The neoliberal economic and political models used by Western analysts to explain Russia's recent transformation ignore the interrelationship between the economy and politics. Russia is in the midst of a social revolution. Economic reform without political reform-as attempted by Yegor Gaidar-will fail. Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin's policies have met with some success because of accompanying political changes. This interrelated pattern of reform must continue.

In January 1992 Russia's first postcommunist government launched a comprehensive economic program to transform the Soviet command system into a market economy. Privatization was and remains the heart of this plan. The original program had a clearly defined objective, namely, to create profit-seeking corporations, privately owned by outside shareholders and not dependent on government subsidies for their survival. As of two years later, however, this objective had not been achieved. By the summer of 1993 insiders had acquired majority shares in two-thirds of Russia's privatized and privatizing firms, state subsidies accounted for 22% of Russia's GNP, little if any restructuring (bankruptcies, downsizing, unbundling) had taken place within enterprises, and few market institutions had been created. During the first two years of its existence, the Russian state simply did not manage to dismantle old Soviet institutional arrangements governing property rights of large enterprises. Specifically, the state failed to implement its original vision of privatization, enforce hard budget constraints for large enterprises, or stimulate the creation of market-supporting institutions such as a legal code regarding private property and corporate governance or a social safety net. In sum, the allocation of property rights according to market principles had not yet even begun to occur.

After an introduction by the volume editors, the book offers a look at the complex relationship between nationalism and democracy. The authors then examine the special challenges facing democracy in ethnically divided societies.

Starting in the winter of 1991, the project on Industrial Restructuring and the Political

Economy in Russia at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Arms

Control (CISAC) has provided technical assistance to Mashinostroenie, a large aerospace enterprise engaged in research, design, experimental production, and systems integration of a broad variety of space vehicles and equipment. Officially known as NPO Mashinostroenie, the firm is one of the most prestigious enterprises in the Russian military-industrial complex, with world-class, state-of-the-art technology. The enterprise brings together many of the country's best scientists and engineers, along with management systems to execute their ideas.

Since 1992, the CISAC Defense Conversion Project has been working with the Moscowbased Impuls. Impuls is a medium-sized firm with expertise in control microdevices for the military, such as control heads for guided bombs and detection equipment for various weapon systems. Currently Impuls is working aggressively to break into several commercial high-technology markets.

Given the privileged position of the military-industrial complex in the old Soviet order, many have asserted that the military-industrial complex would be most resistant to radical economic reform. As the coddled employees of the Soviet state, we should expect directors and workers of military enterprises as well as their ministerial superiors to fear liberalized prices, commercial markets, and privatization.

Presidential Decree No. 1400 issued September 23, 1993, fundamentally altered the course of Russia's political transition. Debilitating polarization during the two years before between President Boris Yeltsin's government and parliament had resulted in the virtual collapse of the Russian state. As Yeltsin explained when he announced the decree: "All political institutions and politicians have been involved in a futile and senseless struggle aimed at destruction. A direct effect of this is the loss of authority of state power as a whole..."

International regimes are systems of norms and rules agreed upon by states to govern their behaviour in specific political contexts or `issue areas' whether this be trade policy, proliferation of nuclear weapons, or the control of transboundary air pollution in some region of the world.

In a competitive international society increasingly faced with issues that transcend the physical and political limits of individual states they are an outstanding example of international governance, and central to any analysis of world politics.

In this volume, experts from the USA and Europe join forces for the first time for a rigorous exploration of the concept of international regimes. They discuss the fundamental conceptual and theoretical problems of regime analysis, study how regimes are formed and how they change, examine approaches to explaining the success or failure of attempts to form regimes, and look at the consequences of regimes for international relations.

"Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy Revisited is must reading for anyone who considers him- or herself a political economist, and it should also appeal to those probing the uncertainties of contemporary democratization."--Philippe C. Schmitter, Stanford University.

"An excellent collection of essays -- thoughtful, provocative, illuminating. They make a book well worth reading." -- Irving Kristol, American Enterprise Institute

In response to scores of requests, this textbook edition of Political Culture and Democracy in Developing Countries has been abridged to convey the core arguments of the book in a format appropriate for classroom use.

The authors explore the complex and reciprocal interactions between a society's dominant beliefs, values, and attitudes about politics and the nature of its political system. Among the issues they address are: to what extent is political culture cause or effect; how can its causal importance for democracy be weighed; what are the most important elements of a democratic political culture; and how are these elements developed over time?

Contents