The fall of the Berlin Wall and the tearing down of the Iron Curtain in 1989 is probably the most remarkable lifetime event for the current generation of European citizens. It ended the hostile and ugly division between East and West, set free millions of human lives and aspirations, opened up borders, and created a ‘new world order’. In retrospect, the high expectations of a worldwide expansion of liberal democracy, free-market economy and international cooperation for the protection of peace and human rights may seem somewhat naïve. Important political, economic and societal progress was undoubtedly achieved, but among the newly liberated peoples of the formerly communist East there remains a considerable unevenness in the distribution of benefits and costs of all the changes, separating winners from losers both within and between countries.

The two books under review serve to substantiate this observation. First to be considered is the account, by the economic historian professor Ivan T. Berend, of the successful transition of ten Central and East European countries from faltering state socialism to full membership of the European Union. Next, this success story can be compared with the much more troubling and confusing findings on the present situation in Russia, as presented by the 41 contributors (scholars as well as public administration officials) to the international and multidisciplinary symposium that was held under the title of ‘Cultural Impact on Human Interaction: Clash or Challenge?’ at the University of Nizhny Novgorod, November 2006. Both works strike a balance between the positive and negative outcomes of the post-1989 developments, and both draw a nuanced picture of their respective research objects, but nevertheless an undeniable contrast emerges between the East-European and the Russian experience of the so-called ‘transition’. The recent festivities for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Wall turned into a display of pride and joy in most countries of Eastern Europe, but not so in Russia. How can this post-communist divide be explained?

Ivan Berend advances the thesis that the fate of state socialism in Eastern Europe was essentially determined by the ongoing process of economic globalization and the response to its challenge by Western Europe (p. 3). While the peaceful political revolutions of 1989–1991 came suddenly and unexpectedly, the economic foundations of the communist system had for a long time already been undermined by the drying up of its capacity for forced and extensive growth, and by its lack of innovation and competitiveness in the context of the world economy. For this reason, Berend’s historical overview of transition begins in 1973. After the final collapse of state socialism in the early 1990s, the economies of the former Soviet bloc were initially thrown into crisis when the so-called ‘shock therapy’ of deregulation and privatization ended up in weak governance, capital flight and social misery. However, for Eastern Europe, the decisive turning point came with the advances from the West for the enlargement of the European Union. Given the ongoing neo-liberal restructuring of its own economy, Western Europe had to strengthen its production network, to enlarge its market and to stabilize the continent. The European Union made a crucial contribution to the transformation in Eastern Europe through generous financial and economic support as well as strict insistence on compliance with legal and institutional norms. In the global competition, Western Europe needed a ‘backyard’ and Eastern Europe was happy to adjust and join (p. 85).

Thus, the ‘first chapter’ of economic transition was concluded successfully, according to Berend. The other half of his book addresses the difficulties of the ‘second chapter’, concerning social and behavioral changes and the emergence of innovative and competitive internal markets (p. 204). Here, the narrative switches occasionally from history to policy debates and speculation. The author knows well what he is writing about, being not only a distinguished historian at the University of California but also having worked for many years as economic top-advisor for the Hungarian government. He has fit together many research documents and publications on a great variety of countries into a concise and penetrating survey of the economic transition in Eastern Europe. This is a remarkable achievement and makes the book essential reading for anyone interested in the subject.

Berend’s conclusion, that behavioral change tends to be slower and tougher than regime change and economic transition, applies even more to post-communist Russia. At least, this is the overriding impression one derives from the diverse contributions to the Nizhny Novgorod congress volume on the impact of culture on human interaction. Its provocative title ‘Clash or challenge?’ refers to the question of ‘universality’ (convergence) or ‘particularity’ (divergence) of Russian and western cultures, and focuses on two topics: the political-administrative reforms in contemporary Russia and the Russian characteristics of work ethic and human resource management. In the first part, several Russian scholars present a critical analysis of the recent efforts by the Russian government to centralize the provincial administration and to tighten the political consensus (Chapters 1, 3, 5 and 6). Is this ‘power vertical’ an effective management tool to stabilize the country or does it contradict the internal cohesion and vitality of local communities? Many examples here illustrate the fact that Russian administrative traditions and western democratic innovations are not yet satisfactorily balanced. In the second part, other scholars (mainly German) explore the behavioral differences between Russians and foreigners in the workplace and the classroom (Chapters 24, 27 and 29). In Russia, time seems less precious than in Germany (p. 339), students prefer to work in groups (p. 313), and people in general act more emotionally (p. 265). It is argued that the discrepancy between Russian experiences and modern management requirements can lead to uncertainty, but is also instrumental in a process of change.

Taken as a whole, the Nizhny Novgorod book contains a plethora of inquiries and statements that highlight the complexities of the Russian transition. For Russia, the events of 1989–1991 have meant not only liberation but also loss. In contrast to Eastern Europe, Russia does not want to become a ‘backyard’ of the West and therefore tries to make its own choices. This is where the new dividing line within the former Soviet bloc occurs.