Successor Unions in Transitional Economies: Evidence from St. Petersburg

Abstract

This study of successor unions to the official unions in the former USSR, which uses data from 1992–93 field work and surveys of union leaders, demonstrates that, contrary to the claims of some observers, successor unions are capable of reform. Compared to the old unions, the successor unions examined in this study were more decentralized and democratic, placed more emphasis on job-related concerns, and had leaders with more varied profiles and compensation. The author finds no relationship between leaders' membership in the Communist Party and either their political beliefs or the probability of their being newly elected leaders. Union membership was far higher in successor unions than in the new, alternative unions. Tempering these indications of reformation, however, is some evidence of institutional inertia and persistence of privilege in the successor unions.