View
229
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/11/2019 communication in the warsaw pact states.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communication-in-the-warsaw-pact-statespdf 1/12
University of Utah
Western Political Science Association
Personal Mobility and Communication in the Warsaw Pact StatesAuthor(s): Alexander J. Groth and William C. PotterSource: The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1977), pp. 225-235Published by: University of Utah on behalf of the Western Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/447407
Accessed: 01/06/2009 05:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utah.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of Utah and Western Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Western Political Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
8/11/2019 communication in the warsaw pact states.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communication-in-the-warsaw-pact-statespdf 2/12
8/11/2019 communication in the warsaw pact states.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communication-in-the-warsaw-pact-statespdf 3/12
226 Western
Political
Quarterly
societies,
cultures,
and
even of
the
personalities
of
individuals...."3
Moreover,
Deutsch
argued
that
abilities to
communicate should
be
measurable
and
provide
the
basis for an
evaluation
and
prediction
of
national
development
or
nation-
building. Ten years later another renowned political scientist, Lucian Pye, re-
newed
Deutch's call for research
into the
relationship
between
communication and
political
development.
"Communication,"
Pye
maintained,
"is
the
web
of
human
society....
The
flow
of communication determines
the
direction
and the
pace
of
dynamic
social
development."4
In the ten and
twenty
years
since the calls for
research
by
Deutsch
and
Pye,
significant
studies have
been
undertaken
n
the area of
communications
and
political
development.5
Surprisingly,
however,
there have
been
few
attempts
to
explain
dif-
ferential
rates
of social communication
in
terms of
as traditional
a
political
variable
as
type
of
political system.
It
may
be
that
level
of
economic
development,
social
mobility,and political and social integration independentlyor in interactive fashion
influence the
degree
of
national
and
transnational intercourse.
It
is
also
possible,
however,
that these variables are less
potent
in their
explanatory
power
than the
traditional,
if
presently
unfashionable,
political dichotomy
of
communist-non-
communist
political
systems.
Perhaps
the
most
important
reason to
assume
that
type
of
political
system
strongly
influences
a
society's
social communication
profile
is the demonstrated
concern
of
communist
ruling
parties
to
preserve
the
one-party
character
of their
regimes
and to stifle
potential
as
well
as
actual
opposition.
In the Stalinist
period
this fear of
loss
of
control
and alien
subversionand contamination
led
to a
structur-
ing
of
intrasocietal
and
interbloc
communications
along
vertical rather
than
hori-
zontal lines. In other
words,
an
attempt
was made to
establish control
over domes-
tic
interpersonal
as
well
as communist
international
relations
by linking
citizens
and states
to
Soviet
party-controlled
institutions;
at
the same
time,
an effort
was
made to atomize
society
and
preserve
Soviet control
over
the international
com-
munist movement
by discouraging
customs and
dismantling
institutions that
pro-
moted lateral
ties
among
citizens
and
multilateral ties
among
communist
states.6
The
"transmissionbelt" mode
of
communication
has been
modified
substan-
tially
in
the
years
since Stalin's death
and
genuine
lateral ties of communication
and influence
today
characterize relations in and
among
most communist societies.
Nevertheless,
the
ruling
Marxist-Leninist
parties
of
the
Warsaw
Pact retain
control over communication and transportation networks with a thoroughness
which
makes their
particular preferences
the dominant ones
in
their
respective
societies.
It
is
reasonable, therefore,
to
hypothesize
that these
preferences
ordinarily sympathetic
to
public
communal
as
opposed
to
private
modes
of
opera-
tion
-
will be
reflected in
a
distinctive
social
communication
profile
for
the
War-
saw Pact states.
To some
extent,
the
explanation
of
the
profile
also
relates
to
the
historic
orientation
of the
parties
to
dampen
investment
in
all
kinds
of
goods
of
private
consumption
and
enhance
public-communal
expenditures
particularly
on
industrial
and
military
objectives.7
'P. 87.4
Pye,
Communications,
p.
4.
'
See
Hamid
Mowlana,
International
Communication:
A
Selected
Bibliography
(Dubuque,
Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt,
1971).
e
See,
for
example,
Zvi
Gitelman,
The
Diffusion
of
Political
Innovation From
East
Europe
to
the
Soviet Union
(Beverly
Hills:
Sage,
1972);
R. V.
Burks,
"The
Communist
Poli-
ties of Eastern
Europe,"
in
James
Rosenau,
ed.,
Linkage
Politics
(New
York: Free
Press, 1969),
pp. 275-303;
David
Lane,
Polities
and
Society
in
the
USSR
(New
York:
Random
House,
1971);
H. Gordon
Skilling
and
Franklyn
Griffiths,
eds., Interest
Groups
in Soviet
Politics
(Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press,
1971
).
'
See
e.g.,
Stanley
H.
Cohen,
Economic
Development
in
the
Soviet
Union
(Lexington,
Mass.:
Heath, 1970);
cf. the
conclusions of
Phillip
M.
Weitzman, Planning
Consumption
in
the USSR
(Ph.D.
dissertation,
University
of
Michigan,
1969),
pp.
199-202,
both with
8/11/2019 communication in the warsaw pact states.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communication-in-the-warsaw-pact-statespdf 4/12
Personal
Mobility
and
Communication 227
Our more
general
hypothesis
on
the
relationship
between
political systems
and
the allocation of resources
and services
transcends
the communist-non-communist
dichotomy.
The
assumption
here
is
that all
systems
which are
highly
authoritarian,
i.e., effectively repress or inhibit the articulation of demands emanating from the
society-at-large,
are
more
capable
of
lop-sided
allocations than
pluralistic
regimes.8
In
the
latter,
conflicting
demands
are
less
likely
to result in "all
for
some"
and
"nothing
for others" outcomes.
The
particular objectives
of
such allocations
are
likely
to
vary
with the
systems.
In
the
case
of
the Warsaw
Pact
states,
the
historic,
dominant
tendency
of the dominant member
-
the U.S.S.R.
-
has been to em-
phasize
the
industrial
military
sector
at
the
expense
of
consumption.
One result
of this
tendency
has
been that with
a
GNP less than
50
percent
as
large
as
the
U.S.,
the
U.S.S.R.
has
reached
or
even
exceeded
parity
with the
United
States
in
the
accumulation
of
several
major
types
of armaments
as
well
as
the
production
of
steel, iron, cement, and coal, and near parity in oil. Against the background of
these
prodigious
efforts,
we have
the contrast
of stark
neglect
of other sectors-
some of them
discussed
n this
paper.
RESEARCHSTRATEGY
Our method
is
comparative.
As
previously
indicated,
seven
Warsaw
Pact
states are
compared
to
a
maximum of
112
other
nations
on
a
number of indicators
of social communication.
Our
communication-mobility
data
are drawn
principally
from United
Nations'
statistics,
in
reflecting
international
comparisons
for the
year
1970,
and
in
some
cases the nearest available
year
between 1967 and 1971.9We
group
our information
in two
basic
categories.
The
first
combines
data
on the movement of
persons
simplified
to
passenger
kilometer
figures.
This includes
railroad,
air,
and
automo-
bile
transportation.
In the case of
automobiles,
we
use an
estimate of
passenger
kilometers
by
multiplying
the number
of
automobiles
for each state
by
the
1970
respect
to
pre-
and
post-Stalin periods. Also,
Philip
Hanson,
The
Consumer
in
The
Soviet
Economy
(London: Macmillan,
1968),
pp.
48-82;
Willem
Keizer,
The Soviet
Quest
for
Economic
Rationality (Rotterdam:
University
Press,
1971), pp.
91-94;
and
on
the earlier
period
of Soviet
development,
Naum
Jasny,
Soviet Industrialization
1928-
1952
(Chicago:
University
of
Chicago Press,
1961),
pp.
366-68,
particularly;
and
also
Nicolas Spulber,The State and EconomicDevelopmentin EasternEurope (New York:
Random
House,
1966),
pp.
31,
76-81;
and his earlier
The Economics
of
Communist
East
Europe
(New
York:
Wiley,
1957),
ch.
9, pp.
306-80;
Stanislaw
Wellisz,
The
Economics
of
The
Soviet Bloc
(New
York:
McGraw-Hill, 1964),
ch.
3, pp. 53-98;
Alfred
Zauberman,
Industrial
Progress
in
Poland,
Czechoslovakia
and East
Germany,
1937-1962
(London:
Oxford
University
Press,
1964),
ch.
1, pp.
1-68.
8For
a
more
extended discussion
see
A.
J.
Groth, Comparative
Politics:
A
Distributive
Ap-
proach
(New
York:
Macmillan,
1971);
see
also Gabriel A.
Almond, ed., Comparative
Politics
Today:
A
World
View
(Boston:
Little,
Brown,
1974),
pp.
34-35;
Karl
W.
Deutsch,
Politics
and
Government:
How
People
Decide
Their
Fate,
2nd
ed.
(Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin,
1974),
pp.
360-62;
on
the
theme that
policies
are
basically
structured
by
levels
of economic
development,
see Thomas R.
Dye, Understanding
Public
Policy
Englewood
Cliffs:
Prentice
Hall,
1972),
and
Frederic
L.
Pryor,
Public
Expenditures
n
Communist
and
Capitalist
Nations
(Homewood,
Ill.:
Irwin, 1968).
United
Nations,
Statistical
Yearbook 1971
(New
York: Statistical Office of The United
Nations, Department
of
Economic
and Social
Affairs,
1972),
pp.
398-401;
410-16;
439-57,
in
relation
to
transportation;
pp.
477-90 on
communication.
Our
source
of
GNP
estimates
is International Institute
for
Strategic Studies,
The
Military
Balance
1971-1972
(London, 1971).
There
are alternative
indicators
of
economic
development
which
yield
similar
rankings.
In
1970
in world-wide
terms
G.D.R. ranked
8th in
the
proportion
of urban
population;
Czechoslovakia
15th;
U.S.S.R.
17th;
Bulgaria
20th;
Poland
22nd; Hungary
27th;
Romania
33rd.
In
proportion
of
work
force outside
agri-
culture,
G.D.R.
ranked
10th;
Czechoslovakia
14th;
Hungary
18th;
U.S.S.R.
19th;
Bul-
garia
21st;
Poland
22nd;
Romania
25th.
Among
the
world's
top
steel
producers
in
1970
U.S.S.R.
ranked
2nd;
Czechoslovakia
10th;
Poland
11th;
Romania
15th;
G.D.R.
19th; Hungary
24th;
Bulgaria
26th.
See
Glowny
Urzad
Statystyczny,
Rocznik
Staty-
styczny (Warsaw, 1973),
pp. 635,
647,
and 659.
8/11/2019 communication in the warsaw pact states.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communication-in-the-warsaw-pact-statespdf 5/12
228
Western
Political
Quarterly
United
States
passenger
km.
figure (1.9
passengers
carried an
average
of
9,978
miles);
this works out
to
30,000
rounded
off.10
The
second
part
of
our data com-
bines the various forms of
messages
sent
and
received
-
flows,
domestic
and
foreign telegrams, and telephone calls. We thus have two composite indices of
social
communication.
One
basic
problem
with
the data
is
its
regrettably very aggregate
character.
We have
no
breakdown
within such
categories
of
information
as "railroad
pas-
senger
miles,"
"telephone messages,"
and
"items mailed."
Thus,
we
necessarily
lump
together
official,
public
uses
of
the
transportation
and communication
systems
with
purely private
ones;
the
utilization
of these facilities
by foreign
nationals
and
their
usage by
the
indigenous population;
the
exchange
of
messages among govern-
mental officials and
the
exchange
of
letters and
packages among
private
citizens;
and local
calls
with
long
distance
ones.
Our
capacity
for
inference,
therefore,
is
necessarily imited to aggregatecategories."'
ANALYTIC
METHODS
One
objective
of this
study,
as
previously
indicated,
is
to assess
the
relationship
between
type
of
political
system
and
its
social
communication
profile.
Another
objective
is to
weigh
the
relative
explanatory
power
of
alternative
predictors
of
social communication such
as
level
of economic
development, area,
and
population.
Bivariate
correlation
analysis
and
step-wise multiple
regression
are the chosen
analytic
techniques.
The
former
provides
a
single summary
statistic
describing
the
strength
of association
between
the two
variables.
The
latter,
a
powerful
variation of multiple regression,is a technique for constructing a multiple regres-
sion
equation
through
the successive
choice
of those
predictor
variables which
explain
the most
variance in the
dependent
variable,
after
accounting
for the
variance
explained
by
the
previously
selected
variable.
As our
step-wise
regression
ndicates that a variable
other than
political system
is
the best
predictor
of level
of
social
communication,
we
carry
the
analysis
one
step
further. First
we divide
our
pool
of nations
into
two
categories:
communist
and non-communist states. The best
predictor
in the
step-wise
regressionequation
then
is
regressed
against
our two indices
of social communication.
This,
in
turn
enables
us to
construct
regression
equations
for
estimating
the level
of
social com-
municationin both WarsawPact and non-communist states.
FINDINGS
Tables
1
and
2
present
the
rankings
of nations on the two
composite
indices
of
social
communication.
Table
3
presents
the
correlation coefficients
describing
the
association
among type
of
political
system, population,
area,
GNP
per capita
and
our
two
composite
indices of
social communication labeled "kilometers"and
"messages,"respectively.
Tables
4
and 5
present
the
findings
from
the
step-wise
multiple regression.
We find
that of the
112
states for which automobile
data is
available,
the
U.S.S.R. ranked 81st, just behind Paraguay and ahead of Cameroon, with only
one
automobile
for
147
inhabitants.'2
East
Germany
ranked
highest
among
the
0
The source
for
this
estimate is
Motor
Vehicle
Manufacturers
Association
of
the
U.S.
Inc.,
1972 Automobile
Facts
and
Figures
(Detroit,
1972),
pp.
35
and
51.
Data
gathering
difficulties
precluded
inclusion
of informations on
motorcycle
and
bicycle
mileage,
on
private aircraft, passenger
ships,
boats,
buses,
streetcars,
and
horsedrawn
transport
as
well
as
on
communication
through
messengers.
In
relation
to
personal
mobility,
our
findings
are
foreshadowed
by
the
paucity
of
automobiles
among
the
War-
saw
Pact
states,
and
in relation
to
communication
by
the
paucity
of
telephones.
12
For
reasons
of
space
the individual
indicators
(e.g.,
automobiles and
telephones)
have
been
omitted.
See footnote 9 for
sources.
8/11/2019 communication in the warsaw pact states.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communication-in-the-warsaw-pact-statespdf 6/12
Personal
Mobility
and Communication
229
TABLE
1.
PASSENGER
KILOMETERS
AUTO,
TRAIN,
AIR)
PER
CAPITA
Rank
Country*
Variable
Valuet
Rank
Country*
Variable
Valuet
1
United
States
2
Australia
3
New
Zealand
4
Canada
5
Sweden
6
Luxembourg
7 Switzerland
8
France
9
FRG
(West)
10 Denmark
11
Belgium
12
United
Kingdom
13
Netherlands
14 Norway
15
Italy
16
Austria
17
Japan
18
Finland
19
Ireland
20 GDR
(East)
21
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
22
Spain
23 Israel
24
Argentina
25
Portugal
26 HUNGARY
27
Lebanon
28 Yugoslavia29 Venezuela
30
U.S.S.R.
31
POLAND
32 'BULGARIA
33 Greece
34
ROMANIA
35
Brazil
36 Mexico
37 Chile
38
'Costa
Rica
14125
11967
10271
10143
9436
8970
8796
8639
7602
7595
7493
7263
6819
6777
6511
5796
5493
5177
4816
3294
2970
2679
2543
2516
2433
1948
1773
1637
1627
1621
1503
1410
1177
1089
918
906
868
802
39
Taiwan
40
Ivory
Coast
41 Peru
42
Nicaragua
43 Tunisia
44
Morocco
45
Ceylon
46
Senegal
47
Algeria
48
Korea
South
49
Iran
50
Egypt
51 Colombia
52 Saudi Arabia
53
Turkey
54
Philippines
55
Iraq
56
Thailand
57
Madagascar
58 Ecuador
59 India
60 Cameroon
61
Ghana
62
Syria
63 Bolivia
64 Pakistan
65
Togo
66 Dahomey67 Zaire
68 Burma
69
Vietnam
(South)
70 Indonesia
71
Ethiopia
72 Mauritania
73
Mali
74
Malawi
75
Nigeria
*
Warsaw
Pact states
are in
capital
letters.
t
There is
incomplete
information on
some
of the
indicators for:
Angola; Burundi; Chad; Congo PR; Gabon; Kenya; Liberia; Mazambique; Nigeria; Rwanda; Sierra Leone;
Somalia;
S.
Africa;
S.
Rhodesia;
Sudan;
Swaziland; Uganda;
Zambia;
Bahamas;
Cuba;
Dominican
Republic;
El
Salvador;
Guatemala;
Haiti;
Honduras;
Jamaica;
Panama-
Trinidad-T;
Guyana; Paraguay;
Uruguay;
Af-
ghanistan;
China
(P.R.C.);
Cyprus;
Jordan;
Khmer
Rep;
Korea
North;
Kuwait; Laos;
Mongolia;
Nepal;
Singapore; Vietnam
North;
Albania;
iceland;
Malta.
Warsaw Pact
states,
followed
by
Czechoslovakiaat
15 and
18 inhabitants
per
auto-
mobile,
respectively.
But even these most advanced
communist
states ranked
28th
and
33rd
internationally,
lagging
behind
all
of
their
economically
comparable
counterparts.
Hungary
ranked
48th;
Poland
55th;
Romania
and
Bulgaria
82nd
and
84th
respectively.
The
communist states
also
ranked low in
air
passenger
travel. The
U.S.S.R.
was admittedly a laudable 16th, and first among the Warsaw Pact countries, in
this
category
of
transport.
It
outperformed
a
number
of wealthier
states,
among
them
Sweden,
France,
Belgium,
Finland and
West
Germany.
But
the
remainder
of
the
Pact nations ranked
very
low,
in no
case
matching
or
surpassing
their
GNP
rankings:
Czechoslovakia
46th;
G.D.R.
52nd;
Bulgaria
59th;
Hungary
65th;
Romania
82nd;
Poland 83rd.
The
Warsaw
Pact
states
were
among
the world leaders in
railway
passenger
traffic.
Hungary,
Czechoslovakia,
U.S.S.R.,
G.D.R.,
Poland,
and
Romania
were
4th
through
9th
in world
rankings
of
80
nations
for
which
information
was avail-
able.
Bulgaria
was
13th.
617
615
585
571
521
484
453
395
393
377
370
344
322
322
301
283
274
270
267
253
252
216
198
197
190
178
176
173
130
123
103
98
72
62
61
57
43
8/11/2019 communication in the warsaw pact states.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communication-in-the-warsaw-pact-statespdf 7/12
230 Western Political
Quarterly
TABLE
2.
PERSONAL
MESSAGES
PER CAPITA
Country*
I
United States
Sweden
Iceland
Switzerland
New Zealand
Denmark
Japan
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Australia
Belgium
United
Kingdom
Norway
F.R.G.
(West)
Austria
Finland
Italy
France
Ireland
S.
Africa
Greece
Israel
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Spain
Cyprus
VariableValuet
1255
914
715
680
634
580
520
494
483
465
418
416
400
376
352
346
324
312
279
273
264
255
254
244
201
Rank
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Country*
G.D.R. (EAST)
HUNGARY
Lebanon
Portugal
Yugoslavia
POLAND
U.S.S.R.
ROMANIA
Ceylon
Zambia
Turkey
Ghana
Syria
India
Madagascar
Angola
Kenya
Mozambique
Thailand
Vietnam
(South)
Pakistan
Uganda
Nigeria
Burma
Indonesia
*
Warsaw Pact states are in
capital
letters.
t
There
is
incomplete
information
on
some
of
the indicators
for
Algeria; Burundi;
Cameroon;
Chad;
Congo P R;
Dahomey;
Egypt; Ethiopia; Gabon; Ivory Coast; Liberia; Libya; Malawi; Mali; Mauritania;
Morocco;
Nigeria;
Rwanda;
Senegal;
Sierra
Leone;
Somalia;
S.
Rhodesia;
Sudan;
Swaziland[
Togo;
Tunisia;
Zaire; Bahamas;
Canada;
Costa
Rica;
CUBA;
Dominican
Republic;
El
Salvador; Guatemala; iHaiti;
Honduras;
Jamaica; Mexico;
Nicaragua;
Panama;
Trinidad-T;
Argentina;
Bolivia;
Brazil;
Chile;
Columbia;
Ecuador;
Guyana;
Paraguay;
Peru;
Uruguay;
Venezuela;
Afghanistan;
China
(P.R.C.);
Taiwan;
Iran;
Iraq; Jordan;
Khmer
Rep;
Korea
North;
Korea
South;
Kuwait;
Laos;
Mongolia;
Nepal; Philippines;
Saudi
Arabia; Singa-
pore;
Vietnam
N;
Albania;
BULGARIA;
Malta.
TABLE
3.
CORRELATION
ATRIX
FOR 6 VARIABLES
Po
Sys
Pop
Area
GNP/capita
Miles
Messages
Political
System
..........
1,000
-0.001 0.188
-0.066
-0.235 -0.223
Population
.................. -0.001 1.000
0.493*
-0.085
-0.098 -0.057
Area ............................ 0.188 0.493* 1.000 0.196 0.116 0.095
GNP/capita
................ -0.066 -0.085 0.196
1.000 0.906*
0.891*
Miles ..........................
-0.235
-0.098
0.116
0.906* 1.000
0.911*
Messages
....................
-0.223
-0.057
0.095
0.891*
0.911* 1.000
*
Valuesare
significant
t
the .05
level.
TABLE
4. STEP-WISEMULTIPLE
REGRESSION
OR
4 VARIABLES
(KILOMETERS
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE)
Independent
variables
Multiple
Rt
R
Squaret
RSQ
Changet
Bt
Betat
GNP/capita
.................. 0.906
0.820
0.820
2.817
0.900
Political
System
............ 0.922
0.851
0.031
-1438.410
-0.170
Population*
...................
Area
..............................
0.923
0.852
0.001
0.000
-0.028
(Constant)
..............
-47.958
*
There
are
no
reported
values
for
population
as
an
independent
ariable ince
the
"level of tolerance"
used to calculate the
step-wise
multiple
regression
coefficients
fell
below the
minimum
specified
in
the
com-
puter
program.
f
The
Multiple
R measures the total
effect of
all the
independent
variables
upon
the
dependent
one.
R
Square
(r2)
may
be
interpreted
as
the
proportion
of
the total variation
in the
dependent
variable
explained
by
the
independent
variable.
RSQ
Change represents
the
change
in r2
from the
value of
the
previous step.
B and
Beta
represent
the
regular
and
normalized
regression
coefficients,
respectively.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Variable Valuet
198
172
171
121
115
83
69
48
45
38
37
35
31
17
16
15
13
11
11
11
8
6
6
4
3
8/11/2019 communication in the warsaw pact states.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communication-in-the-warsaw-pact-statespdf 8/12
Personal
Mobility
and
Communication 231
TABLE
5. STEP-WISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION
FOR 4 VARIABLES
(MESSAGES
=
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE)
Independentvariables Mulitple R R Square RSQ Change B Beta
GNP/capita
......................
0.891 0.794
0.794
0.200
0.903
Political
System
................ 0.906
0.821
0.027
-88.202
-0.148
Area
.............................
0.907 0.823
0.002 0.000
-0.085
Population
..................... 0.909
0.826
0.003
0.000
0.061
(Constant)
........................
-24.480
The
clustering
of the
communist
states in
this
category
of
travel
suggests
a
pattern
of
transportation
policy
for these
states;
it
is
particularly
remarkable
in
light
of
the low
railway
passenger mileage
of
some of the more advanced
states,
such as the U.S., a mere 48th, the Scandinavian nations, France, West Germany,
Italy,
Ireland
and
Canada.
It
appears
that
this
form of
transportation,
long
on
decline in some of the
developed
western
nations,
has
been
a
mainstay
of
Warsaw
Pact
passenger
traffic.
(The
data for
railroad
freight
also underscore
the
remark-
ably
uniform
Warsaw
Pact
commitment to
this
form of
transportation.
The
U.S.S.R. led
the
world in this
category
in
1970,
1st
among
84
states with
available
information,
followed
by
Czechoslovakia
at 4th
place;
G.D.R.
6th;
Poland
7th;
Romania
8th;
Hungary
11th;
Bulgaria
12th).
One
can
certainly
speak
of
a
partial
substitution
in the
Warsaw Pact states
of
rail
for
road
and air
transport.
When
account
is
taken
of
all
three forms
of
passenger
transportation
rail,
air
and
automobile,however,
all of
the Pact states
fall
behind the
per capita passen-
ger
kilometer
figures
for
economically
comparable
countries.
The
highest
ranking
communist
state, G.D.R.,
at
3,294
passenger
kilometers
(pkm) per
inhabitant,
as
well
as the
lowest,
Romania
at
1,089,
both fall
well
behind
their non-communist
GNP
per capita
counterparts.
Illustratively,
the
total
3-index
"mileage"
of
the
U.S.S.R. was
388.6 billion
pkm
for a
population
of
242
million,
while
it
was
451.8
billion
for
West
Germany's
59
million
people
and
411.4
billion
for
Britain's
55
million
people
East
Germany's
total
mileage
of
52.4
billion
pkm
for
16.2
million
people
was exceeded
by
Sweden's 75.9
for
8.04.
The U.S. total exceeded Russian
mileage
by
a ratio
of
more than
9
to 1.
It
is
possible,
but
not
likely,
that this
general
order of
relationships
is altered
by information not covered in this paper. The U.S.S.R., e.g., possessed4.6 million
trucks and
buses
in
1970
whose
unknown
mileage may
be
weighed
against
19.1 mil-
lion
in
the U.S.
East
Germany
had
245,000
trucks and
buses
against
1,228,406
in
West
Germany.
It would
appear
that
even
if
a
larger
proportion
of Warsaw
Pact
commercial
vehicles consisted
of
buses,
more
heavily
used,
the
total
advantage
of
the
non-communist
states
would
not
likely
be overcome. Our
data for commercial
vehicles
per
inhabitant indicate that
the
Warsaw
Pact states
have made
only
some-
uwhat
more
generous
allocations to
this form
of
transport.
G.D.R.
led
the
Warsaw
Pact
countries,
22nd
among
112
world states in
com-
mercial
vehicles
per
inhabitant;
Hungary
was
25th;
U.S.S.R.
33rd;
Czechoslovakia
40th; Romania 47th; Poland 52nd and Bulgaria76th.
There
is a similar
case
with
motorcycles.
Poland,
for
example,
reported
1,789,000
motorcycles
in
addition
to
its
479,000
automobiles
in
1970.
It
was
thus
ahead
of
Spain
with
about
the
same
population
and
only
1,267,000
motorcycles.
But
where allowance is made
for
Spain's
2,378,000
automobiles,
or
roughly
five
times
as
many,
the
advantage
does not
seem
significant."3
In
the
area
of
communication,
we have
examined four
kinds of information
relating
to the
conveyance
of
messages among
individuals:
flows,
domestic
13
See
Statystyczny,
Rocznik,
p.
700,
Table 106
(1006).
8/11/2019 communication in the warsaw pact states.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communication-in-the-warsaw-pact-statespdf 9/12
232
Western
Political
Quarterly
and
foreign, telegrams
n both
categories,
the number of
telephones
in
each
country,
and in
most
cases,
also
the number of actual
telephone
conversations.14
We
have
not
examined
centrally
disseminated information
flows,
such
as
newspapers,
radio,
television,cinemasand the like.'5
On
the
whole,
Warsaw
Pact
states
ranked
conspicuously high
in
one
category
of
interpersonal
communication,
however,
which accounts
for
relatively
few mes-
sages:
domestic
telegrams.
Here,
the
U.S.S.R.
ranked 3rd
among
72
states with
available
information.
Bulgaria
was
5th;
Czechoslovakia
6th;
Hungary
8th;
G.D.R.
16th;
Romania
21st and Poland
23rd.
On
the other
hand,
these
states
ranked
relatively
low
in
telegrams
sent
abroad,
and,
much more
significantly,
low in the
domestic
and
foreign
volume of mail.
In
1970,
in
likely
connection
with East-West
German
rapprochement,
the
volume
of
foreign
mail sent
and
received
in
the
G.D.R.
placed
it
6th
among
72
states with relevant information. Hungary, however, ranked 28th; Poland 44th;
Romania
50th;
there was no information
on
Bulgaria.
Czechoslovakia and
the
U.S.S.R.
reported
their
domestic
and
foreign
in
one
category.
The
general
communication
lag
of the Warsaw
Pact states was
principally
accounted for
by
the
sparse deployment
and use
of
telephones.
In the number
of
telephones per capita,
Czechoslovakia was
23rd;
G.D.R.
25th;
Hungary
32nd;
Bulgaria
40th;
Poland
42nd;
Romania
49th
and
the U.S.S.R.
an
amazing
87th
among
116 states
reporting
such data.
The U.S.S.R. ranked
behind
Ceylon
and
ahead of
Angola
in this
category
of
communication.
The
seriousness
of
the War-
saw
Pact's
apparent lag
is seen when
allowance
is made
for
the
very
substantial
use
generally
made
of
telephones
-
ranging
from
about 700
to more than
4,000
messages
per
telephone exchanged
annually
in different
areas of the world.'6When
we
combine the
various forms of communication
into
a
number of
messages
con-
veyed,
the
U.S.S.R.,
with
some 16.5 billion
for
a
population
of
242
million,
lagged
almost
20-fold
behind the
United
States
with
its
258
billion
messages
and
a
popula-
tion
of
205
million
in
1970
As is
evident
from our
rankings
of
GNP
per
capita
and
the total
messages
per capita,
no
Warsaw Pact
state
matched
the
level
of communication
among
other
comparably
wealthy
states.
Indeed,
this is
true
in
both
categories
examined in
our
paper: passenger
kilometers
per capita
and
messages
exchanged
per
capita.
An
examination of the included
tables,
as
well
as the tables
on
the
separate
constituent elements of the passengerkilometer and personal message composites,
shows that
of
all the Warsaw
Pact
states,
the U.S.S.R.
lags
farthest
behind
eco-
nomically
comparable
non-communist
states.
Thus,
if we look
at
states which
range
within,
e.g., $300
GNP
per capita
above
and
below
the
U.S.S.R.,
we find
that
the differences
between
it
and
the other states
in
passenger
kilometers
and
in
messages
per
capita
are in
virtually
all
cases differ-
ences
of several
magnitudes.
The Soviet
figure
of
1,621
passenger
kilometers
per
capita may
be
compared
with
a
figure
of
5,796
for
Austria;
5,493
for
Japan;
5,177
for Finland:
7,263
for
the
United
Kingdom;
10,271
for
New
Zealand;
and
6,511
for
Italy;
only
Israel
with a figureof 2,543 is relativelyclose to the U.S.S.R. The Soviet Union actually
14
See American
Telephone
and
Telegraph
Company,
The
World's
Telephones
(New
York,
1973)
Table
4,
pp.
11-12
and
26.
Based
upon
averages
for several
European
and Latin
American
tates
reported
n
this
source,
we estimate
he
probable
umber f
messages
in severalcases
where
only
the
number
of
telephones
s
known.
'5
See Charles L.
Taylor
and
Michael
C.
Hudson,
eds.,
World
Handbook
of
Political and
Social
Indicators,
2nd
ed.
(New
Haven:
Yale
University
Press,
1972);
Ellen
Mickiewicz,
ed.,
Handbook
of
Soviet Social
Science
Data
(New
York:
Free
Press,
1973).
l'
Brazil
registered
a remarkable
12,637,834,000
calls on
2,000,726
telephones.
Netherlands
had
3,409,842
telephones
but recorded
only
2,879,212,000
conversations. See
AT&T
Co.,
The
World's
Telephones,
pp.
4, 11,
12.
8/11/2019 communication in the warsaw pact states.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communication-in-the-warsaw-pact-statespdf 10/12
Personal
Mobility
and Communication
233
ranks
behind such
relatively
poor
states
as
Portugal,
Lebanon,
Yugoslavia
and
Venezuela,
and
among
non-Warsaw Pact
states,
modestly
ahead of
Greece
and
Brazil.
An even greater magnitude of differences holds true in messages per capita.
The
U.S.S.R.
is
ahead
of
but
far
closer
in
this
category
of
communication
to
Cey-
lon,
Zambia
and
Turkey
than
it
is
to
Austria,
Finland,
Italy,
Israel,
or
Japan.
It
may
also be
observed
that
all
non-Warsaw
Pact
countries
in the
$2,000
GNP
per
capita
category
-
or
even its reasonable
vicinity
-
range
above
250
messages
per
capita;
the Soviet
Union's 69
messages
per
capita
amount
to
approximately
one-
fourth
of
that
figure.
As
Tables
4 and
5
indicate, GNP/capita
is
by
far
the best
international
pre-
dictor
of
social
communication
outputs, accounting
for
82
percent
and
79
percent
of the
explained
variance
in the two indices of
social communication
(kilometers
and messages). Political system, although the second best of our four predictor
variables,
adds
only
3
percent
to
the
explained
variance for both
indices.
A somewhat different
picture
of the
relationship
among
GNP/capita (our
indicator
of
level
of economic
development),
political
system,
and
level
of social
communication
emerges
from
the
secondary
regression equations.
The
results
of
regressing
GNP/capita
against
"kilometers"
and
"messages"
for
both
non-com-
munist and Warsaw Pact
states
are
presented
n Table 6.
TABLE 6.
NON-COMMUNIST STATES WARSAWPACT STATES
Independent
variable
r rs
B r
r2
B
Kilometers
=
Dependent
Variable
GNP/Capita
..............
0.935 0.845
2.881
0.780 0.624 1.452
(Constant)
................
-91.756 -325.023
Messages
=
Dependent
Variable
GNP/Capita
............
0.920
0.847 0.200
0.614 0.377
0.107
(Constant) ....--........-
-16.837
-38.971
The regressionresults summarized in Table 6, among other things, indicate
that
GNP/capita
is
a
better
predictor
of
social
communication
outputs
in
non-
communist
as
opposed
to
Warsaw
Pact states. The
data in Table
6 also
enables
one
to
construct
regression
equations
predicting
the
social communication
profile
of
Warsaw Pact
and
non-communist states
knowing
their
level
of economic
de-
velopment
as
indicated
by
GNP/capita.
The
regression
equations
are
as
follows:
A.
Non-Communist
States
Kilometers
=-91.756
+
(2.881)
(GNP/capita)
Messages
=-16.837
+
(.200)
(GNP/capita)
B.
Warsaw
Pact
States
Kilometers
=
-325.023
+
(1.452) (GNP/capita)
Messages
=
-38.971
+
(0.107)
(GNP/capita)
Our
two
equations
relating
GNP/capita
with
passenger
kilometer
per capita
and
messages
per
capita
indicate a
general
"underperformance"
or
the
Warsaw
Pact
states. The
differences
however,
are
not uniform.
The
"underperformance,"
is
clearly
less
for
Czechoslovakia and
East
Germany,
and,
considering
available
wealth,
also for
Poland,
Hungary,
Romania
and
Bulgaria,
than it is for
the
U.S.S.R.
8/11/2019 communication in the warsaw pact states.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communication-in-the-warsaw-pact-statespdf 11/12
Recommended