Janine Wedel - Collision and Collusion - The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe

  46. Karl A. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power, New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1981, pp. 8, 15ff, 437, 447f.

  47. Antoni Kamiński, “Corruption under the Post-Communist Transformation,” Polish Sociological Review, vol. 2, no. II8, 1997, p. 104. Also see Antoni Z. Kamiński and Jan A. Stefanowicz, “Jak Buduje Się III Rzeczpospolita: Ułomne Reguly Gry,” Zeszyty Centrum im. Adama Smitha, November 1995.

  48. For details, see press reports (for example, Tomasz Swiackiewicz, “Głowa w Mur,” Polityka, September 7, 1991) and materials available from the Adam Smith Centre, Warsaw, Poland.

  49. A number of scholars have discussed pre-1989 Central European (often specifically Polish) opposition groups and activities under the rubric of “civil society.” See, for example, Andrew Arato, (“Civil Society Against the State: Poland 1980-81,” Telos no. 47, Spring 1981, pp. 23-47); Andrew Arato, (“Empire vs. Civil Society: Poland 1981-82.” Telos no. 50, Winter 1981-82, pp. 19-48); Michael H. Bernard, ( The Origins of Democratization in Poland. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1993); Václav Havel et al., ( The Power of the Powerless: Citizens Against the State in Central-Eastern Europe, ed. John Keane, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1985); Zbigniew A. Pelczynski (“Solidarity and ‘the Rebirth of Civil Society,’” in Civil Society and the State, ed. John Keane, London, United Kingdom: Verso, 1988, pp. 361-381); Jacques Rupnik (“Dissent in Poland, 1968-78: The End of Revisionism and the Rebirth of Civil Society,” Opposition in Eastern Europe, Rudolf L. Tokes, ed., Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, pp. 60-112); and Gordon H. Skilling ( Samizdat and an Independent Society in Central and Eastern Europe Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Macmillan, 1988); Janine R. Wedel, ed., The Unplanned Society: Poland During and After Communism, New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1992).

  50. Chris Hann, “Introduction: Political Society and Civil Anthropology,” Civil Society: Challenging Western Models, Chris Hann and Elizabeth Dunn, eds., London: Routledge, 1996, p. 7.

  51. See, for example, Arato, “Civil Society against the State,” pp. 23-47; Arato, “Empire vs. Civil Society,” pp. 19-48; Bernard, The Origins of Democratization in Poland; Havel, The Power of the Powerless; Pelczynski, “Solidarity and ‘the Rebirth of Civil Society,’” pp. 361-381; Rupnik, “Dissent in Poland,” pp. 60-112; Skilling, Samizdat and an Independent Society; and Janine R. Wedel, ed., The Unplanned Society: Poland During and After Communism (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1992).

  52. Stefan Nowak, “System Wartości Społeczenstwa Polskiego,” Studia Socjologiczne, vol. 4, no. 75, 1979, p. 155-174.

  53. For further analysis of Eastern European social organization, see Janine R. Wedel, introduction to The Unplanned Society: Poland During and After Communism, Janine R. Wedel, ed., New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1992, pp. 1-20.

  54. Richard Rose has observed that distrust is “a pervasive legacy of communist rule” (Richard Rose, “Rethinking Civil Society: Postcommunism and the Problem of Trust,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 5, no. 3, July 1994, pp. 18-30). See also “Getting Things Done in an Anti-Modern Society: Social Capital Networks in Russia ,” Studies in Public Policy No. 304, Glasgow, United Kingdom: Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, Studies in Public Policy Number 304, 1998.

  55. The networks that constitute the clique are “dense” in that members of a person’s network are in touch with one another independently of that person.

  56. Members are connected to each other for multiple purposes. Thus, the networks that constitute the clique are “multiplex” (rather than “single stranded”), in that members relate to each other in multiple capacities—political, economic, and social.

  57. Jeremy Boissevain, Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions (Oxford, United Kingdom: Basil Blackwell, 1974), p. 174.

  58. In Poland, organizers sought, and many received, government registration enabling them to operate openly—to raise money, hold public meetings, and publish independently of the state. In post-1989 Poland, laws on association were liberalized; a group was required only to register its name and statute with the court.

  59. For a description of these developments, see these works by Janine R. Wedel, “The Polish Revolution Turns Economic,” The Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 1989; “Solidarity in Decline,” The Christian Science Monitor, September 21, 1989; “The Grass-Roots Revolution in Poland,” The Christian Science Monitor, September 28, 1989; and “Polish Survivors of the Gulag,” The Christian Science Monitor, October 31, 1989. See also “Lech’s Labors Lost?” World Monitor, November 1989, pp. 44-54.

  60. As anthropologist Madeline Landau has pointed out, these tendencies derive from the classical social theories of the nineteenth century and from the structural-functionalist “integration” models of sociological theory employed by many fields. The models reinforce the tradition of dichotomous thought through their assumption that effective institutionalization of a new system requires a tight and standardized mode of integration.

  61. Polish sociologists Antoni Z. Kamiński and Joanna Kurczewska describe this phenomenon in “Main Actors of Transformation: The Nomadic Elites,” The General Outlines of Transformation, Eric Allardt and W. Wesołowski, eds., Warsaw, Poland: IFIS PAN Publishing, 1994.

  62. Grzegorz Ekiert and Jan Kubik, “(Post)totalitarian Legacies, Civil Society, and Democracy in Post-Communist Poland, 1989-1993,” Institute for European Studies Working Paper no. 97.4, pp. 20-21.

  63. See, for example, Jacek Kurczewski, “Shared Privacy,” The Unplanned Society: Poland During and After Communism, Janine R. Wedel, ed., New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1992, pp. 158-172.

  64. Solidarity-Opposition was composed of two somewhat connected groups: the longstanding Opposition—the close-knit circles of dissenting political discussion and activity mostly evolved between 1968 and 1979 (above all in intelligentsia circles)—and the great body of Solidarity activists who forced their way to the forefront of the workers’ resistance when Solidarity was born in 1980.

  65. United States General Accounting Office, Promoting Democracy: Progress Report on U.S. Democratic Development Assistance to Russia, Washington, D.C.: GAO, February 1996, p. 37.

  66. Chris Hann, “Introduction: Political Society and Civil Anthropology,” Civil Society: Challenging Western Models, Chris Hann and Elizabeth Dunn, eds., London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 1996, p. 8.

  67. Grzegorz Ekiert and Jan Kubik, “(Post)totalitarian Legacies, Civil Society, and Democracy in Post-Communist Poland, 1989-1993,” Institute for European Studies Working Paper no. 97.4, p. 24.

  68. NGOs became a focal point of the development community in the 1980s. According to Samuel Paul, “World Bank’s official cooperation with NGOs began in 1981, when the NGO–World Bank Committee was established.… In the mid-1980s, the practical importance of development country NGOs in some sectors was increasingly recognized within the Bank.” (Samuel Paul, “Nongovernmental Organizations and the World Bank: An Overview,” Nongovernmental Organizations and the World Bank: Cooperation for Development, Samuel Paul and Arturo Israel, eds., Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1991, p. 5.) See also Michael M. Cernea, “Nongovernmental Organizations and Local Development,” World Bank Discussion Papers, Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1988.