Year: 2008
Type: article
Abstract: I would like to begin by thanking Sean Hanley for his perceptive and stimulating reading of these books. For me, it is still surprising that two books that were conceived, researched, and written independently could speak so directly to each other in so many respects. There are divergences and differences of opinion, naturally, but as Hanley’s review skilfully shows, even the seeming disconnects between accounts may in many cases actually highlight cross-cutting dynamics in the complex and sprawling process of state-building. Perhaps, however, the dialogue between these books is not as surprising as it fi rst appears. Theorising about the development of the state was largely (and inexplicably) a neglected aspect of the monumental political and economic changes after the fall of communism. Analyses of the post-communist state were, for the most part, applied in nature, not comparative in a theory-building sense. In the past few years this has changed, with several new studies appearing besides the ones reviewed here [Ganev 2007; Kopecký 2007; Gehlbach 2008]. I expect the debates to continue and to deepen – which is for the good. This is how the fi eld moves forward. Hanley makes many trenchant and constructive observations, drawing connections that push both works in new research directions. Rather than focus point by point on Hanley’s remarks, however, I would prefer to address my response to a few broad themes that span both books.
Source: Czech Sociological Review
Author: Conor O'Dwyer
Institution: University of Florida
Language: English
Subfield: Sociology and Political Science
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W2235545507