Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
On transition theories Part I
Modernisation & Path dependency http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/artikkelit/kolhoosi_ita-
siperiassa_29627.html#media=29630
Leo Granberg
http://blogs.helsinki.fi/lgranber/
Concepts and teories in transition studies
1.Modernisation
2.Path dependency
3.Moral Economy
4.Networks and Social
Capital
2
Misunderstanding
Transition: society is moving from one stage/system to another
Transformation: society is moving from one stage/system but we do not know the direction
Transition theories: theories trying to explain social changes taken place in post-socialist countries after system change.
A basic question in the countryside
Why large-scale farms survived in post-socialist countries?
Some alternative answers: They have monopoly position
Farm owners and workers make resistance on market economy (Barnes)
Farm workers’ rational action (Wegren)
Corporate farms and plot farmers have relationship of symbiotic inter-dependence (Alanen)
Alanen: Western advicers of Russian reform is partial and does not understand the structure of Russian agriculture nor principles of action there.
3
Starting points of transition studies
Modernisation
The future is already known
Capitalist market society
Political democracy
Path-Dependency
The past is known
Institutional frame from the past is limiting the posibilities
for change in the present. (Douglas North)
1. Modernisation theory
Domaining paradigm in anglo-american sociology,
explaining how traditional societies move to modern
societies.
Poliitical modernisation. Key institutions, political parties,
parlaments, democracy
Partial democracy
Cultural modernisation. Kulttuurinen modernisaatio.
Maallistuminen, ideas of nationalism
Economic modernisation. Increasing division of work,
development of technology and trade
No free markets, no market mechanism
Social modernisation. Literacy. urbanisation, traditional
authority decreases.
Authority of Party leaders
Dictionary of sociology 1984, by Abercromby, Hill, Tuirner.
4
“De-modernisation theory”
Something specific in the social formation of post-socialist rural society (Burawoy or Miller (2000/2003) Not capitalism, nor socialism, but a variant of feudalism
For Burawoy it is neo-feudalism, for Miller it is post-socialist mixed feudal economy
Criticism of liberalism and ”western” understanding of realities of the rural transition
Key features in agriculture 1990’s: General decommodification of economy (“demonetized
economy”, decommodification of labour and land)
growth of barter and subsistence forms of agriculture
Continuation of the mutual interdependency of large-scale production and private plot farming.
The combination of care and authority
…De-modernisation theory
In-kind payments dominate the relations between the
agricultural enterprises and workers
Farm managers reallocate collective farms resources to plots and
it leads also to the redistribution of labour inputs in favour of plots
These factors contribute to an even greater weakening of the
agricultural enterprises and, ultimately, to the decline of plots.
Weakening of traditional social links, lack of mutual trust
5
2. Idea of Path-dependency
Institutions are (in sociology) formed out of relatively permanent formal or informal rules, which control people’s behavior in one way or another. (marriage, market, gift) Such control can be based on formal, externally confirmed rules
(laws on serfdom) or
internalized informal rules and customs (home garden).
When society changes, it ‘takes’ moves in one direction.
The direction of moves in society is controlled by institutions, which may resist any change in the course of such moves. …
The taken moves will elicit further moves in the same direction. There are self-reinforcing mechanisms or positive feedbacks” (Kay 2003: 406).
General modernisation theory stress the attractive
power of the future
= example of leading capitalist market economies.
Path dependency.
differences between different post-socialist countries imply
that the future is not given.
The direction of a change is an effect of the present and the
past, rather than an end result (Róna-Tas 2002: 6).
This approach will turn our attention to institutions.
According to Douglas North (1990), the institutional framework
of the past limits current possibilities for institutional change
Path dependency
6
4 type of institutions (Douglas North 1990)
1. Legal rules
2. Organization forms
3. Enforcement
4. Behavioral norms.
Explanations for failure of reforms:
A. Shock therapy reforms went not far enough, especially: lack of
well-defined property rights (De Soto 2000 et al.)
B. Although formal institutions (laws and regulations) have
changed, informal institutions (behavioral norms) have not
changed to the same extent.
What institutions?
“institutions are human systems that constraint or direct the political and social interaction. Informal institutions consist of social norms, manners, habits and moral values, which constraint individuals and organizations in their effort to attain certain goals” (Raiser)
Relatively stabile rules (marriage, money, gift, private ownership)
Individuals act in one of two ways:
to maximize benefits
out of duty or an awareness of what one is ‘supposed’ or ‘expected’ to do
Because of norms, values, attitudes
7
Institutional aspects of Russian rural dvelopment
1. Patrimonialism and paternalist culture
And role of state: centre – periphery dominance
2. Symbiotic relation between large-scale and petty
production
3. Institutional lack in the countryside
4. Entrepreneural culture among women in Russia
Patrimonialism and paternalism
Max Weber on patrimonialism, as the form of traditional domination.
Patriarchal power is constrained by tradition. It develops administration and military force, as personal instruments of the master (Weber; here Maslowski 1996) 1. Patrimonial proper authority
2. Sultanism (authority by military force)
3. Estate-type domination
Weber’s concepts: pure types, ideal types, actual regime While pure types are static, ideal types include evolution aspect and
actual regimes may evolve towards one or another of pure types.
The emperor had direct, personal control
Patrimonialism prevented the development of rational capitalism in oriental societies
8
Paternalism
is the interference of a state or an individual with
another person, against their will, and justified by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm. (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy)
A) a system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or regulate conduct of those under its control in matters affecting them as individuals as well as in their relations to authority and to each other
B) a policy or practice based on or characteristic of paternalism (Encyclopædia Britannica)
Paternalist practices
Patrimonial features seem to maintain/return into Russia inside state.
Czar, (Cesar) or Tsar - General Secretary of Communist Party ˗ President
Stalinist regime is mentioned as an example of reversion aftor 1860’s steps to other direction, again to patrimonialism (Feher, Gill et al.; here Maslovski 300-1)
Patrimonial elements after Stalin: Nomenclatura =a closed , priviledged status group
Centralisation and bureaucratization
9
Paternalism exists in enterprises
Directors’ rights and obligations. Obligations to help in personal needs and to supply services
(holiday trips, medical treatment, sport clubs, heating).
Reasons for obligations are 1) tradition and 2) local administration is too weak to take care of communal services.
Personal needs: house renovation, machine leasing (tractors etc.) for workers, assisting in marketing of products.
Communal needs: Taking care of roads, heating systems, renovation of school, building sport facilities.
1990’s crises: local municipality had no resources to supply communal needs
State farms were in bankrupt.
Enterprices had no formal responsibility on local conditions
Role of state: centre – periphery dominance
An aspect of patrimonialist heritage is strong dominance
of centre in relation to peripheries.
Different dimentions of periphery
Economic
Cultural
Political
Ecological
10
Symbiotic relations
In Russia large-scale estates and private household plots were never opposites for each other. In Soviet time prosperity of state farm depended on food stuffs
produced in the household plots, which filled the lacks of food production in the large farm and gave much needed incomes for the workers of state farm.
Private households could benefit from the animals on large farm, loan machines, and utilize its market channels.
Leaving state farm and becoming independent family farm was difficult, because farmer would loose the economic support and social benefits from state farm.
2 exceptions those, who have high education and a lot of strategic
knowledge, who knew farming and markets. E.g. leading elite and experts of the farm
Persons who are marginalized from the local community.
Institutional lack
For farming the lack of
extension services in agriculture,
financial services
transportation etc
For enterprises the lack of
Financial, banking system,
Communication infrastructure
Authority’s services
11
Entrepreneurial culture among women in Russia
Soviet system prioritized industrial development over
social infrastructure.
Social services were only partially integrated.
Social issues had to be dealt with in the informal sphere.
Actors were left to look for entrepreneurial solutions… this meant
that women had to be entrepreneurial in the Soviet system.
The survival of norms provides the basis for emerging
rural entrepreneurship in post-socialist Russia! (Sätre
2012)
Transition theories
PART 2
Moral economy & Network theory
12
3. Moral economy
MORALITY
Describes actual codes of conduct, which society, or some group in society, defines. What is acceptable, what not (because it breaks against
’moral codes’ in society
In normative sense Refers to analyses of morality, its preconditions and
meanings
Classical concept of moral economy
E.P.Thompson (1971) ja James Scott (1976) used moral economy as ”concepts of certain group of people of relations between moral, societal practises and economy (Kauppinen, 95)
James Scott studied in premodern rural communities ‘(disguised) everyday forms of peasants resistance of marketization… weapons of the weak.
Motive of economic action was not profit but to minimize risks connected to economic well-being.
Karl Polanyi: concentrates on
1. Social and cultural embeddedness of economy.
2. How market tries to get rid of this combination
3. Social resistence connected to this process
13
The moral economy thesis
Reforms fail – both socialist and market – because
they are alien to peasant society and its rationality Resistance based on supposed moral contradiction between
life worlds of peasants and that of urban rationality and
morality
Comment: the post-socialist ”peasants” no peasants, but
proletarianized wage-workers
Resistance not based on rural values but normal wage worker
values of safe and quaranteed employment, social services
and possibilities for leisure
Moral Economy, criticism (Stephen Wegren) Adaptation instead of resistance. (Wegren 2003,XII, 3-5)
“For the past 35 years, a dominant view of peasant reactions and responses to reform stimuli has been framed by the moral economy model, that argues peasants are resistant to change… The moral economy approach sees values and behaviours as “embedded” in peasant societies, and these values are therefore reflected in the nature of village institutions.” (Wegren 2003,XII, 3-5)
Commercialization of agriculture attempts to disembed peasant values and behaviours, and to displace existing village institutions with market-based institutions, thereby facilitating peasant discontent and rebellious action.(ibid.)
Wegren: “Adaptation instead of resistance. Russian rural values are not inherently antimarket and antiprivatization.” During serfdom, rebelling against landlords and serfdom, wish for liberties in
line with arising market economy
Early 20th C. Adaptation to Stolypin’s reform and free peasant farming.
Silent resistance against collectivisation
14
New moral economy
Andrew Sayer (2000): ”In the moral economy the
question is about norms, dispositions and commitments,
which concern interrelations of individuals and
institutions, their mutual responsibilities and rights.
They concern questions regarding
what is just and
what constitutes good behaviour in relation to others, and
implies certain broader conceptions of the good or well-being.
It includes…ethics.
It also concerns relationships of care ignored by much
conventional moral philosophy
This wide concept of morality
”we create a space not only for assessing moral aspects
of economic practices,
economic influences on morality,
And also for the assessment of how economic
organisation affects human well-being.”
The economy should not be reduced to capitalist
economic processes, nor should the latter be reduced to
’the market’.
The ’economic’ is taken to cover all provisioning
activities,
formal, cash economy, but also
informal, particularly household economy.
15
To discuss
How have moral ideas formed rural life?
Is there a new model of moral economy under
development in Russia.
To discuss
How have moral ideas formed rural life?
Family farming as ideal form of production unit
CAP?
Nordic welfare state’s legislation, subsidies and
taxation
Is there a new model of moral economy under
development in Russia?
Low-priority social sector and charity by private persons&business
16
4. Social networks, and social capital
In a network Interaction is continuing
Some contacts now and then are not a network
Network must have more than 2 members
Dyad is not a network
If relation in network is to one direction only, it is not a
network
A
A B A B C D B C E
D
dyad Chain star
Trust as generalized reciprocity
A given present to someone is followed by a wish to
get a counter present from someone. Reciprocity.
To increase social capital, it is not enough that two
persons keep washing each others bags.
What is needed is a generalized reciprocity. When
trust reaches wider social sphere than one’s own
community, it becomes generalized trust, bringing
good social capital to the society.
17
Community vs. network
A community:
A Social network: a social structure between actors, mostly (but not only) individuals or
organizations
It indicates the ways in which they are connected with each other
No matter, where members live and how they are related to the person at the core of the net.
Voluntary basis
Community vs. network
A community: a set of people, with a particular social structure,
often in limited geographical area, based on kinship and neighbourhood ties
and having a sense of belonging.
The community has normative force over each individual member of the community.
A Social network: a social structure between actors, mostly (but not only) individuals or
organizations
It indicates the ways in which they are connected with each other
No matter, where members live and how they are related to the person at the core of the net.
Voluntary basis
18
Social capital and networks
Social network is An outcome of human action
A structure, established by people in a certain situation
It is a means and mechanism when individuals of groups of people when they try to reach some aims.
To change information, services, material things
To work well, in a network must be social trust
social capital is understood in connection of civic activity: membership or activity in voluntary organisations increase
interaction, create trust and social capital
The same may happen in other forms of social interaction (family and relatives, village community)
Social capital, definition
Social capital forms out of repeated social interactions between individuals and groups, which develop trust and social norms, and strengthen co-operation and reciprocity”
Social capital is a ’flexible’ concept:
For Bourdieu it is a resource which is used in competitions and conflicts – a source of power
For Putnam it is a form of cooperation, an indication of mutual trust and a resource for joint efforts for development
For Coleman it is not a general, but a situational resource.
19
Networks in the countryside
1. Vertical networks
2. Actor-network theory (ANT)
3. Horizontal networks
4. Social networks
1) Vertical networks Agro-food sector
The commodity chains approach
2) Actor-network theory (ANT) Includes nature and technological subjects in agro-food
networks.
'actors' not only conscious beings, they (actants) comprise all sorts of autonomous material objects: statements, inscriptions (anything written), technical artifacts,
concepts, organisations, professions, money etc.
(Latour: The Pasteurization of France. 1988)
20
3) Horizontal networks
Link rural spaces into other society
Local resources inherited from the past must be linked to
new economic forms in order to avoid that such resources
become stubborn obstacles
Murdoch 2000
Granovetter
4) Social networks
Social capital and trust
Bourdieau, Putnam et.al.
Socialist/post-socialist networks
Post-socialist countries require entrepreneurial culture, citizenship and discursive cultures (Sztompka 1997) Depends on informal institutions, not formal institutions such as
parties and business enterprises
The research question: the links between informal and formal institutions – the civil society
Barter trade Trade without money, based on agreements of mutual change.
General in socialism and 1990’s to survive in economic chaos
Blat Exchange, which includes change of public commodities and
services.
21
Blat, in Russia
Changing public commodities and services Personal relations help to get touch in public
resources, without following formal procedures (Ledeneva 1998: economy of favours)
Stealing from private persons or from state are different things
E.g. construction worker has a rector of a school as his neighbour, and his daughter wants to that school. He builds a dacha cottage to the rector and his daughter passes the cue to the school.
Blat after socialism
Ledeneva: After socialism blat –network still in function in many places, but its meaning decreased, because
Privatization decreased the meaning of state property
Markets started to function and money became more
important means of payment
Changes in security arrangements concerning:
Solidarity and mutual arrangements between industrial
plants
Social security system
Collectives in different organisations
22
. Why blat is still relevant?
Ledeneva looks only at business people
Ashwin (1998): people isolated, trying to cope somehow: growing vegetables, helping family and friends instead of working place.
Salmi, Lonkila: workplace relations have continuing importance.
Simon Clarke (2000): you need relations to get work. ”Only few groups in Russia are able to get work without personal network.”
Karelia: some sovkhozes continued as earlier after privatization Paternalist management culture
Acceptance of stealing
Role of networks in credit arrangements
Social capital and becoming private farmer?
(Allina-Pisano)
Private farming was started by those, who had exceptionally much or very little social capital.
If much enough, they could manage without informal help from local community, because They had knowledge, education and ability to find needed
contacts and help outside of the local community. (specialists and leaders of state farms)
If they were outsiders in local community, they had little to loose
Ethnic minorities
Imigrants from other regions
City dwellers
Single, middle aged persons
Persons with low status in collective farm.
23
Historical background:
New orientation in social sciences1990-
1. Cultural turn
2. From communities to networks
3. From agriculture to countryside
1. from agrarian nature to different natures
2. rural development research
Behind this reorientation are changes in the countryside
(see Oksa)
(1) Cultural turn
Priority in research towards culture
Transferring aspects and method from cultural
sciences (linguistics…) to social sciences
Understanding that world is increasingly cultural
(media; consumption culture)
Reality is understood as a social construction
(Berger & Luckman [1966])
It is not so relevant to know what is sustainability but to
know, what one means with the concept ‘sustainability’
It is not so relevant to knew what is a peasant but to know,
what one means with the word ‘peasant’
24
(2) From communities to networks
World is not developing according to linear models
or as a system but in networks
Local communities is not valid base, because
human is no more fixed to locality in the era of new
transport and communication technology.
(3) From agricultural to rural countryside (Jukka Oksa 2004)
Peasant countryside
Productivist countryside
Consuming
countryside Russia??
Role of rural areas
Land, food, places for living
Raw materials, labour reserve
Quality, experience, identity
The way of exclusion
Being left without land To be left outside of income distribution and reforms
Loosing connections and markets
Policy response
Land and settlement policies
Rural welfare state New rural policy, projects
Local way of action
Village, municipality Protests, interest lobbies, local services
New coalitions and networking, social innovations
25
On methods of change: Social innovations
The generation and implementation of new ideas about how people should organize interpersonal activities to meet one or more common goals. (Mumford 2002)
Programs, organizational models or definite set of principles. The programs are an integrated set of actions
Organizational models are a structure to mobilize people
Resources and the principles are general guidelines and values about how to serve a specific or common purpose.
Social innovations are mainly intangible; they are not products or goods, but production and integration of new knowledge in the form of programs, principles or organizational models.
Key issues of rural development
Key question: how rural development policy can stimulate economic growth in rural regions? How to mobilise the limited local resources,
to connect the place to growing wave of development?
How to recognise the rising wave?
To understand the possibilities for the future of the place
To recognise the local resources (and weaknesses)
To develop a proposal for action programme
To motivate local actors to co-operate and contribute in joint action programme
To start and maintain a shared process of learning
26
Three main approaches to rural development
1. exogenous,
2. endogenous and
3. neo-endogenous (mixed) development
How it is done
Exogenous: by importing new industries and technologies to rural areas and
offering floor-space, tax exemptions, by constructing infrastructure and by providing training for rural residents.
Endogenous: the resources and capacities existing in rural areas would solve
developmental problems, supported by regional growth centres; learning by imitating
Neo-endogenous: building a local institutional capacity able both to mobilize internal
resources and to cope with external forces acting on a region.
- Pooling of external resources, such as information, financing, markets, etc. with local resources, such as nature, identity, cultural values and skills by networking
Russian context is different to western!
Patrimonial society is not pooling with local, is it?
27
Sources Alanen, Ilkka et.al. (ed. 2001), Decolletivisation, Destruction and
Disillusionment. A community stydy in Southern Estonia
Alanen, Ilkka et.al. (ed. 2003), Mapping the Rural Problem in the Baltic Countryside. Transition Processes in the rural Areas of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Ashgate.
Davies, T.W. (1980), The Soviet Collective Farm 1929-1930. The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia 2. Macmillan Press. London.
Davies, R.W. and Stephen G. Wheatcroft (2004), The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933. The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia 5. Palgrave Macmillan. Hampshire.
Jungner, Sune (2002), Neuvostoliitto – Supervalta. Kirkinen, Heikki, Venäjän historia..
Kauppinen, Ilkka (2008), Tiedon omistaminen on valtaa. Globalisoituvan patenttijärjestelmän poliittinen moraalitalous ja globaali kapitalismi.
Lerman, Zvi & Natalya Shagaida (2005), Land Reform and Development of Agricultural Land Markets in Russia. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Discussion Paper No 2.05
Maslovsky, Mikhail (1996), Max Weber’s concept of patrimonialism and the Soviet system. Sociological Review. Blackwell Publishers.
Moon, David (1999), The Russian Peasantry 1600-1930. Longman. London.
Niitemaa, Vilho, Kalervo Hovi (1991), Baltian historia
Nikula, Jouko (2004) Path-dependency Theory and Post-socialist Transition. In Raimo Blom & Jouko Nikula (eds.) Plussat ja miinukset. Tampere
North, Douglas (1997) The Contribution of the New Institutional Economics to an Understanding of the Transition Problem. WIDER Annual Lectures 1, UNU/Wider. Helsinki
O’Brien, David J., Stephen K. Wegren & Valeri v. Patsiorkovski (2004) Contemporary Rural Responses to Reform from Above. The Russian Review 63(April): 256-276
Pöder, Helvi (2001), in Alanen
Rannikko, Pertti ja Eira Varis (1994), Rural Development in Russian Karelia and Eastern Finland. Heikki Eskelinen, Jukka Oksa, Daniel Austin (eds.), Russian Karelia in Search of a New Role.,Karelian Institute University of Joensuu..
Andrew Sayer: Moraalitalous ja poliittinen talous 2004. Kauppinen (toim. Moraalitalous. Vastapaino.
Soto, Hernando de (2000), The mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in th West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Random house.
Sätre, Ann-Mari (2012), Gendered Experiences in Entrepreneurship, family and social activities in Russia. In Helene Carlbäck et al. And They Lived Happily Ever After. CEU Press. Budapest-New York..
Vihavainen, Timo (2002), Vallankumouksesta toiseen maailmansotaan. Kirkinen, Heikki (toim.): Venäjän historia. Otava
Wegren, Stephen (2005), The moral economy reconsidered. Palgrave