I see four areas where the study of postsocialism has made
significant contributions to our understanding of politics, One is
in providing an ideal laboratory for comparison. Here, I refer to
three aspects of the region. First, it contains a large number of
cases—28 in all and a good deal more, once we take into account
“patch-work” politics and economics of the Russian Federation, for
example. Second, the “great transformation,” to borrow from Polanyi
and to refer in this instance to an even “greater” process involving
the construction of economic and political regimes, nations, and
states, deals with virtually all the fundamental
issues of politics. Finally, the region exhibits enormous variation
in political and economic outcomes, whether we focus on economic and
political regime types and the institutional details of these
regimes; economic performance, levels of economic development, types
of economic reforms, and the role of foreign capital; the age and
size of the state and its capacity to define and defend borders,
command compliance and extract resources; and the national
composition of the population. At the same time, causes are limited,
largely because of the homogenizing effects of state socialism and
the temporal similarities in when these great transformations
commenced. This combination of variable outcomes and constrained
causes is, of course, precisely what comparativists value.