The Subsidiarity Factor in the Processes of Political Transformation of Post-Soviet Countries (on the Example of Poland and Hungary) | South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences
The Subsidiarity Factor in the Processes of Political Transformation of Post-Soviet Countries (on the Example of Poland and Hungary)
Vol. 25 (2024) No. 3, Political Institutions and Processes
Vol. 25 (2024) No. 3
Political Institutions and Processes

The Subsidiarity Factor in the Processes of Political Transformation of Post-Soviet Countries (on the Example of Poland and Hungary)

Kalinichenko A.O.
Rostov branch of the Russian Customs Academy
PDF (Russian)
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-25-3-25-38
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-25-3-25-38

How to Cite Array

Kalinichenko A.O. (2024) The Subsidiarity Factor in the Processes of Political Transformation of Post-Soviet Countries (on the Example of Poland and Hungary). South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences, 25 (3), pp. 25-38. DOI: 10.31429/26190567-25-3-25-38 (In Russian)
Submission Date 2024-06-07
Accepted Date 2024-08-15
Published Date 2024-09-30

Copyright (c) 2024 Александра Олеговна Калиниченко

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The concept of subsidiarity is quite common in political and legal sciences and is widely used in the analysis of the institutional organization of liberal democracies, primarily the member countries of the European Union. However, this concept is practically not used when analyzing autocratic regimes, including modern “electoral autocracies.” This is explained by the doubts of researchers about the applicability of the concept of subsidiarity and the related concepts of decentralization, federalism, regional independence, local self-government, etc. in the analysis of power and management verticals created by autocratic regimes. This trend is observed even in studies devoted to the creation of new conceptual structures that are more adequate for the study of post-­Soviet countries due to the scientific discrediting of the terminological apparatus of Western political science. Accordingly, the purpose of the study was to identify the heuristic potential of the concept of subsidiarity when analyzing the institutional transformation of the countries of the post-­Soviet space, including post-communist autocracies. The theoretical and methodological basis of the study was the institutional approach, adjusted by the Hungarian political scientists B. Magyar and B. Madlovic in relation to the analysis of post-communist countries, as well as the case study method — typical post-­Soviet cases were chosen as cases for analysis: Poland, Hungary and Romania. Based on the analysis of the history of the post-­Soviet transformation of these three countries, a high heuristic potential was shown for studying the features of the institutional implementation of the principle of subsidiarity, which, along with the action of other institutions, becomes an important factor in shaping the trajectory of the country’s political development. On this basis, two types of subsidiarity were identified and described — “positive”, associated with the delegation of resources and authority to solve problems to the level at which they arise; and “negative”, which redistributes responsibility for decisions made to the lower levels of the power hierarchy, and in a crisis situation is forced, along with responsibility, to delegate corresponding powers and resources. The “negative” form of subsidiarity arises in a situation of crisis, but creates institutions that determine the future development of the country.

Keywords

subsidiarity, centralization, decentralization, political transformation, post-­Soviet space, democracy, authoritarianism

References

  1. Arendt, H. (1996). Istoki totalitarizma [The Origins of Totalitarianism]. Moskva: CentrKom.
  2. Arteev, S. P. (2022). COVID-subsidiarnost’ kak novyi politicheskiy fenomen [Covid Subsidiarity as a New Political Phenomenon]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta [Bulletin of MGIMO-University], 15(1), 111–125.
  3. Golosov, G. V., Lihtenshteyn, A. V. (2001). “Partii vlasti” i rossijskiy institucional’niy dizain: teoreticheskiy analiz [“Parties of Power” and Russian Institutional Design: A Theoretical Analysis]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya [Polis. Political Studies], 1, 6–14.
  4. Hantington, S. (2003). Tret’ya volna. Demokratizaciya v kontse XX veka [The Third Wave. Democratization at the End of the 20th Century]. Moskva: Rossiyskaya politicheskaya enciklopediya (ROSSPEN).
  5. Haritonova, O. G. (2013). Katolicizm i sovremennost’: demokratiya v social’noy doktrine Rimsko-­katologicheskoj cerkvi. [Catholicism and Modernity: Democracy in the Social Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church]. Politicheskaya nauka [Political Science], 2, 81–99.
  6. Irhin, I. V. (2021). Evropeyskaya model’ printsipa subsidiarnosti: publichno-pravovoe issledovanie [The European Model of the Subsidiarity Principle: Public Law Research]. Moskva: Prospekt.
  7. Kirdina, S. G. (2001). Institucional’nye matritsy i razvitie Rossii [Institutional Matrices and the Development of Russia]. Novosibirsk: IEiOPP SO RAN.
  8. Konstantinov, M. S. (2005). Elementy institucional’no-evolyucionnoi teorii v sotsial’noy filosofii M. K. Petrova [Elements of Institutional-Evolutionary Theory in the Social Philosophy of M. K. Petrov]. Rostov-na-Donu: Izdatel’stvo RGPU.
  9. Ledenyova, A. V. (2022). Predislovie. In B. Mad’yar, B. Madlovich, Postkommunisticheskie rezhimy. Kontseptual’naya struktura. Tom I [Post-communist Regimes. Conceptual Structure. Vol. I] (pp. 9–18). Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.
  10. Mad’yar, B. (2016). Anatomiya postkommunisticheskogo mafioznogo gosudarstva. Na primere Vengrii [Anatomy of the Post-Communist Mafia State. The Case of Hungary]. Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.
  11. Mad’yar, B., Madlovich, B. (2022). Postkommunisticheskie rezhimy. Kontseptual’naya struktura. Tom 1 [Post-communist Regimes. Conceptual Structure. Volume I]. Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.
  12. Mel’vil’, A. Yu. (2020). Vyiti iz “getto”: o vklade postsovetskih issledovaniy v sovremennuyu politicheskuyu nauku [Out of the “Ghetto”: On the Contribution of Post-Soviet Studies/Russian Studies to Contemporary Political Science]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya [Polis. Political Studies], 1, 22–43.
  13. North, D., Wallis, Dzh., Weingast, B. (2011). Nasilie i social’nye poryadki. Konceptual’nye ramki dlya interpretatsii pis’mennoy istorii chelovechestva [Violence and Social Orders. A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Written Recorded History]. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Instituta Gajdara.
  14. Panov, P. V. (2004). Teorii politicheskih institutov [Theories of Political Institutions]. Perm’: Pushka.
  15. Pimenova, O. I. (2015). Subsidiarnost’ kak printsip realizatsii sovmestnykh zakonodatel’nyh polnomochiy: opyt Evropeyskogo Soyuza i perspektivy ego adaptatsii v rossiskoy sisteme razgranicheniya polnomochiy po predmetam sovmestnogo vedeniya [Subsidiarity as a Principle of Implementation of Joint Legislative Powers: The Experience of the European Union and the Prospects for Its Adaptation in the Russian System of Delimitation of Powers on Subjects of Joint Jurisdiction]. Moskva: Novoe vremya.
  16. Pimenova, O. I. (2017). Subsidiarnost’ kak nravstvennaya, filosofskaya i pravovaya kategoriya [Subsidiarity as a Moral, Philosophical and Legal Category]. Aktual’nye problemy rossiyskogo prava [Actual Problems of Russian Law], 11(84), 37–47.
  17. Pimenova, O. I. (2019). Printsip subsidiarnosti v Evropejskom soyuze: peripetii primeneniya [Twists and Turns in Implementation of Subsidiarity in the European Union]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki [Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics], 4, 144–163.
  18. Vydrin, I. V., Emih, V. V. (2017). Printsip subsidiarnosti v organizatsii mestnogo samoupravleniya v Rossii i Pol’she [The Principle of Subsidiarity in the Organization of Local Self-Government in Russia and Poland]. Nauchnyj ezhegodnik Instituta filosofii i prava Ural’skogo otdeleniya RAN [Scientific Yearbook of the Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 17(2), P. 71–99.
  19. Wolman, H. et. al. (2008). Comparing Local Government Autonomy Across States. In Proceedings: Annual Conference on Taxation and Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the National Tax Association (pp. 377–383).
  20. Zelin’ski, Y. A. (2013). Mestnaya uchastvuyushchaya demokratiya v Pol’she [Local Participatory Democracy in Poland]. Yuridicheskaya nauka [Juridical Science], 4, 115–121.