Why do some new democratic political politicians constrain themselves and reduce their discretion to extract resources from the state and the processes of privatization? Postcommunist democracies show surprising variation in the adoption of formal institutions of monitoring and oversight. These institutions regulate markets, empower citizen oversight, and police the use and distribution of state assets. These have arisen rapidly in some countries and with considerable delays in others. Accounts that link institutional creation to European Union imposition, initial bargaining, and parliamentary divisions do not fully explain the variation. Instead, in the nine consolidated democracies and free markets examined here, robust political competition triggered mechanisms of anticipatory institution building and moderation of government behavior.
Bank fracas shows gains and defects [Editorial]. (1999, June 10). Budapest Sun.
2.
Bartlett, David. (1997). The political economy of dual transformations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3.
Barzelay, Michael. (1997). Central audit institutions and performance auditing. Governance, 10(3), 235-260.
4.
Bendor, J., Glazer, A., & Hammond, T. (2001). Theories of delegation. Annual Review of Political Science4, 235-269.
5.
Bennett, Colin. (1997). Understanding ripple effects: The cross-national adoption of policy instruments for bureaucratic accountability. Governance, 10(3), 213-233.
6.
Benoit, Kenneth, & Hayden, Jacqueline. (2004). Institutional change and persistence: The evolution of Poland’s electoral system, 1989-2001. Journal of Politics, 66, 2.
7.
Bernhard, Michael. (2000). Institutional choice after communism: A critique of theory-building in an empirical wasteland. East European Politics and Society, 14, 316-347.
8.
Carey, John. (2000). Parchment, equilibria, and institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6/7), 735-761.
9.
Colomer, Josep. (1995). Strategies and outcomes in Eastern Europe. Journal of Democracy, 6(2), 74-85.
10.
Epstein, David, & O’Halloran, Sharyn. (1999). Delegating powers: A transaction cost politics approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Freedom House. (2000). Nations in transit 1999-2000. Washington, DC: Author.
12.
Frič, Pavol. (1999). Korupce na ceskýzp sob [Corruption the Czech way]. Prague, Czech Republic: G Plus G.
13.
Frye, Timothy. (1997). A politics of institutional choice: Post-communist presidencies. Comparative political Studies, 30, 523-552.
14.
Frye, Timothy. (2002). The perils of polarization. World Politics, 54, 308-337.
15.
Geddes, Barbara. (1994). The politician’s dilemma. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
GrzymaÂa-Busse, Anna. (2003). Political competition and politicization of the state in East Central Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 36(10), 1123-1147.
17.
Hellman, Joel. (1998). Winners take all: The politics of partial reform in postcommunist transitions. World Politics, 50, 203-234.
18.
Hendley, Katherine. (1996). Trying to make law matter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ilonszki, Gabriella. (2000). The second generation political elite in Hungary: Partial consolidation. In Janina Frentzel-Zagórska& Jacek Wasilewski (Eds.), The second generation of democratic elites in East and Central Europe. Warsaw, Poland: PAN ISP.
21.
Ilonszki, Gabriella. (2002). A functional clarification of parliamentary committees in Hungary, 1990-1998. In David Olson & William Crowther (Eds.), Committees in post-communist democratic parliaments: comparative institutionalization (pp. 21-43). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
22.
Innes, Abby. (2002). Party competition in post-communist Europe: The great electoral lottery. Comparative Politics, 35(1), 85-105.
23.
Ishiyama, John. (1997). Transitional electoral systems in post-communist Eastern Europe. Political Science Quarterly, 112(1), 95-115.
24.
Jacoby, Wade. (2005). The enlargement of the European Union and NATO; Ordering from the menu in Central Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Jones Luong, Pauline. (2002). Institutional change and political continuity in post-Soviet central Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Karasimeonov, G. (1996). Bulgaria’s new party system. In Geoffrey Pridham & Paul Lewis (Eds.), Stabilising fragile democracies. (pp. 254-265). London: Routledge.
Keri, Laszlo. (1994). Balance: The Hungarian government 1990-1994. Budapest, Hungary: Korridor.
29.
Kiewet, D. Roderick, & McCubbins, Matthew D. (1991). The logic of delegation: Congressional parties and the appropriations process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
La Palombara, Joseph. (1994). Structural and institutional aspects of corruption. Social Research, 61(2), 325-350.
31.
Lewis, Paul. (2000). Political parties in post-communist Eastern Europe. New York: Routledge.
32.
Łoś, Maria, & Zybertowicz, Andrzej. (2000). Privatizing the police state. New York: St. Martin’s.
33.
Lijphart, Arend (Ed.). (1992). Parliamentary versus presidential government. New York: Oxford University Press
34.
Linz, Juan. (1994). Introduction: Some thoughts on presidentialism in postcommunist Europe. In Ray Taras (Ed.), Postcommunist presidents (pp. 1-14). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
Lippert, Barbara, Umbach, Gaby, & Wessels, Wolfgang. (2001). Europeanization of CEE executives: EU membership negotiations as a shaping power. Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 980-1012.
36.
Lupia, Arthur, & McCubbins, Matthew. (2000). The institutional foundations of political competence. In Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. McCubbins, & Samuel L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Mainwaring, Scott. (1993). Presidentialism, multipartism and democracy: The difficult combination. Comparative Political Studies, 26(2), 198-228.
38.
McCubbins, Matthew, Noll, Roger, & Weingast, Barry. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 3(2), 243-277.
39.
Moe, Terry M. (1990). Political institutions: The neglected side of the story. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 7, 213-253.
40.
Moe, Terry M., & Caldwell, Michael. (1994). The institutional foundations of democratic government: A comparison of presidential and parliamentary systems. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 150(1), 171-195.
41.
Moravcsik, Andrew, & Vachudova, Milada Anna. (2003). National interests, state power and EU enlargement. East European Politics and Societies, 17(1), 42-57.
42.
Nello, Susan Senior. (2001). The role of the IMF. In Jan Zielonka & Alex Pravda (Eds.), Democratic consolidation in Eastern Europe: International and transnational factors (pp. 76-211). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43.
Olson, Mancur. (1982). The rise and decline of nations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
O’Neil, Patrick. (1993). Presidential power in post-communist Europe: The Hungarian case in comparative perspective. Journal of Communist Studies, 9(3), 177-201.
45.
Orenstein, Mitchell. (2001). Out of the red. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
46.
Örkény, Antal, & Lane Scheppele, Kim. (1999). Rules of law: The complexity of legality in Hungary. In Martin Krygier & Adam Czarnota, The rule of law after communism (pp. 55-76). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
47.
Remington, Thomas, & Smith, Steven. (1996). Institutional design, uncertainty, and path dependency during transition. American Journal of Political Science, 40(4), 1253-1279.
48.
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. (1999). Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
Rus, Andrej. (1996). Quasi privatization: From class struggle to a scuffle of small particularisms. In Jill Benderly & Evan Kraft (Eds.), Independent Slovenia: Origins, movements, prospects (pp. 225-250). New York: St. Martin’s.
50.
Rydlewski, Grzegorz. (2000). Rzadzenie Koalicyjne w Polsce [Coalition governance in Poland]. Warsaw, Poland: Elipsa.
51.
Schamis, Hector. (1999). Distributional coalitions and the politics of economic reform in Latin America. World Politics, 50, 235-265.
52.
Scherpereel, John. (2003a, August 28-31). Appreciating the third player: The European Union and the politics of civil service reform in East Central Europe. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
53.
Scherpereel, John. (2003b). Between state socialism and European Union: Remaking the state in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
54.
Shleifer, Andrei, & Vishny, Robert W. (1998). The grabbing hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55.
Slovak Republic Government Office. (2001, October). Správa o boji proti korupcii na Slovensku [Report on the fight against corruption in Slovakia]. Available at http://www.government.gov.sk
56.
Smith, Karen. (2001). The promotion of democracy. In Jan Zielonka & Alex Pravda (Eds.), Democratic consolidation in Eastern Europe: International and transnational factors (pp. 31-57). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
57.
Stepan, Alfred, & Skach, Cindy. (1993). Constitutional frameworks and democratic consolidation. World Politics, 46(1), 1-22.
58.
Strom, Kaare. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 37, 261-289.
59.
Tisenkopfs, Talis, & Kalniš, Valts. (2002, February). Public accountability procedures in politics in Latvia. Report, Baltic Studies Center, Riga, Latvia.
60.
Todorova, Rossitsa. (2001). EU integration as an agent of public administration reform. Unpublished manuscript, American University in Bulgaria.
61.
Vreeland, James. (2003). The IMF and economic growth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62.
Weingast, Barry, & Marshall, William. (1987). Regulation and the theory of legislative choice: The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. Journal of Law and Economics, 32, 35-61.
63.
Zajc, Drago. (1994). The formation of parliamentary coalitions in Slovenia and the functioning of the first democratic parliament. In Attila Agh (Ed.), The emergence of East Central European parliaments: The first steps (pp. 97-107). Budapest: Hungarian Center for Democracy Studies.
