Abstract
Until relatively recently it was not generally believed that the communist states possessed anything that could properly be called a ‘policy process’. The ruling communist parties, it was believed, simply issued decisions which were the handed over for implementation to the various subordinate bureaucracies — governmental, social and cultural, and economic. Party decisions were binding in all matters of this kind, and they were held to reflect the influence of ideology or of power politics within the leadership, but not, as in a Western country, of individuals or groups outside the leadership or of the institutions responsible for implementing the policies on which the leadership had decided. These institutions, after all, were staffed by communist party members, usually on the advice of the relevant party committee, and there was no shortage of sanctions, from the secret police to the threat of loss of employment, to make sure that they complied with the party’s directives. Policies, moreover, were believed to be relatively simple, the overriding priority being the highest possible rate of economic growth and more particularly of heavy industry. This was clearly close to the view of communist politics held by those who adhered to the totalitarian approach, with its emphasis on party dominance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Further reading
A considerable literature is now available on groups and the policy-making process in the communist states. The pioneering contributions are those of Gordon Skilling; see particularly Skilling (1966) and (1973). A symposium on the utility of the group approach, ‘Pluralism in communist societies: is the emperor naked?’, appeared in Studies in Comparative Com-munism, vol. 12 (1979). Two sceptical contributions are Janos (1970) and Odom (1976); see also Skilling’s reflections upon the debate (1983) and the discussions on pluralism and the role of groups in policy-making in Solomon (1983). The opportunities for political participation by the mass public are considered on a comparative basis in Schulz and Adams (1981); Holmes (1981b) considers the policy process in communist states with particular reference to industrial policy in the USSR and the GDR.
On the USSR more specifically the most helpful single work, which has considerable relevance for the other communist states, is Skilling and Griffiths (1971). Also useful are Juviler and Morton (1967), for the Khrushchev period, and Smith (1980), for the Brezhnev period. On the development of the Soviet economy see Ellman (1979), Nove (1986) and Gregory and Stuart (1986). On the politics of economic reform, see the chapters on the apparatchiki, industrial managers and economists in Skilling and Griffiths (1971); see also Lewin (1975), Hough (1969), Azrael (1966), Andrle (1976) and Rutland (1985). On the role of the military, see particularly Colton (1979), Jones (1986) and the International Institute of Strategic Studies’ Military Balance (London, annual). On the politics of labour, see Lane and O’Dell (1978), Ruble (1981), and Schapiro and Godson (1984). The role of letters from the mass public is considered in White (1983b), and ‘covert political participation’ is considered in a stimulating article by DiFranceisco and Gitelman (1985).
On the politics of agriculture in Eastern Europe many of the books listed in previous chapters contain short discussions that are relevant, although no one volume is addressed to an analysis of how the policies concerned were formulated. Specific works on individual countries include chapters on Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in Karcz (1967), and there are chapters on Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the GDR in Laird (1977). Lewis (1973) considers the social role of the peasantry in Poland, and Lewis (1979) provides a more general survey of East European peasant politics. Held (1980) deals with the transformation of Hungarian agriculture up to 1975; Narkiewicz (1976) considers the peasantry and Polish populist politics up to 1970. Detailed village-based studies include Salzman and Scheufler (1974) on Czechoslovakia, Halpern and Halpern (1982) on Serbia, Hann (1985) on Poland, and Hann (1980) on Hungary. Swain (1985) deals with the efficiency of collective-farm agriculture in Hungary. Finally, a two-volume survey edited by Ivan Volgyes (1979) contains much information on rural sociology and agricultural policy outcomes.
In addition to the works cited in previous chapters, the policy-making process in China is considered in Oksenberg (1982), which deals with economic policy-making, and Bar-nett (1985), which deals with the making of foreign policy. On educational policy-making more specifically, see Price (1975), which sets out the basic framework of the educational system. Mao’s ideas on education are considered in detail in Hawkins (1974). A specialised study which deals with many of the issues mentioned in this section is Taylor (1981), a study of the politics of university enrolment. The origins of the ‘revolution in education’ are discussed in Gardner (1971). More recent developments are surveyed in Hayhoe (1984); and currents of opinion among Chinese youth in the 1980s are considered in Rosen (1985).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1987 Stephen White, John Gardner and George Schöpflin
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
White, S., Gardner, J., Schöpflin, G. (1987). The Policy Process. In: Communist Political Systems. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-18741-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-18741-6_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-44108-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-18741-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)