Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T05:33:22.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constructing A Classified Ranking of Cpsu Provincial Committees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Peter Frank
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article is an account of a tentative attempt to solve a problem which arose in the course of an investigation of the career mobility of CPSU obkom first secretaries. At the outset we were only vaguely aware that a problem meriting investigation existed and, even now, all we would claim to be doing is presenting a report of the progress made so far towards its solution. Given, however, that research into the obkom tier is being carried on by an increasing number of scholars, we present such information as we have so far; and also recount the false starts and errors we made in the hope that this will be an aid (if only in a prophylactic sense!) to others working in the same area.

Type
Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , April 1974 , pp. 217 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Frank, Peter, ‘The CPSU Obkom First Secretary: A Profile’, British Journal of Politic Science, I (1971), 173–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Rigby, T. H., Communist Party Membership in the USSR, 1917–1967 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), p. 486.Google Scholar The whole of Chap. 16 of Rigby's book is extremely relevant to our discussion, though he is not, of course, concerned with a specific ranking of party units.

3 XXIII s"ezd KPSS (29 marta – 8 aprelya 1966 goda): Stenograficheskii otchet, Vol. II (Moscow: Politizdat, 1966), appendix, pp. 389–623.

4 XXIII s"ezd KPSS, Vol. I; Kapitonov's report of the Mandates Commission.

3 Frank, ‘CPSU Obkom First Secretary’.

6 Peter Frank, ‘The Communist Party of the Soviet Union: Constructing a hierarchy of units within a single structural tier’, a paper (mimeographed) presented to the annual conference of the National Association for Soviet and East European Studies (Westfield College, London, 1971). The author is greatly obliged to Peter Wiles for his critical, yet constructive, comments on the conference paper. This acknowledgement should not, of course, be taken to imply his approval of this article.

7 Spravochnik partiinogo rabotnika, vypusk vtoroi. (Moscow: Politizdat, 1959), pp. 545–6.Google Scholar The author is indebted to M. Lesage for drawing his attention to this Central Committee resolution.

8 For an interesting and innovative attempt to compute economic production profiles for oblasts, see Stewart, Philip D., Arnett, Robert L., Ebert, William T., Mcphail, Raymond E., Rich, Terrence L. and Schopmeyer, Craig E., ‘Political Mobility and the Soviet Political Process: A Partial Test of Two Models’, American Political Science Review, LXVI (1972), 1269–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Harris, Chauncy D., Cities of the Soviet Union: Studies in their Functions, Size, Density, and Growth, No. 5 in the monograph series published for the Association of American Geographers (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970).Google Scholar

10 Harris, , Cities, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

11 Harris, Cities, Chap. IV, for a detailed description of the methodology used in Cities.

12 Harris, , Cities, p. 122.Google Scholar

13 Harris, , Cities, p. 147.Google Scholar

14 Harris, , Cities, p. 158.Google Scholar

15 Henceforth, reference is to seventy obkoms, all located in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). At the time of the XXIIIrd Congress in 1966, there were seventy-six party obkoms in the RSFSR. Five of these were based on autonomous oblasts, all located within krais (territories) and subordinate to the party kraikoms. Given their inferior status, and the fact that they do not send separate delegations to party congresses, they have been excluded. Kaliningrad obkom has also been excluded, as it is separated physically from the rest of the RSFSR and belongs economically to the Baltic Economic Region along with the republics Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

16 The deviant cases in 1971 were: (i) since the XXIVth Congress in March-April 1971 the first secretary of the Karelian obkom has had full membership of the Central Committee; while the first secretary of Arkhangel'sk obkom, the former sovnarkhoz centre, is only a candidate member; and (ii) the Yakutsk obkom first secretary is a full member, whereas the first secretary of Magadan obkom (again, the former sovnarkhoz centre) continues to occupy candidate membership status. Both deviations share certain features: both are contiguous to foreign states; both were the sole component oblasts in their respective sovnarkhozy; and in each case the holder of the component obkom first secretaryship had in 1971 served for a relatively lengthy period (13 years and 6 years) compared with the incumbency of the sovnarkhoz obkom first secretaries (4 years and 3 years respectively). Also, the 1971 Congress marked a general raising of status, in Central Committee terms, of ASSRs (Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics). Both Karelia and Yakutsk obkoms are based upon ASSRs; Arkhangel'sk and Magadan are both obkoms based upon oblasts and are thus devoid of specifically national connotations.

17 Frank, ‘CPSU Obkom First Secretary’.