Learning from the west: Policy transfer and programmatic change in the communist successor parties of Eastern and Central Europe

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. The research presented in this collection is based upon work for a project on ‘Policy Transfer and Programmatic Change in East Central Europe’, funded by the Leverhulme Trust (project: F/00094/O).

2. This definition has been used by John T. Ishiyama in his extensive research on communist successor parties: see J.T. Ishiyama, ‘Strange Bedfellows: Explaining Political Co-operation between Communist Successor Parties and Nationalists in Eastern Europe’, Nations and Nationalism, Vol.4, No.1 (1998), p.62. There is now a considerable literature on the electoral performance, political development and ideological self-understanding of communist successor parties; see in particular A.M. Grzymala-Busse, Redeeming the Communist Past: The Regeneration of Communist Parties in East Central Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); A. Bozóki and J.T. Ishiyama (eds.), The Communist Successor Parties of Central and Eastern Europe (Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe, 2002); J. Leftwich Curry and J. Barth Urban (eds.), The Left Transformed in Post-Communist Societies: The Cases of East-Central Europe, Russia and Ukraine (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003); J.T. Ishiyama (ed.), Communist Successor Parties in Post-Communist Politics (Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science, 1999).

3. The SED used this phrase as a rallying-call to the East German people in the immediate aftermath of the June 1953 uprising and it reappeared periodically until Mikhail Gorbachev's internal restructuring and his policy of openness disillusioned the aging and embattled SED leadership in the late 1980s. The East German SED subsequently proceeded to distance itself from the policies of the CPSU, even banning Soviet-inspired critical magazines and films, in an attempt to preserve its control over an East German society that was growing increasingly vocal in its dissatisfaction with state-socialism.

4. H. Timmerman, ‘The CPSU and the System of Communist Parties’, in Federal Institute for Soviet and International Studies, The Soviet Union, 1987–1989: Perestroika in Crisis? (London: Longman, 1990), pp.254–64; A. Grzymala-Busse, ‘The Organizational Strategies of Communist Parties in East Central Europe, 1945–1989’, East European Politics and Societies, Vol.15, No.3 (2001), pp.421–35. For a particular good analysis of the commitment of Romania's regime to the Leninist model of industrialization as well as its commitment to pursuing national modes of development free from Soviet interference, see C. Chen, ‘The Roots of Illiberal Nationalism in Romania: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis of the Leninist Legacy’, East European Politics and Societies, Vol.17, No.2 (2003), pp.166–201, esp. pp.180–81.

5. See K. Jasiewicz, ‘Polish Politics on the Eve of the 1993 Elections’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol.26, No.4 (1993), pp.387–411.

6. See H. Kitschelt, ‘The Formation of the Party System in East Central Europe’, Politics and Society, Vol.20, No.1 (1992), pp.7–50.

7. See G. Evans and S. Whitefield, ‘Economic Ideology and Political Success: Communist-Successor Parties in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary Compared’, Party Politics, Vol.1, No.4 (1995), pp.565–78; B. Racz, ‘The Socialist Left Opposition in Post-Communist Hungary’, Europe–Asia Studies, Vol.45, No.4 (1993), pp.647–70.

8. For detailed analysis on the organizational reforms undertaken by CSPs, see J.T. Ishiyama, ‘The Communist Successor Parties and Party Organizational Development in Post-Communist Politics’, Political Research Quarterly, Vol.51, No.1 (1999), pp.87–112.

9. D.F. Ziblatt, ‘The Adaptation of Ex-Communist Parties to Post-Communist East Central Europe: A Comparative Study of the Hungarian and East German Ex-Communist Parties’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol.31, No.2 (June 1998), pp.119–37; D. Hough and V. Handl, ‘The Post-Communist Left and the European Union: The Czech Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia and the German Party of Democratic Socialism’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol.37, No.4 (2004), pp.313–39 (esp. pp.324–5); J.T. Ishiyama and A. Bozóki, ‘Adaptation and Change: Characterizing the Survival Strategies of the Communist Successor Parties’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Vol.17, No.3 (2001), pp.32–51.

10. See J.T. Ishiyama, ‘The Sickle or the Rose? Previous Regime Types and the Evolution of the Ex-Communist Parties in Post-Communist Politics’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol.30, No.3 (1997), pp.299–330; H. Welsh, ‘Political Transition Processes in Central and Eastern Europe’, Comparative Politics, Vol.26, No.4 (1994), pp.379–91.

11. See J.T. Ishiyama, ‘Party Organisation and the Political Success of the Communist Successor Parties’, Social Science Quarterly, Vol.82, No.4 (2001), pp.846–7.

12. See H. Kitschelt, ‘Formation of Party Cleavages in Post-Communist Democracies: Theoretical Propositions’, Party Politics, Vol.1, No.4 (1995), pp.447–72.

13. See M. Waller, ‘Adaptation of the Former Communist Parties of East Central Europe’, Party Politics, Vol.1, No.4 (1995), pp.473–90; A. Mahr and J. Nagle, ‘Resurrection of the Successor Parties and Democratization in East-Central Europe’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol.28, No.4 (1995), pp.393–409; I. McAllister and S. White, ‘Democracy, Political Parties and Party Formation in Post-Communist Russia’, Party Politics, Vol.1, No.4 (1995), pp.49–72.

14. See H. Kitschelt, Z. Mansfeldova, R. Markowski and G. Toka, Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation and Inter-Party Co-operation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp.62, 63.

15. See A. Ágh, ‘The Dual Challenge and the Reform of the Hungarian Socialist Party’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol.35, No.3 (2002), pp.269–88; A. Szczerbiak, ‘Interests and Values: Polish Parties and their Electorates’, Europe–Asia Studies, Vol.51, No.8 (1999), pp.1401–32; V. Zubek, ‘The Phoenix out of the Ashes: The Rise to Power of Poland's Post-Communist SdRP’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol.28, No.3 (1995), pp.275–306; for analysis of the Slovenian ZSLD, see J. Bugajski, Political Parties of Eastern Europe (Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe, 2002), pp.652–3.

16. For discussions of each of these parties, see S. Hanley, ‘Towards Breakthrough or Breakdown? The Consolidation of the KSČM as a Neo-Communist Successor Party in the Czech Republic’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Vol.17, No.3 (2001), pp.96–116; G. Pop Eleches, ‘Separated at Birth or Separated by Birth? The Communist Successor Parties in Romania and Hungary’, East European Politics and Societies, Vol.13, No.1 (1999), pp.117–47; G. Pollo, ‘The State of Domestic Politics in Albania’, Südosteuropa Mitteilungen, Vol.42, Nos.5–6 (2002), pp.6–11; B. Kassayie, ‘The Evolution of Social Democracy in Reforming Bulgaria’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Vol.14, No.3 (1998), pp.109–25; S.D. Roper, ‘The Romanian Party System and the Catch-All Party Phenomenon’, East European Quarterly, Vol.28, No.4 (1994), pp.518–32.

17. See Ishiyama, ‘Strange Bedfellows’, p.63.

18. J.T. Ishiyama, ‘Communist Parties in Transition: Structures, Leaders and Processes of Democratization in Eastern Europe’, Comparative Politics, Vol.27, No.1 (1995), pp.147–66; Waller, ‘Adaptation of the Former Communist Parties of East Central Europe’.

19. A.M. Grzymala-Busse, ‘The Programmatic Turnaround of Communist Successor Parties in East Central Europe’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol.35, No.1 (2002), pp.51–66; Ishiyama, ‘Party Organisation and the Political Success of the Communist Successor Parties’; J.T. Ishiyama, ‘Candidate Recruitment, Party Organisation and the Communist Successor Parties’, Europe–Asia Studies, Vol.52, No.5 (2000), pp.875–96.

20. J. Bielasiak, ‘Substance and Process in the Development of Party Systems in East Central Europe’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol.30, No.1 (1997), pp.23–44; R. Markowski, ‘Political Parties and Ideological Spaces in East-Central Europe’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol.30, No.3 (1997), pp.221–54.

21. See the article by William E. Paterson and James Sloam, ‘Learning from the West: Policy Transfer and Political Parties’, in this collection, pp.37–51.

22. R. Rose, Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy: A Guide to Learning Across Time and Space (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1993).

23. P.M. Haas, ‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’, International Organization, Vol.46, No.1 (1992), pp.1–35.

24. D. Dolowitz and D. Marsh, ‘Who Learns What from Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature’, Political Studies, Vol.44, No.2 (1996), pp.343–57; D. Dolowitz and D. Marsh, ‘Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making’, Governance, Vol.13, No.1 (2000), pp.5–24.

25. See, for example, C. Bennett, ‘Understanding Ripple Effects: The Cross National Adoption of Policy Instruments for Bureaucratic Accountability’, Governance, Vol.10, No.3 (1997), pp.213–33; D. Stone, ‘Learning Lessons and Transferring Policy across Time, Space and Disciplines’, Politics, Vol.19, No.1 (1999), pp.51–9; M. Evans and J. Davies, ‘Understanding Policy Transfer: A Multi-level, Multi-disciplinary Perspective’, Public Administration, Vol.77, No.2 (1999), pp.361–86; W. Jacoby, Imitation and Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000); W. Jacoby, ‘Tutors and Pupils: International Organizations, Central European Elites, and Western Models’, Governance, Vol.14, No.2 (2001), pp.169–200; D. Dolowitz, ‘A Policy-Maker's Guide to Policy Transfer’, Political Quarterly, Vol.74, No.1 (2003), pp.100–108; W. Jacoby, The Enlargement of the European Union and NATO: Ordering from the Menu in Central Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

26. Stone, ‘Learning Lessons and Transferring Policy’, p.51.

27. For further attempts at doing this, see in particular Evans and Davies, ‘Understanding Policy Transfer’; Stone, ‘Learning Lessons and Transferring Policy’; Jacoby, The Enlargement of the European Union and NATO.

28. Rose, Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy, p.105.

29. Dolowitz and Marsh, ‘Who Learns What from Whom’.

30. Die Zeit, ‘Die halbe Wahrheit: Roland Koch will Sozialhilfe wie in Wisconsin. Doch die Politik der Amerikaner hat zwiespältige Folgen’, at <http://www.zeit.de/2001/33/Wirtschaft/200133_wisconsin.html>, retrieved on 27 Oct. 2004.

31. Jacoby, ‘Tutors and Pupils’, p.181.

32. Jacoby, Imitation and Politics.