Property, Power, and Revolution in Russia, 1917-2017: Institutional Transformations in the ‘Longue Durée’

Carsten Herrmann-Pillath
{"title":"Property, Power, and Revolution in Russia, 1917-2017: Institutional Transformations in the ‘Longue Durée’","authors":"Carsten Herrmann-Pillath","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2946859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper unfolds an analytical perspective on the evolution of property rights in Russia from Tsarist times until today, combining the theory on violence and institutions suggested by North, Wallis and Weingast with Foucault’s analysis of power in society, especially his notions of biopolitics and governmentality. I argue that a historical constant is the subordination of property rights to the biopolitics of catch-up modernization, independent from their specific form, private or public (state-owned). This is embedded in the persistence of informal and ideational structures of Empire, manifest in peculiar forms of governmentality. The bridging concept between these different phenomena is that of ‘state capacity’. State ownership under socialism and Stalinism emerged as the default solution to the challenge of weak state capacity in the Empire. In Tsarist times, the transfer of absolute private property rights from the West had resulted in a developmental stalemate. However, after the biopolitics of the war economy had shifted to cold war rivalry, socialist planning was a mere formal shell in which the informal structures of governmentality in the Soviet Empire evolved. These provided the setting in which the privatization of the 1990s resulted in the emergence of an oligarchic ownership regime, eventually morphing into Putinist state capitalism which can be interpreted as a ‘neo-patrimonial regime’. These developments can be explained by the role of rent distribution in stabilizing intra-elite conflicts. With Imperial structures still prevalent, informal governmentality remains an important means to make up for weak state capacity, thus also weakening private property rights in their role of drawing boundaries between the political and the economic system.","PeriodicalId":284892,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Constitutions eJournal","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Institutions: Constitutions eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2946859","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper unfolds an analytical perspective on the evolution of property rights in Russia from Tsarist times until today, combining the theory on violence and institutions suggested by North, Wallis and Weingast with Foucault’s analysis of power in society, especially his notions of biopolitics and governmentality. I argue that a historical constant is the subordination of property rights to the biopolitics of catch-up modernization, independent from their specific form, private or public (state-owned). This is embedded in the persistence of informal and ideational structures of Empire, manifest in peculiar forms of governmentality. The bridging concept between these different phenomena is that of ‘state capacity’. State ownership under socialism and Stalinism emerged as the default solution to the challenge of weak state capacity in the Empire. In Tsarist times, the transfer of absolute private property rights from the West had resulted in a developmental stalemate. However, after the biopolitics of the war economy had shifted to cold war rivalry, socialist planning was a mere formal shell in which the informal structures of governmentality in the Soviet Empire evolved. These provided the setting in which the privatization of the 1990s resulted in the emergence of an oligarchic ownership regime, eventually morphing into Putinist state capitalism which can be interpreted as a ‘neo-patrimonial regime’. These developments can be explained by the role of rent distribution in stabilizing intra-elite conflicts. With Imperial structures still prevalent, informal governmentality remains an important means to make up for weak state capacity, thus also weakening private property rights in their role of drawing boundaries between the political and the economic system.
1917-2017年俄国的财产、权力与革命:《Longue dur》中的制度变迁
本文结合诺斯、沃利斯和温加斯特提出的暴力和制度理论,结合福柯对社会权力的分析,特别是他的生命政治和治理观念,展开了从沙皇时代到今天的俄罗斯产权演变的分析视角。我认为,一个历史常数是产权从属于追赶现代化的生命政治,独立于它们的具体形式,私人或公共(国有)。这是嵌入在帝国的非正式和观念结构的持久性,表现在特殊形式的治理。在这些不同现象之间架起桥梁的概念是“国家能力”。社会主义和斯大林主义下的国家所有制成为应对帝国国家能力薄弱挑战的默认解决方案。在沙皇时代,西方绝对私有产权的转移导致了发展的僵局。然而,在战争经济的生命政治转向冷战竞争之后,社会主义计划仅仅是一个正式的外壳,在这个外壳中,苏联帝国的非正式治理结构得以演变。这些为20世纪90年代的私有化提供了背景,导致寡头所有制制度的出现,最终演变为普京主义的国家资本主义,可以被解释为“新世袭政权”。这些发展可以用租金分配在稳定精英内部冲突中的作用来解释。由于帝国结构仍然普遍存在,非正式治理仍然是弥补国家能力薄弱的重要手段,因此也削弱了私有产权在政治和经济制度之间划定界限的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信