非公式グループと政策過程

ソ連圏諸国の内政と外交

抄録

one might expect the conduct of bureaucracy of such modern industrial country as the Soviet Union to be governmnet by the norms of rationality, anonymity and universalism. Yet, it has been widely noted that informal alignments based on interpersonal, sectional and functional commitments are one of characteristics of the Soviet bureaucracy. This paper seeks to establish a few common and distinctive features of the “physiology” of Soviet informal groups, namely, clientelist group, sectional group, and functional group. Then, it attempts to identify how they work and what part they play in the Soviet policy process.
A patron-client relationship is an alliance between two persons of unequal status, power or resources, each of whom finds it useful to have as an all someone superior or inferior to himself. The clientelist group is made up of officials of divers institutions cutting right across regional and organizational boundaries. Soviet clientelist activity connected with efforts to establish a dominant position within the ruling oligarchy inevitably takes on policy content. Sectional group has a similar set-up as that of clientelist group, but it is hierarchical, and is made up of officials of a single organization. This group is linked with every aspect of the policy processes. Functional group is made up of functional specialists of (mainly) research institutions. In the Soviet Union of the late sixties and early seventies specialists did participate widely in a variety of areas.
Power politics among contending clientelist groups that inevitably takes policy content may invite participation of sectional and functional groups. Although the nature of censorship strengthens the tendency for policy relevant alliances to remain compartmentalised within these sectional and functional groups, it largely depends on a clientelist group that has an ability to mobilize as a wide base of support of sectional and functional groups as possible for a clientelist leader's initiatives in the Soviet bureaucracies. However, informal groups' activities in policy processes may take varying forms depending on the political circumstances, the nature of the particular regime, and/or the nature of the policy under consideration.
An uneasy but culturally agreeable symbiotic relationship between these three groups nevertheless operates as systemic adjusting mechanism in Soviet policy processes.