In this article, the authors examine the potential for concerted collective action in the societies that emerged from state socialism in East-Central Europe after 1989. Although scholars have found strong individual-level evidence that protest potential is weaker here than in other parts of the world, the authors question whether individual-level data adequately tap all the dimensions of activism that are relevant to contentious politics. They propose a differentiated model of civil society consisting of (a) internal potential for citizen action and (b) relational aspects of social activism and argue that some forms of the latter—and in particularly, what they call “transactional activism”—are more robust than what evidence at the individual level suggests. They also examine some local and transnational-level data from the region and speculate about the capacities for collective action they find there and their potential for contributing to the construction of a transnational Europe.
Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (2005). Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Arato, A. (1991). Revolution, civil society, and democracy. In Z. Rau (Ed.), The reemergence of civil society in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (pp. 161-176). Boulder, CO: Westview.
3.
Baker, S., & Jehlicka, P. (1998). Dilemmas of transition: The environment, democracy and economic reform in east central Europe—An introduction. Environmental Politics, 7, 1-26.
4.
Bernhard, M. (1996). Civil society after the first transition: Dilemmas of post-communist democratization in Poland and beyond. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 29, 300-330.
5.
Carnaghan, E. (2001). Thinking about democracy: Interviews with Russian citizens. Slavic Review, 60, 336-364.
6.
Carson, T. (2001). Attitudes toward change, the current situation, and civic action in Ukraine. Retrieved December 10, 2004, from http://www.ifes.org/reg_activities/Pdf/Final_aug8.pdf
7.
Central and Eastern European Bankwatch. (1998). Protest against M0 ringroad—Choking ring around Budapest tendered by EIB. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from, http://www.bankwatch.org/press/1998/press9.html
8.
Central and Eastern European Bankwatch. (1999). EIB’s poor transport project under investigation by EU ombudsman. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.bankwatch.org/press/1999/press9.html
9.
Central and Eastern European Bankwatch. (2002). Billions for destroying the environment? M0 ring road, Hungary. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.bankwatch.org/project.shtml?apc=—307250—-1&x=161946&d=r
10.
Council Directive 85/337/EEC. (1993, April 2). Report from the Commission on the implementation of Directive 85/337. Brussels, Belgium: European Council.
11.
Crawford, B., & Lijphart, A. (1995). Explaining political and economic change in post-communist Eastern Europe: Old legacies, new institutions, hegemonic norms, and international pressures. Comparative Political Studies, 28, 171-199.
12.
Crotty, J. (2003). Managing civil society: Democratization and the environmental movement in a Russian region. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 36, 489-508.
13.
Ekiert, G. (1991). Democratization processes in east central Europe: A theoretical reconsideration. British Journal of Political Science, 21, 285-313.
14.
European Ombudsman. (2001). The annual report. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/report01/pdf/en/rap01_en.pdf
15.
Evans, A. B. (2002). Recent assessment of social organizations in Russia. Demokratizatsiya, 10, 322-341.
16.
Gibson, J. (2001). Social networks, civil society, and the prospects for consolidating for Russia’s democratic transition. American Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 51-68.
17.
Glenn, J., & Mendelson, S. (Eds.). (2002). The power and limits of NGOs: A critical look at building democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. New York: Columbia University Press.
18.
Greskovits, B. (1998). The political economy of protest and patience: East European and Latin American transformations compared. New York: Central European University Press.
19.
Henderson, S. (2002). Selling civil society: Western aid and the nongovernmental sector in Russia. Comparative Political Studies, 35(2), 139-167.
20.
Henry, L. (2001). The greening of grassroots democracy? The Russian environmental movement, foreign aid and democratization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies.
21.
Howard, M. M. (2003). The weakness of civil society in post-communist Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Jancar-Webster, B. (1998). Environmental movements and social change in the transition countries. Environmental Politics, 7(1), 69-90.
23.
Klose, L. (2000). Let’s help the river: Volga NGO builds links with local government. Journal on Civil Society in Eurasia, 3, 7-8.
24.
Ledeneva, A. V. (1998). Russia’s economy of favors. Blat, networking and informal exchange. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Marks, G., & McAdam, D. (1999). On the relationship of political opportunities to the form of collective action: The case of the European Union. In D. della Porta, H. Kriesi, & D. Rucht (Eds.), Social movements in a globalizing world (pp. 97-111). New York: St. Martin’s.
26.
McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Mendelson, S. E., & Gerber, T. P. (2005). Local activist culture and transnational diffusion: An experiment in social marketing among human rights groups in Russia. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
28.
Michels, R. (1962). Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New York: Free Press.
29.
Miller, W., Grodeland, A., & Koshechkina, T. (1998). Are people victims or accomplices? The use of presents and bribes to influence officials in Eastern Europe. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 29, 273-310.
30.
Narozhna, T. (2004). Foreign aid for a post-euphoric Eastern Europe: The limitations of Western assistance in developing civil society. Journal of International Relations and Development, 7, 243-266.
31.
Nelson, D. (1996). Civil society endangered. Social Research, 63, 345-368.
32.
Nichols, T. M. (1996). Russian democracy and social capital. Social Science Information, 35, 629-642.
33.
Ockenfals, A., & Weimann, J. (1996). Types and patterns: An experimental east-west comparison of co-operation and solidarity. Journal of Public Economics, 71(2), 275-287.
34.
Osgood, M., & Ong, B. N. (2002). Social capital formation and development in marginal communities with reference to post-Soviet societies. Progress in Developmental Studies, 1, 205-219.
35.
Petrova, T. (2005, April). From state officials turnover to state capacity turnaround. Paper presented at the South East European Studies Association, Columbus, OH.
36.
Raiser, M., Haerpfer, C., Nowotny, T., & Wallace, C. (2001). Social capital in transition: A first look at the evidence. London: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
37.
Richter, J. (1998). Promoting activism or professionalism in Russia’s civil society? (Program on New Approaches to Russian Security Policy Memo Series, No. 51). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
Richter, J. (2002). Promoting civil society? Democracy assistance and Russian woman’s organizations. Problems of Post-Communism, 49, 30-41.
39.
Rose, R. (1993). Rethinking civil society: Postcommunism and the problem of trust. Journal of Democracy, 1, 18-29.
40.
Rose, R. (2001). How people view democracy: A diverging Europe. Journal of Democracy, 12(1), 93-106.
41.
Rose, R., Mishler, W., & Haerpfer, C. (1997). Getting real, social capital in post Communist societies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Strathclyde.
42.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (2001). Trust, honesty and corruption: Reflection on the state-building process. European Journal of Sociology, 42, 526-570.
43.
Smolar, A. (1996). Civil society after communism: From opposition to atomization. Journal of Democracy, 7(1), 24-38.
44.
Theesfeld, I. (2004). Constraints on collective action in a transitional economy: The case of Bulgaria’s irrigation sector. World Development, 32(2), 251-271.
45.
Toepler, S., & Salamon, L. M. (2003). NGO development in Central and Eastern Europe: An empirical overview. East European Quarterly, 37(3), 365-378.
46.
United Nations Development Program. (2004). Ocenka na obshtinskia i oblastnia kapacitet za usvoiavane na sredstvata ot strukturnite fondove i fonda za socialno sblizhavane na evropeiskia suuz [Evaluation of municipal and district capacity for EU structural funds absorption]. Sofia, Bulgaria: Author.
47.
United States Agency for International Development. (1998). The 1998 NGO sustainability index: For Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www1.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/ngoindex/1998/index.htm
48.
United States Agency for International Development. (1999a) The 1999 NGO Sustainability Index: For Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www1.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/ngoindex/1999/index.htm
49.
United States Agency for International Development. (1999b). Lessons in implementation: The NGO story: Building civil society in Central and Eastern Europe and the new independent states. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/pdfs/lessonsnew.pdf
50.
United States Agency for International Development. (2000). The 2000 NGO sustainability index: For Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www1.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/ngoindex/2000/index.htm
51.
United States Agency for International Development. (2001). The 2001 NGO sustainability index: For Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/ngoindex/2001
52.
United States Agency for International Development. (2002). The 2002 NGO sustainability index: For Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www1.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/ngoindex/2002/index.htm
53.
United States Agency for International Development. (2003). The 2003 NGO sustainability index: For Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/ngoindex/2003
54.
United States Agency for International Development. (2004). The 2004 NGO sustainability index: For Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www1.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/ngoindex/2004/index.htm
55.
Weinthal, E. (2002). State making and environmental cooperation: Linking domestic and international politics in Central Asia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
