The soviet study of soviet cities

The Journal of Politics

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 1970, Pages 675-695

  Frolic, B Michael ^a  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84972347641     PISSN: 00223816     EISSN: 14682508     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/2128836     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. ‘On the development of sociology in the USSR, see George Fischer, Science and Politics, the New Sociology in the Soviet Union (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1964).
2. It may be premature to speak of Soviet “political scientists” since there are no departments of political science in the USSR. Scholarship in, and teaching of government politics, and administration is carried out by university law faculties.
3. Recently, however, there have been persistent demands for recognition of political science as a separate discipline with an expanded focus. A Soviet law professor remarked to me that “the need to be more objective about problems of government and administration requires a commitment on our part to modern techniques of political analysis and the establishment of Soviet political science as a distinct discipline. One can expect this to occur in the future.”
4. B. Svetlichny, “The City Awaits a Reply,” Oktyabr, 10 (1966), translated in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, 18 (December 21, 1966), 11.
5. B. N. Gabrichidze, Gorodskiye Sovety deputatov trudyashchikhsya (City Soviets) (Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literature, 1968).
6. “‘Institut konkretnykh sotsialnykh issledovanii AN SSSR, Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya goroda (Urban Sociological Research) (Moscow: 1969).
7. Tsentralny nauchno issledovatelsky i proektny institut po gradostroitelstvu, Osnovy sovetskovo gradostroitebtva (Fundamentals of Soviet City Planning), I-III (Moscow: 1966, 1967); see also, by the same Institute: Nauchnye prognozy razvitiya i formirovaniya sovetskikh gorodov na baze sotsialnovo i nauchno- tekhnicheskovo progressa (Scientific Forecasts for the Development and Formation of Soviet Cities, Based Upon Social and Technical-Scientific Progress) (2 vols.; Moscow: 1968, 1969).
8. ~Cf. G. Polyak, Byudzhet Moskvy (Moscow's Budget) (Moscow: Ekonomika, 1968), and N. Shirkevich, Mestnye byudzhety SSSR (Local Budgets in the USSR) (Moscow: Finansy, 1965). For the debate on the maximum size of cities, see V. Perevedentsev, “Cities and Years,” Literaturnaya gazeta, 9 (February 1969), and S. Listengurt, “Perspektivnye izmeneniya gorodskovo naseleniya SSSR” (Future Changes in Soviet Urban Population), Izvestiya AN SSSR, seriya geograficheskaya, 1 (January 1969), 59-68
9. For an earlier appraisal of the neighborhood unit (mikrorayon) as a successful Soviet planning concept, see B. Michael Frolic, “The Soviet City,” Town Planning Review, 34 (January 1964), 285-306.
10. Perevedentsev, “Cities and Years 10Sotsiohgicheskiye issledovaniya goroda, 1, 5.
11. They are particularly interested in French, Scandinavian, British, and American writings on urban problems. Soviet scholars carefully observe new developments in Poland, since the more adventuresome Poles usually adopt Western techniques and ideas in advance of their Soviet counterparts, who then decide upon their utility in the Soviet context. 17Frolic, “Soviet City,” 287 ff.
12. S.A.V. Baranov, “Sotsiologicheskiye problemy” (Sociological Problems), Stroitelstvo i arkhitektura Leningrada, 6 (June 1967), 13, and Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya goroda, 24 lSee L. B. Kogan, “Urbanizatsiya-obshcheniye-mikrorayon” (Urbanization- Social Intercourse-the Neighborhood Unit), Arkhitektura SSSR, 4 (April 1967), 39-44; and (with A. S. Akhiezer and O. N. Yanitsky) “Urbanizatsiya, obshchestvo i nauchno-tekhnicheskaya revolyutsiya” (Urbanization, Society and the Scientific-Technical Revolution), Voprosy filosofii, 2 (February 1969), 44-53.
13. Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya goroda, 21-22.
14. G. A. Gradov wants to replace private kitchens in neighborhood units with communal dining facilities, but the majority of Soviet city planners have rejected his proposals. See Gorod i byt (The City and Daily Life) (Moscow: Stroyizdat, 1968).
15. From an interview with the head of the sector of population movement of the USSR Institute of City Planning. He just repeated the point of view given in his Institute's Osnovy sovetskovo gradostroitebtva, I, 17-96.
16. Despite a strict system of control through internal passports, Moscow has continued to grow to nearly seven million inhabitants. Soviet acquaintances estimate that because Moscow life is so attractive, more than 150,000 “underground men” live illegally in Moscow, without an official job, apartment, or validly registered passport.
17. Perevedentscv, “Cities and Years.”
18. r'S. Listengurt, “Perspektivnye izmeneniya gorodskovo naseleniya SSSR,”
19. For example, see N.Kh. Arutyunyan, “Sovershenstvovaniye nauchnoy organizatsii upravleniya” (The Perfection of the Scientific Organization of Administration), Sovetskoye gosudarstvo i pravo, 4 (April 1969), 19.
20. “These biographies are analyzed in greater detail in B. Michael Frolic, “Soviet Urban Political Leaders: Research Report and Preliminary Hypotheses” (paper presented at the 1969 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Toronto, June 4-6). :sEffektivnost deputatskoy deyatelnosti, opyt konkretnovo sotsiologicheskovo issledovaniya na materialakh armyanskoy SSR” (How Effective Are Deputies? The Results of Concrete Sociological Research Carried Out in Armenia), Sovetskoye gosudarstvo i pravo, 1 (January 1969), 114.
21. R. A. Safarov, Rayonnye Sovety deputatov truchjashchikhsya v gorodakh (District Soviets in Cities) (Moscow: Gosyurizdat, 1961), 19-20: “Only after one year is a new deputy ready to do anything significant…. the average term should be four years.”
22. A. I. Lepeshkin, “Urgent Questions of the Development of the Science of Soviet Public Law,” Sovetskoye gosudarstvo i pravo, 2 (February 1965), translated in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, 17 (April 28, 1965), 12. 31Gabrichidze, Gorodskiye Sovety deputatov trudyashchikhsya ch.3.-Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya goroda, 9, 10, 16. See also Kogan, Akhiezer, and Yanitsky, “Urbanizatsiya, obshcliestvo i nauchno-tekhniclieskaya revolyutsiya,” 50-53.
23. It is unthinkable that the Nixon administration could remove Mayor Lindsay from office, but recently Yegorychev, the first secretary of the Moscow city Party committee (a post of comparable importance), was summarily dismissed from his post by central Party authorities.
24. For a list of some of these changes in Moscow, see “O perspektivnom razvitii mestnoy promyshlennosti goroda Moskvy” (On the Future Development of Moscow's Local Industry), Byulleten ispolnitelnovo komiteta moskovskovo gorodskovo Soveta deputatov trudyashchikhsya, 4 (February 1967), 2-4.
25. See B. Michael Frolic, “Decision Making in Soviet Cities” (paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Los Angeles, September, 1970).
26. lFor a description and analysis of Soviet urban political leaders, see B.
27. Michael Frolic, “Soviet Urban Political Leaders: Research Report and Prelim inary Hypotheses.” The group of 84 urban political leaders contains every person holding a significant urban post in the USSR from 1958 to 1966.
28. “Holding a significant urban post” is defined as occupying, for at least two years, an urban-level post deemed important enough to merit Soviet biographical treatment. “Urban political leader” is defined as someone who occupies one of these top urban posts from which major political decisions are made, communicated, and applied. He is a “leader” because he holds a recognized top political post. He is “political” by training and from the intrinsic nature of his work.
29. See B. Michael Frolic, “Soviet Urban Political Leaders,” Comparative Political
30. Studies, 2 (January 1970), 443-464. ;tsThese conclusions are found in Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya goroda, 90-104. For a further analysis of Soviet urban survey research methodology and results, see B. Michael Frolic, “Soviet Social Science Research” (paper presented at the 1970 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Winnipeg, lune 6, 1970).