the Constitutional State in Eastern Europe.” East European Consdr,niondi Rci ivw 2: 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sergeyev,Victor. 1998. The Wild East: Crime and Lawlessness in Russia. New York: Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, Herbert. 1989. The Triumph of the Adaptive Society. Frank E. Seidman Lecture in Politic,. Memphis TN: Rhodes College, September 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1965. “Social Structure and Organizations.” In J. G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, pp. 142–93. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, Susan C. 2001. Mandates and Democracy: Neoliberalism by Surprise inn Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sztompka, Piotr. 1999. Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tocqueville, Alexis de. [ 1835 and 1840] 1966. Democracy in America, translated by George Lawrence. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkov,Vadim. 2004. “The Selective Use of State Capacity in Russia’s Economy: Property Disputes and Enterprise Takeovers, 1998–2002.” In J. Kornai, B. Rothstein, and S. Rose-Ackerman (eds.), Creating Social Trust in Post-Socialist Transition, pp. 126–47. NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

János Kornai Susan Rose-Ackerman

Copyright information

© 2004 János Kornai and Susan Rose-Ackerman

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hardin, R. (2004). Transition to Corporate Democracy?. In: Kornai, J., Rose-Ackerman, S. (eds) Building a Trustworthy State in Post-Socialist Transition. Political Evolution and Institutional Change. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403981103_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics