The disintegration and final fall of the Soviet Union marked one of the most important events in european history. A new political order was created, as former Soviet satellites like Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria began to westernise and newly formed states like Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova declared their independence. What they had in common was a lack of democratic tradition, producing weak and unstable democracies. Stephan Panther evaluated these transformation processes of eastern european countries after 1989 and noticed differences in their individual success.
Stephan Panther’s “Historical Heritage and Transformation: “Latin” Winners - “Orthodox” Losers?”
By Peter Mons
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
The disintegration and final fall of the Soviet Union marked one of the most important events in european history. A new political order was created, as former Soviet satellites like Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria began to westernise and newly formed states like Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova declared their independence. What they had in common was a lack of democratic tradition, producing weak and unstable democracies. Stephan Panther evaluated these transformation processes of eastern european countries after 1989 and noticed differences in their individual success.¹ In his opinion can we find different development opportunities and perspectives between “Latin” (Catholic) and Orthodox countries. Orthodox societies would have poorer chances of success by transforming themselves to a liberal democracy and moreover to a flourishing, market-based economy. Furthermore would the developed and underdeveloped countries share the same border as it is existing between Latin and Orthodox countries.
His main assumptions were that Latin societies could achieve a higher level of development in the course of their history and additionally that the orthodox belief has and had an essential influence on the poor transformation performance of the concerned countries. How is he coming to this conclusion?
Formal and informal institutions define the cohabitation of individuals inside a society. Where formal institutions are traditionally formulated and written down in the code of law and define a state’s structure (division of powers, systems of checks and balances), are informal institutions a combination of common values, norms, traditions and structures of interaction between citizens. They grow over time by preservation and oral tradition, because these rules were proven to guarantee an advantage for coexistence in a society - We all know that we shake hands when meeting a stranger and do not have to establish a new welcome each time we meet a new person.
The advantage of highly developed societies is that they have values and norms which promote tolerance and equality between it’s participants. An increasing level of tolerance creates more chances for cooperation and interaction. The experience of being an equal citizen promotes the feeling of cohesion and solidarity among a society. Under those conditions it is easier to work on collective interests and to achieve common goals. Due to its horizontally organised, inclusive structure, individuals have trust upon each other, finding themselves in a safe environment and have a high willingness in long term investments. It is resulting in a liberal society and a highly efficient, growing economy.
In the lesser developed societies we can find more elements of unstable rights, through people having the attitude to evade rules, or to create rules which are only beneficial for self interests. The overall cohesion in these societies is low, due to the distrust between its citizens. A weak state promotes corruption and due to unstable property rights people have a low willingness to invest into the local economy. They actually fear investments, because the turnout is unpredictable. Therefore only fewer and more short term oriented investments happen. In consequence, a iliberal society and underperforming, poorly growing economy is existent.
Latin civil societies experienced a competition between the power of the state and the influence of the church. After devastating religious wars in Europe, states became finally secularized and the religious belief became more and more a private subject. Due to competing powers in the period of enlightenment civil societies appeared. Autonomy rights were achieved with cooperation between individuals (liberté, égalité, fraternité) and a bourgeoisie was established.
In Orthodox civil societies the state and church were in a consonant relation. A clear secularization hasn’t happened. A competition between state and church hasn’t happened, since the highest religious authority and the head of state was unified in one person, the Czar. People lived in a centralised state with low autonomy rights for the cities. Overall the shape of eastern europe was different in many aspects compared to the west: The density of cities was relatively low, the landscapes weren’t crossed by as many rivers as in western europe, which has influence on the quality of infrastructure, trade, exchange of knowledge and ideas. In consequence no bourgeoisie with its own identity was established. The civil society mostly existed out of peasants with high dependence on the state and according to Panther it could be stated that this type of organisation was close to a planned economy.
Is the border between the more and the less developed countries the same as between Latin and Orthodox countries? - When comparing the two shown images, we can find a correlation between the borders of religion and economic freedom:
Religious majorities in Central and Eastern Europe²
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
(Conducted through a survey by Pew Research Center in 2015 and 2016. Blue colour represents the Catholic belief and Panther’s “Latin West”, red colour the “Orthodox East”.)
Economic Freedom Index³
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
(Map is displaying economic freedom rankings in Europe in 2018, made by The Heritage Foundation)
Again, economic freedoms can represent the level of development a society has. According to the second image, the Orthodox countries Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova have the lowest economic freedom. Even if Romania and Bulgaria are considered as better developed, they are also considered as being the poorest members of the European Union. Overall is the Catholic West, including Lithuania, Poland and Hungary considered as being better developed.
[...]
- Citar trabajo
- Peter Mons (Autor), 2021, Thoughts on Stephan Panther’s "Historical Heritage and Transformation: "Latin" Winners - "Orthodox" Losers?", Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/986053