REVIEWS I79 that civil society can have. This makesthe outcome of change uncertainsince it is hardfor new democraciesto maintainlegitimacyand theirabilityto resist restorationistor authoritarianalternativesis thus not guaranteed. Elections create some legitimacy for governments,but do not necessarilylegitimatethe constitutionalstructuresthatthey inhabit.The legitimationof these structures depends on their allowing for revision and learning, in other words depends on the design of constitutionsthemselvesallowingfor change and adaptation, but should not be an open ended process. This observationmarksa watershedin the book since afterit Arato focuses more and more on the dynamics of constitutionaldevelopment. Both Arato's discussion of the role of civil society in the East European transitionand the paradoxes that it produces, and of the strugglesfor legitimacy that surround constitutions are informative. However, the informed analysis of events and the desire for civil society to have some greater role in the process of democratizationthatArato startswith driftapartsomewhere in the middle of the book. Civil society scarcelygets a mention in the last hundred or so pages of the book, which are concerned with a sophisticated, but narrower, argument about constitutionalismin theory and in East European practice. Consequently, one is left with a sense of how things should be ratherthan an argument as to why they should be that way. This gives the book its uneven feel; it is as though there are two books in one cover competing with one another, and in the end the narrower concerns of constitutionalismprevail. Putting this to one side, however, there is still much to be learnt from the book, especially from its questioning of assumptions about the processes of change in EasternEurope. Department ofGovernment andSociety NEIL ROBINSON University ofLimerick Robinson, Neil (ed.). Institutions and PoliticalChangein Russia.Macmillan, Basingstoke and London, and St. Martin's Press, New York, 2000. xii + 235 pp. Tables. Figures. Notes. Bibliographicalreferences. Index. ?42.50. THIS collection of essays is an attempt to introduce new dimensions to the analysis of institutions. The introductorychapter by Robinson startswith a discussionof 'new institutionalism',set apartfromthe 'old institutionalism'by 'its concern to describe actual behaviour, rather than just map formal organizationalstructures'.Institutionsin thiscontext are definedas 'rules,the existence and enforcement of which both enable and constrainbehaviour by actors within institutions'. This definition covers both formal and informal institutionswhich can exist in tandem, reinforcing, subverting or reshaping each other. For Robinson, this creates an ambiguity in 'what actually constitutesan "institution"', especiallywhen appliedto the processof radical politicalchange. It is, indeed, confusing to deal with a 'ship' which, to quote Neurath's metaphor, 'sailorshave to rebuildon the open sea, without ever being able to dismantle it in dry dock and reconstructit from the best components'. And it i8o SEER, 8o, I, 2002 is also daunting to monitor the interplay of the future-orientedreforms and the legacy of the communist past, which accounts for the tendency of postcommunist institutional studies to be focused on the design of formal institutions. Therefore, Robinson's and especially Gordon's points that the relegation of informal institutionsto a secondary role, particularlyin case of Russia, is problematic, and that by no means the Soviet legacy can be viewed as a tabula rasaare highly relevant.Unfortunately,these conclusions are taken no further,and no new ways areofferedforhandlingthe influenceof informal institutions in order to create new institutional frameworks for a 'market democracy'. In fact, apart from Wyman's account of the level of trustpeople have in institutions, which is indicative of the institutional environment in general, most of the chapters of the book focus on the formal institutionsin the making viewed as a ratherchaotic process. Neil Robinson overviewsthe development of the Russian presidencyfroin its founding in I99I till the very end of the Yeltsin era placing particular emphasis on the role played by Russia's first president in the 'politics of institutionalchaos'. The legislativeprocess'schronicdisorganizationbecomes evident fromthe analysisof the activitiesof the lower house of parliament,the State Duma, by PaulChaistyandJeffreyGleisner.The ConstitutionalCourt, the Supreme Court and the Procuracy,accordingto BillBowring,have found it difficult to establish effective hierarchies in the judiciary and agree on mutual competencies in the legal system. Gelman provides a convincing account of a diverse and unstable mixture of types of political regimes in Russia'sregions and republics. Gelman, Gordon, and to some extent Shearman and Sussex, indicate that...
Read full abstract