- Email: [email protected]
Dominant powers and subordinate states: The United States in Latin America and the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe
JOURNAL
JAN
OF COMPARATIVE
ECONOMICS
12,626-628
(1988)
TREKA, Ed.,DominantPowersandSubordinateStates:TheUnitedStates in Latin Americaand theSovietUnionin EasternEurope.Durham: Duke
University Press, 1986. 504 pp., index, $57.50. “No one would challenge the possibility of descriptively comparing hegemons and their interaction with their spheres of influence,” writes Gabriel Almond in his contribution to Jan Triska’s edited volume, Dominant Powers
andSubordinateStates:The UnitedStatesin Latin America and the Soviet Union in EasternEurope.Yet, Almond continues, “the comparative analysis runs into trouble when it moves into the explanatory mode. . . .” Almond’s observations on the state of the art are only partly applicable to the ambitious and extensive work undertaken by Triska and his associates. Certainly, as Almond implies and as both Triska and Jetfrey Hughes note explicitly in their introductory essays, systematic comparison of the two superpowers within their respective spheres of influence is not only possible, but long overdue. In this sense, the volume is a welcome and timely addition to the literature. Moreover, the essays within it are each thoughtful, high quality pieces which speak to each other to a degree unusual in a volume with so many (18) contributors coming from such diverse intellectual backgrounds. Nevertheless, when one finally puts down the volume, it is with the odd feeling that, 470 pages of text later, one ought to have learned more from it. Part of the problem seems to be that the contributions are almost too well integrated with each other. Thus, although each essay can stand on its own intellectually, when taken together, they tend to overlap with and repeat each other a great deal. Part of the problem, perhaps inherent in what is necessarily and admittedly an exploratory effort, is that with only a few exceptions (such as the Marer-Poznanski piece comparing trade relations within the two blocs and perhaps Robert Packenham’s article attempting to show with the use of dependency theory that a “bi-pealliance of Cuban and Soviet elites is systematically dominating and exploiting the Cuban people for its own ends”) little new research seems to be contained in the contributions to the volume. In effect, it summarizes what is known about Soviet-East European relations, what is known about U.S.-Latin American relations, and puts the two together. As a result, one derives a relatively predictable inventory of similarities and differences between the two regional blocs together with a rather orthodox explanation for them. As one might guess, power relations between dominant 0147-5967188 $3.00 Copyright Q 1988 by Academic Press, Inc. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
626
BOOK
REVIEWS
621
and subordinate states together with bipolar competition between the two superpowers for international influence explain similarities in the two spheres of influence; differences, to quote Triska’s conclusion, “stem from the unique attributes of the two dominant powers-the nature of their respective political institutions, ideologies, and historical experiences-as well as from their spheres of influence, their geopolitical and geostrategic locations, their levels of development relative to the dominant power, their cultural backgrounds and sense of community, the relative value of the area to the dominant power, and other factors.” None of this is very surprising, and one occasionally finds oneself wishing that the “comparative method” had run into a little more trouble, perhaps by following a more unconventional “explanatory mode.” Although it is beyond the scope of this review to comment on every contribution to the volume, several were particularly noteworthy and stood out even against a background that is, as noted earlier, of generally high quality. David Abemethy’s article turns out to be far more interesting than its rather nondescript title, “Dominant-Subordinate Relationships: How Shall We Define Them? How Do We Compare Them?,” would suggest. In it, he points to six features of Europe’s relationship with its colonies in the 19th century that are absent from both United States relations with Latin America and Soviet relations with Eastern Europe and proceeds to draw a number of nonobvious implications from each. For example, starting from the simple observation that Europe was separated from its colonies by large bodies of water whereas both the United States and the Soviet Union were connected to their spheres of influence by land, Abemethy points to the different values colonies and subordinate states have for the dominant powers. That is, colonies were not particularly useful for the direct defense of the metropole, but tended to be valued on other, especially economic, grounds. In contrast, thanks to their location, the “value” of Latin America or Eastern Europe “is defined less in economic than in military terms, and the principal military issue is defense of the dominant power itself.” Likewise, whereas colonies were distant from the mother country and close to each other, the reverse is true for Latin America and Eastern Europe. Consequently, Abemethy reasons, the risks of war among the major powers are somewhat reduced, in the sense that “a crisis in one dominant state’s sphere of influence can be resolved without spreading to the other state’s sphere.” James Kurth’s “Economic Change and State Development” is another thought-provoking piece. In it, Kurth argues that the methods states employ to dominant foreign territories depend heavily on the stages of economic development characterizing, respectively, the would-be dominant power and its erstwhile dependencies. While one may quarrel with Kurth’s blanket categorizations (without clear indicators!) of “stages” of development and the somewhat deterministic relation he draws between them and policy choices,
628
BOOK REVIEWS
the essay stands out as a highly original and extremely interesting attempt to supply us with a broadly applicable politicoeconomic theory of domination. Condolezza Rice’s article, “The Military as an Instrument of Influence and Control,” is rich in descriptive comparisons, although somewhat weaker in explaining some very interesting and counter-intuitive findings. For example, she points out that although “Eastern Europe plays a far more central role in military strategy of the Soviet Union than Latin America does for the United States,” it is the latter power which offers its allies military aid, while weapons within the Warsaw Pact are normally purchased with the Soviet Union the source of about 75% of the supply. For economists, Paul Marer and Kazimierz Poznanski (“Costs of Domination, Benefits of Subordination”) supply an interesting recalculation of the well-known Marrese-Vanous “implicit subsidies” the Soviet Union is said to have paid Eastern Europe between 1970-84. They do so by comparing the export-purchasing power of Soviet fuel in Eastern Europe with that of fuel imported into western countries. Unfortunately, the thrust of this analysis tends to get lost in an article devoted to a broad, and often tendentious, comparison of both U.S.-Latin American and Soviet-East European economic relations. For example, this reader was quite surprised to read that “due to its democratic political regime, the United States finds it more difficult to impose economic sanctions than do the nonelected Soviet leaders.” In fact, economic sanctions have by and large not had their expected political consequences in either case, but the American government has resorted to them far more frequently in the postwar period. Last but not least, in “The Future of Dominant-Subordinate Systems,” Michael Handel presents a cogent summary of postwar changes in the domestic and international policymaking environment surrounding the superpowers that have made indirect control a “cheaper” and more effective strategy than direct dominance would be in the modem age. All in all, then, Dominant Powers and Subordinate States is a solid and worthwhile contribution on an important topic. Yet precisely because it is such a unique and in many ways pathbreaking effort, one wishes it had been a bit more unconventional in its approach. ELLENCOMISSO Department of Political Science University of California, San Diego, CA
JAN
OF COMPARATIVE
ECONOMICS
12,626-628
(1988)
TREKA, Ed.,DominantPowersandSubordinateStates:TheUnitedStates in Latin Americaand theSovietUnionin EasternEurope.Durham: Duke
University Press, 1986. 504 pp., index, $57.50. “No one would challenge the possibility of descriptively comparing hegemons and their interaction with their spheres of influence,” writes Gabriel Almond in his contribution to Jan Triska’s edited volume, Dominant Powers
andSubordinateStates:The UnitedStatesin Latin America and the Soviet Union in EasternEurope.Yet, Almond continues, “the comparative analysis runs into trouble when it moves into the explanatory mode. . . .” Almond’s observations on the state of the art are only partly applicable to the ambitious and extensive work undertaken by Triska and his associates. Certainly, as Almond implies and as both Triska and Jetfrey Hughes note explicitly in their introductory essays, systematic comparison of the two superpowers within their respective spheres of influence is not only possible, but long overdue. In this sense, the volume is a welcome and timely addition to the literature. Moreover, the essays within it are each thoughtful, high quality pieces which speak to each other to a degree unusual in a volume with so many (18) contributors coming from such diverse intellectual backgrounds. Nevertheless, when one finally puts down the volume, it is with the odd feeling that, 470 pages of text later, one ought to have learned more from it. Part of the problem seems to be that the contributions are almost too well integrated with each other. Thus, although each essay can stand on its own intellectually, when taken together, they tend to overlap with and repeat each other a great deal. Part of the problem, perhaps inherent in what is necessarily and admittedly an exploratory effort, is that with only a few exceptions (such as the Marer-Poznanski piece comparing trade relations within the two blocs and perhaps Robert Packenham’s article attempting to show with the use of dependency theory that a “bi-pealliance of Cuban and Soviet elites is systematically dominating and exploiting the Cuban people for its own ends”) little new research seems to be contained in the contributions to the volume. In effect, it summarizes what is known about Soviet-East European relations, what is known about U.S.-Latin American relations, and puts the two together. As a result, one derives a relatively predictable inventory of similarities and differences between the two regional blocs together with a rather orthodox explanation for them. As one might guess, power relations between dominant 0147-5967188 $3.00 Copyright Q 1988 by Academic Press, Inc. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
626
BOOK
REVIEWS
621
and subordinate states together with bipolar competition between the two superpowers for international influence explain similarities in the two spheres of influence; differences, to quote Triska’s conclusion, “stem from the unique attributes of the two dominant powers-the nature of their respective political institutions, ideologies, and historical experiences-as well as from their spheres of influence, their geopolitical and geostrategic locations, their levels of development relative to the dominant power, their cultural backgrounds and sense of community, the relative value of the area to the dominant power, and other factors.” None of this is very surprising, and one occasionally finds oneself wishing that the “comparative method” had run into a little more trouble, perhaps by following a more unconventional “explanatory mode.” Although it is beyond the scope of this review to comment on every contribution to the volume, several were particularly noteworthy and stood out even against a background that is, as noted earlier, of generally high quality. David Abemethy’s article turns out to be far more interesting than its rather nondescript title, “Dominant-Subordinate Relationships: How Shall We Define Them? How Do We Compare Them?,” would suggest. In it, he points to six features of Europe’s relationship with its colonies in the 19th century that are absent from both United States relations with Latin America and Soviet relations with Eastern Europe and proceeds to draw a number of nonobvious implications from each. For example, starting from the simple observation that Europe was separated from its colonies by large bodies of water whereas both the United States and the Soviet Union were connected to their spheres of influence by land, Abemethy points to the different values colonies and subordinate states have for the dominant powers. That is, colonies were not particularly useful for the direct defense of the metropole, but tended to be valued on other, especially economic, grounds. In contrast, thanks to their location, the “value” of Latin America or Eastern Europe “is defined less in economic than in military terms, and the principal military issue is defense of the dominant power itself.” Likewise, whereas colonies were distant from the mother country and close to each other, the reverse is true for Latin America and Eastern Europe. Consequently, Abemethy reasons, the risks of war among the major powers are somewhat reduced, in the sense that “a crisis in one dominant state’s sphere of influence can be resolved without spreading to the other state’s sphere.” James Kurth’s “Economic Change and State Development” is another thought-provoking piece. In it, Kurth argues that the methods states employ to dominant foreign territories depend heavily on the stages of economic development characterizing, respectively, the would-be dominant power and its erstwhile dependencies. While one may quarrel with Kurth’s blanket categorizations (without clear indicators!) of “stages” of development and the somewhat deterministic relation he draws between them and policy choices,
628
BOOK REVIEWS
the essay stands out as a highly original and extremely interesting attempt to supply us with a broadly applicable politicoeconomic theory of domination. Condolezza Rice’s article, “The Military as an Instrument of Influence and Control,” is rich in descriptive comparisons, although somewhat weaker in explaining some very interesting and counter-intuitive findings. For example, she points out that although “Eastern Europe plays a far more central role in military strategy of the Soviet Union than Latin America does for the United States,” it is the latter power which offers its allies military aid, while weapons within the Warsaw Pact are normally purchased with the Soviet Union the source of about 75% of the supply. For economists, Paul Marer and Kazimierz Poznanski (“Costs of Domination, Benefits of Subordination”) supply an interesting recalculation of the well-known Marrese-Vanous “implicit subsidies” the Soviet Union is said to have paid Eastern Europe between 1970-84. They do so by comparing the export-purchasing power of Soviet fuel in Eastern Europe with that of fuel imported into western countries. Unfortunately, the thrust of this analysis tends to get lost in an article devoted to a broad, and often tendentious, comparison of both U.S.-Latin American and Soviet-East European economic relations. For example, this reader was quite surprised to read that “due to its democratic political regime, the United States finds it more difficult to impose economic sanctions than do the nonelected Soviet leaders.” In fact, economic sanctions have by and large not had their expected political consequences in either case, but the American government has resorted to them far more frequently in the postwar period. Last but not least, in “The Future of Dominant-Subordinate Systems,” Michael Handel presents a cogent summary of postwar changes in the domestic and international policymaking environment surrounding the superpowers that have made indirect control a “cheaper” and more effective strategy than direct dominance would be in the modem age. All in all, then, Dominant Powers and Subordinate States is a solid and worthwhile contribution on an important topic. Yet precisely because it is such a unique and in many ways pathbreaking effort, one wishes it had been a bit more unconventional in its approach. ELLENCOMISSO Department of Political Science University of California, San Diego, CA