Grand Duchy of Lithuania: institutional transplantation experience

This paper analyzes the evolution of the institutional matrix of the GDL and establishes two stages in it. The first (pre­federative) is characterized by institutional diffusion, from the Kingdom of Poland in the first place, whereas the second is linked with the formation of the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania. It is shown that, as the formed federation united societies with distinct types of dominating institutions, institutional transplantation occurred from the more economically developed country to the other. Such integration leads not only to positive implications but also to the mutation of the transplanted institutions (strengthening of serfdom during the transition to the more progressive folwark agriculture). Transfer of the Western European system of fideicommissum inheritance turned out to be an institutional pitfall since the indivisible manors – ordynacii – presented a case of a state within a state, with their owners relying on the redistributive institutions at the microlevel (within their estates) and pursuing the market institutions at the macrolevel (within the country as a whole) in order to cement their economic position.

Peculiarities of the political sphere conditioned the transformation of the socio­cultural subsystem of the GDL’s institutional matrix. Roman Catholicism expanded rapidly, undermining the religious tolerance that the Grand Duchy had hitherto been known for. The elements of subsidiary ideology, coming from Poland, were understood as giving exceptional rights only to the szlachta stratum; acquisition of the golden liberties was equated with conversion to Catholicism and the use of the Polish language.

The consequences of these policies were the following: Polonization and mass conversion to Catholicism among the propertied classes; widespread resentment among the worse­off, morphing into popular uprisings in the XVII century; alignment of property, confession, and language groups in the society, which moved the social inequality issue into the ethnic dimension and contributed to interethnic strife in the lands of the former GDL in the centuries to come.

The absence of efficient governmental management of institutional transplantation caused an institutional crisis, which, with the political elites being disunited, was the reason for the entire social system to disintegrate.

1. Oleinik A.N. Institutional economics. Moscow, INFRA-M Publ., 2002. 415 p. (in Russian).

2. Eggertsson Т. Economic behavior and institutions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990. 385 p.

3. Kleiner G. B. Evolution of institutional systems. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2004. 239 p. (in Russian).

4. Maiorova I. M. Conditions of successful borrowing of institutions. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo univer¬siteta [Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University], 2011, no. 6 (221), pp. 44–48 (in Russian).

5. Mal’gin V. A. Import of institutions and criterions for its efficiency. Aktual’nye problemy ekonomiki i prava = Actual Problems of Economics and Law, 2007, no. 1 (1), pp. 31–36 (in Russian).

6. Fomichev O. V. Import of institutions and estimation of its efficiency. Available at: https://refdb.ru/look/3782665-pall.html (accessed 01.05.2020) (in Russian).

7. Rozhdestvenskya I. A., Tambovtsev V. L. Import of institutions and diffusion of ideas. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoi teorii = Russian Journal of Economic Theory, 2019, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 468–479 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.31063/2073-6517/2019.16-3.14

8. North D. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990. 152 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511808678

9. Kirdina S. G. Institutional matrices and development of Russia: introduction in X–Y theory. 3nd ed. Moscow, St. Pe¬tersburg, Nestor-Istoriya Publ., 2014. 467 p. (in Russian).

10. Polanyi K. The livelihood of man (studies in social discontinuity). New York, Academic Press, 1977. 280 p.

11. Borshch L. M. The concept of the institutional organization of public relations in redistributive and market econo¬mies. Aktual’nye problemy gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk = Actual Problems of Humanities and Natural Sciences, 2015, no. 8-1, рр. 144–151 (in Russian).

12. Bessonova O. E. Contractual razdatok (redistribution) and solidarism: a new milestone in the Russian institutional matrix. Mir Rossii. Sotsiologiya. Etnologiya = Universe of Russia. Sociology, 2019, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 7–31 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1811-038X-2019-28-1-7-31

13. Buletova N. E., Kuzibetskaya G. V., Lebedeva E. V. Institutional framework of Russian regions: interpretation of the XXI century. European Social Science Journal, 2015, no. 5, pp. 20–28 (in Russian).

14. Eliseev S. M. Modernization of the Russian society in context of institutional matrices theory. Politicheskaya eksper¬tiza: POLITEKS = Political expertise: POLITEX, 2011, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 38–49 (in Russian).

15. Ksenzova V. E., Ksenzov S. V. The features of evolution and modern condition of the institutional environment of Belarus economy in the X-matrix context. Zhurnal institutsional’nykh issledovanii = Journal of Institutional Studies, 2013, vol. 5, no.1, pp. 145–156 (in Russian).

16. Lubskii A. V. The institutional matrix of the natural state and the social order in Russia. Politicheskaya kontsepto-logiya: zhurnal metadistsiplinarnykh issledovanii = The Political Conceptology: Journal of Metadisciplinary Research, 2016, no. 4, pp. 114–123 (in Russian).

17. Luchenok A. I. Improvement of institutional matrix of Belarusian economic model. Ekonomicheskaya nauka se¬godnya: sbornik nauchnykh statei [Economic science currently: collected articles]. Мinsk, 2016, iss. 4, pp. 102–112 (in Russian).

18. Chernetsova N. S. Modern institutional matrix structure. Vestnik Samarskogo munitsipal’nogo instituta upravleniya = Bulletin of Samara Municipal Institute of Management, 2013, no. 4 (27), pp. 117–125 (in Russian).

19. Shapkin I. N., Voskresenskaya N. O. Institutional matrix of Russia in context of the globalization problems. Vek glo¬balizatsii = Age of Globalization, 2016, no. 4 (20), pp. 100–114 (in Russian).

20. Matveev A. A. Application of the theory “path dependence” in the study of institutional transformations in Russia. Upravlencheskoe konsul’tirovanie = Administrative Consulting, 2019, no. 4 (124), pp. 107–113 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2019-4-107-113

21. History of Belarus. Vol. 2. Belarus of the age of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Мinsk, Ekaperspektyva Publ., 2008. 685 p. (in Belarusian).

22. Marzalyuk І. A. People of ancient Belarus: ethnic confessional and sociocultural stereotypes (Х–XVII centuries). Mogilev, Mogilev State A. Kuleshov University, 2002. 321 p. (in Belarusian).

23. Memorizing the national identity of Belarusian society: the past, and the present: processings of Republic scientific conference, Baranovichi, 2016, 21 April. Baranovichi, Baranovichi State University, 2016. 253 p. (in Russian).

24. Loika P. A. Realization of the 1569 Lublin Seim Act for historical reality of the second part of the XVI century and beginning of the XVIІ century. Vybranyya navukovyya pratsy Belaruskaga dzyarzhaunaga unіversіteta, 1921–2001. T. 2. Gіstoryya. Fіlalogіya. Zhurnalіstyka [Selected scientific papers of Belarusian State University, 1921–2001. Vol. 2. History. Philology. Journalism]. Мinsk, 2001, pp. 52–64 (in Belarusian).

25. Radaman A. Seim. Vyalikae Knyastva Lіtouskae: entsyklapedyya [Grand Duchy of Lithuania: encyclopedia]. Minsk, 2007, vol. 2, pp. 606–611 (in Belarusian).