ABSTRACT
As La Palombara (1964) argues clientelism is an alternative state-society relationship, deviating from Max Weber’s non-personal bureaucratic governance. In the clientelist model special interests and persons have established permanent exchange relations with the state. The Soviet system was a peculiar mixture of patrimonialism, or even ‘sultanism’,2 and rigid bureaucratisation and flexible clientelism. The main element of Soviet-type ‘clientelistic bureaucracy’ was professional specialisation, where authority was derived not from a person’s position as such but from control over specific resources upon which others were dependent. Hierarchical control eroded as this group of specialists grew throughout the union and personal networks developed between the central and regional elites.3 These people regarded their positions as a kind of ‘private property’ where personal and public interests could not easily be separated.
