DISEÑO INSTRUCCIONAL CON EL USO DE HERRAMIENTAS WEB 2.0

In brief, to preview the central thesis of this dissertation, I argue that the transformation of food into a commodity and the resultant subordination of edible goods to criteria of competitive exchange signify a change in the institutional objectives governing the production and distribution of food in Russia and China. Under socialism, ensuring a stable food supply for the (urban) population preventing hunger among those who could not afford food were fundamental objectives of the political leadership. The outcomes, as is well known, were shaped by contradictions in the socialist mode of economic planning and were exacerbated by politically driven mass campaigns (especially in China). With the introduction of market reforms, the food economies of Russia and China were transformed into commercial spheres whose key metric of success is the rate of capital productivity, overshadowing questions of whether the resulting food products adequately satisfy human consumption needs.

This dissertation is structured to follow the logic of this argument. After a brief chap- ter on methodological considerations and data sources, the first empirical chapter traces the evolution of state objectives and institutional policy, as reformers in both countries adopted programs to modernize socialist food production by introducing market elements. The second empirical chapter examines the introduction of commodity relations to the agro- food economies of Russia and China and places particular emphasis on the sequencing and political-economic content of reforms, as well as their implications for farmers and food pro- ducers. 66 Together, the above analyses form the background for the third empirical chapter, which investigates the implications of profit-oriented governance for the organization of food production using an in-depth comparison of the institutional and developmental trajectories of the Russian and Chinese wheat and pork sectors. The concluding chapter offers a sum- mary of the findings, distills their theoretical implications, and highlights contributions to existing scholarly debates.

66_{The analysis in this chapter focuses on the initial stage of institutional reform in both countries, which}

Chapter 2

Analytical framework and research

design

As post-socialist societies, Russia and China share two essential common characteristics. First, they both had, at different points in the twentieth century, abolished capitalism and replaced it with an economic system based on state ownership and central planning. Second, due to dissatisfaction on part of the political leadership, they both implemented a regime of private property and markets, entering the process of what is conventionally known as ‘the transition’. Moreover, as in other post-socialist countries, the transition involved an explicit promise of greater prosperity for the majority of the population, seeing as the numerous advantages of life in a market economy — or, in the case of China, a socialist market economy (with special characteristics) — formed the principal content of both official justifications and popular expectations of the reform process.1

This particularity constitutes a logical starting point for social scientific inquiry. It is sensible to assess whether the popular and political hopes regarding an overall improvement in human welfare and quality of life did indeed materialize. Yet researchers who hope to arrive at a straightforward summary judgment of the transition face an analytical challenge:

1_{See Hua (2006) for a comparative review of the political discourse used to legitimate early economic}

Russia and China, despite both implementing market reforms, have not simply created the same model of capitalism. To the contrary, the two countries exhibit significant institu- tional variation in areas ranging from state-economy relations, to property ownership, to organizational behavior. As Eyal and his co-authors observe,

[a]lthough market economies are everywhere defined by private property and integrated by price-regulated markets, it is increasingly obvious that there are differences in institutional arrangements and class relations across capitalist so- cieties that are deeply consequential for those who inhabit them (Eyal, Szel´enyi, and Townsley 1998, 1125).

This raises the question of how the political economy of post-socialist societies, such as Russia and China, can be appropriately analyzed: Both countries have been following directionally similar reform paths, yet their economic systems exhibit meaningful variation in terms of institutional organization and social conditions. The solution is to take concrete institutional circumstances and their consequences seriously, while locating them within their historical and conceptual context. In the words of Leon Trotsky (1942, 108), one has to study “[n]ot capitalism in general, but a given capitalism at a given stage of development.”

Carrying out this type of analysis involves empirical as well as theoretical work. Empirical work requires the development of strategies and techniques for the acquisition of data and evidence, whereas theoretical work consists in making sense of this information. In other words, a researcher needs to decide how to collect the requisite empirical evidence, how to make conceptual sense of the findings, and how to effectively present the results in a scholarly narrative. This chapter elucidates the conceptual and methodological choices underlying the present investigation into the political economy of food production, addresses the analytical framework and empirical methodology employed, and discusses the evidence and sources consulted.

2.1

Analytical Framework

The task of formulating an analytical framework consists in developing a set of theoretical concepts which is sufficiently abstract to capture the essential, non-arbitrary properties of an object of inquiry, yet is sufficiently specific to account for its empirical particularities. Both the focus of my dissertation research — the economic organization of food production in two post-socialist societies —, as well as its analytical objectives — the documentation of (necessary) causal relationships between institutional factors and social outcomes — re- quire an investigative approach that is grounded in political economy. Strict disciplinary orthodoxy is ruled out, seeing as any partial investigative angle, such as a sole focus on markets (economics) or policy (political science), would inevitably provide a limited, if not an inaccurate, view of the institutional organization of Russia’s and China’s food economies. Similar constraints would arise from an exclusive reliance on particular research traditions or schools of thought.

Political economy seeks to avoid these analytical distortions by developing an objective conceptual understanding of the phenomena and the laws of motion comprising a particular economic system or institutional sphere. As Leontyev (1968, 17) puts it:

Political economy has the task of revealing the economic laws of social develop- ment. Any science studying some sphere of nature or social life has the aim of disclosing the laws operating in that sphere. Scientifically interpreted, the term ‘law’ implies the internal connection of phenomena, their essence. The internal connection of phenomena exists whether we like it or not. In other words, natural and social laws are of an objective nature, they do not depend on the will and consciousness of people. But people can discover these laws.

Political economy is the science of the laws governing the production and ex- change of the material means of subsistence in human society at the various stages of its development. It studies the social structure of production (ibid., 7). Within the existing field of political economy, there unfortunately exists no single pre- specified method or analytical approach which will yield straightforward insights about an observed empirical phenomenon. Quite to the contrary, existing frameworks frequently offer

divergent or even antithetical conceptualizations of identical social realities. Take the exam- ple of the state: although it arguably constitutes the basic institutional foundation of any modern society, social scientists have been unable to agree on a common definition — let alone a consistent theoretical appraisal — of its activities and aims, as a cursory selection of scholarly perspectives from the past two and a half centuries demonstrates:

The first and chief design of every system of government is to maintain justice; to prevent the members of a society from incroaching [sic] on one anothers [sic] property, or siezing [sic] what is not their own. The design here is to give each one the secure and peaceable possession of his own property (Smith 1982 [1762], 1).

[T]he state is the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests, and in which the entire civil society of an epoch is subsumed. . . . [A]ll public institutions are mediated by the state and take on a political form (Marx and Engels 1969 [1845], 62; author’s translation).

The state is a strategically selective terrain which can never be neutral among all social forces and political projects; but any bias is always tendential and can be undermined or reinforced by appropriate strategies. For, within the strategically selective limits established by state structures and operating procedures, the outcome of state power also depends on the changing balance of forces engaged in political action both within and beyond the state (Jessop 1990, 353).

A state is any set of relatively differentiated organizations that claims sovereignty and coercive control over a territory and its population, defending and perhaps extending that claim in competition with other states. The core organizations that make up a state include the administrative, judicial, and policing organiza- tions that collect revenues, enforce the constitutive rules of the state and society, and maintain some modicum of domestic order, especially to protect the state’s own claims and activities (Skocpol 1995, 43).

Partial overlap notwithstanding, these four definitions differ considerably in terms of analytical content and conceptual focus. Smith here offers a functionalist definition of the state, postulating that social order can only emerge in the presence of secure property rights. The Marx-Engels conceptualization, though also property-based, differs from Smith’s insofar as it emphasizes the social purpose of government rule as advancing the interests of a ruling class. Jessop’s relational view, on the other hand, situates the state in a broader context of institutional actors and social forces, which can both empower and constrain political action.

Finally, Skocpol presents an organizational perspective, grounded in the Weberian notion that a state is first and foremost characterized by its administrative control over an existing territory and population.

Similar discrepancies exist between entire schools of thought within political economy, thus giving rise to a situation in which scholars in the same field of study cannot agree on the basic properties of an objective institutional reality.2 For this reason, the study of existing models and theories in political economy is useful for a researcher only insofar as it might equip him with a basic conceptual understanding of phenomena like money, labor, or markets, and the economic interests and politically defined parameters which govern them.

Beyond such an abstract theoretical toolkit, however, political economy offers no method- ological blueprint on how to proceed in developing a comprehensive analytical account of a concrete empirical phenomenon (e.g., the prevalence of harmful food products in Russia and China). For the purpose of designing a case-specific research project, such as the present dissertation, pre-existing models and methods are therefore of limited use, because even to the extent they are applicable, this would only emerge in hindsight once the actual empirical analysis has already been carried out.

Based on these considerations, my dissertation research followed a regime of strict theo- retical and methodological eclecticism.3 _{Pertinent theoretical arguments and concepts taken}

from existing models of political economy will be discussed at appropriate points throughout the text. Since my intention is neither to convey a sense of scholarly literacy, nor to legitimate

2_{This state of affairs is by no means a recent development. Already in nineteenth century, the English}

economist and priest Thomas Malthus (1827, iii) noted that “[t]he differences of opinion among political economists have of late been a frequent subject of complaint.” Nowadays, perhaps the most obvious in- dicator of scholarly discord is provided by review volumes in political economy. Brown’s (1995b) Models in Political Economy, for instance, describes no fewer than ten commonly used approaches, and, if sheer quantity of information is an indicator, the The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy — which aims to provide “overviews that can serve as building blocks for further research” (Weingast and Wittman 2008, 23) — has 1093 pages, thus barely exceeding the length of the King James version of the Bible (Penguin Books pocket edition, available at http://www.walmart.com/ip/438656).

3_{My dissertation supervisor, in a conversation that informed the writing of this chapter, referred to}

this stance (favorably) as ‘analytical opportunism’ — the selection of frameworks and methodologies based on criteria of analytical expedience, rather than dogmatic adherence to a particular approach or research tradition.

my own ideas by associating them with existing work, I do not provide literature reviews or summaries of current theoretical debates.4 _{It bears pointing out that this approach does not}

amount to ‘cherry-picking’ arguments. Rather, I rely on existing existing theories insofar as they provide arguments that are useful to my analytical objectives.

In practice, this approach requires that one assess arguments objectively and without re- gard to methodological or ideological predispositions. But what are the standards of scientific validity in political economy? That is, how does one assesses the correctness of an existing theory and, more importantly, how does one generate one’s own arguments? The purpose of political economy research is to provide conclusive analytical accounts of institutional principles governing non-arbitrary social processes.

Conceptually, this task consists of identifying and demonstrating the existence of neces- sities or necessary connections in observed social life. As Hegel (Hegel 1906 [1830], §147) writes,

Necessity has been correctly defined as the unity of possibility and actuality, yet taken by itself this expression only offers a superficial and therefore incomprehen- sible account of necessity. The concept of necessity is very difficult because it is the concept itself. . . . When something is said to be necessary, the first question that arises is: Why? Necessity is thus conceived as something mediated, that is, a result of certain antecedent conditions. An analysis that is limited to merely identifying these antecedents, however, has not captured the necessity of a phe- nomenon. Conceptualized as a mere derivative of prior conditions, it is what it is not by virtue of its own essential properties but because of something else, hence reducing its existence to pure contingency. Necessity, in contrast, demands that something be what it is through itself, and thus, despite its mediated nature, preserve the conditions of its own mediation within itself. We accordingly say of the necessary: it is — and therefore it holds as a simple relation to itself, in which all external contingency is removed (author’s translation; emphasis added).

It is common for researchers in the field of sociology to formulate theories and to sub- sequently assess their validity on the basis of evidence describing the particular aspect of social reality under investigation. Yet this characterization does not fully capture sociolog-

4_{Overviews of this kind tend to undermine both the parsimony and flow of an argument. This is the}

case even if they are relegated to the footnote level. To the extent that legitimate ancillary questions arise throughout the text, however, I do provide references to concise treatments in the existing literature.

ical methods of inquiry. In the vast majority of sociological studies, the logical relation of evidence to theory is one of unexplained fact to conclusive explanation. While it is true that the majority of sociological studies involve the ‘testing’ of pre-specified ‘hypotheses’ using previously collected empirical evidence, facts and data cannot explain or prove anything on their own. Rather, they need to be explained — and thus cannot be used to assess the validity of a theory whose very objective is the explanation of these same facts and data (i.e., an observed empirical phenomenon). Despite existing academic conventions concern- ing epistemology, methods, and analysis, the accuracy of theories thus cannot be simply be ‘tested’ with evidence.

And, importantly, testing with evidence is not what leads researchers to generate theo- ries. In practice, scholars formulate theories (i.e., coherent analytical accounts) through an iterative process of observation, reflection, and the logical structuring of thoughts. Proceed- ing in this way is in fact the rational, appropriate approach to explaining phenomena in the social world. The mere juxtaposition of data with hypotheses cannot accomplish this task. In other words, whether a theory or argument seeking to explain the social world is correct or not can only be determined by assessing its substantive content and its internal logical coherence.

Applied to my research topic, this means identifying differences in the institutional com- position of the Russian and Chinese food economies, and determining whether these differ- ences are fundamental in nature or merely constitute alternative manifestations of the same institutional principles. Indeed, the notion that capitalism comes in different varieties log- ically presupposes the existence of certain common properties across cases, seeing as these cases are only varieties of the same phenomenon. It would be false, however, to use this observation as a starting point for debating the relative importance of national peculiarities and the overarching ‘logic’ of capitalism. Rather, it is the objective of comparative analysis to discern differences in the relationship between underlying institutional principles and their manifestations in each case, and to explain them.