Citizens’ involvement in politics is essential for the credibility of institutions, as well as for the citizens’ articulation of their demands and the holding of their representatives to account. As such, it is of primary importance in new post-Communist democracies. The weakness of political society and low levels of citizens’ involvement in politics in East-Central Europe are usually linked to low levels of social capital (weak civil society and low levels of interpersonal trust) and the legacy of cooperation with Communism. Following the approach stressing the importance of participation in group networks as a school of democracy, this study tests the impact of interpersonal trust, membership in voluntary associations, and past Communist party membership on levels of political involvement in ten post-Communist countries in the mid-1990. This approach is complemented by the analysis of the impact of the change of political and economic structures on individual-level behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Almond, Gabriel Abraham, and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Bahry, Donna, and Brian D. Silver. 1990. “Soviet Citizen Participation on the Eve of Democratization.”American Political Science Review84 (3): 821-847.
3.
Barnes, Samuel H., and Janos Simon. 1998. The Postcommunist Citizen. Budapest: Erasmus Foundation.
4.
Bermeo, Nancy. 1992. “Democracy and the Lessons of Dictatorship.”Comparative Politics24 (3): 273-291.
5.
Brehm, John, and Wendy Rahn. 1997. “Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital.”American Journal of Political Science41 (3): 999-1023.
6.
Brown, Mitchell, and Eric M. Uslaner. 2002. “Inequality, Trust, and Political Engagement.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 29-September 1, Boston.
7.
Bryk, Anthony S., and Stephen W Raudenbush. 1993. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
8.
Dahl, Robert A.1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
9.
Dalton, Russell. 2000a. “Citizen Attitudes and Political Behavior.”Comparative Political Studies33 (6/7): 812-840.
10.
Dalton, Russell. 2000b. “The Decline of Party Identifications.” In R. Dalton and M. P. Wattenberg, eds., Parties Without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
Dekker, Paul, R. Koopmans, and A. van den Broek. 1997. “Voluntary Associations, Social Movements and Individual Political Behavior in Western Europe.” In J. W. van Deth, ed., Private Groups and Public Life. Social Participation, Voluntary Associations and Political Involvement in Representative Democracies. London: Routlege.
12.
DiFrancesco, Wayne, and Zvi Gitelman. 1984. “Soviet Political Culture and ‘Covert Participation’in Policy Implementation.”American Political Science Review78 (603-21):
13.
Eastis, Carla M.2001. “Organisational Diversity and the Production of Social Capital: One of These Groups Is Not Like the Other.” In B. Edwards, M. W. Foley, and M. Diani, eds., Beyond Tocqueville Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective. Hanover and London: Tufts University Press.
14.
Edwards, Bob, and Michael W. Foley. 2001. “Civil Society and the Social Capital: A Primer.” In B. Edwards, M. W. Foley, and M. Diani, eds., Beyond Tocqueville. Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective. Hanover and London: Tufts University Press.
15.
Ekiert, Grzegorz, and Jan Kubik. 1999. Rebellious Civil Society: Popular Protest and Democratic Consolidation in Poland, 1989-1993. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
16.
Evans, Geoffrey, and Christine Lipsmeyer. 2001. “The Democratic Experience in Divided Societies: The Baltic States in Comparative Perspective.”Journal of Baltic Studies32 (4): 379-400.
17.
Evans, Geoffrey, and Pippa Norris, eds. 1999. Critical Elections: British Parties in Long-Term Perspective. London: Sage.
18.
Evans, Geoffrey, and Stephen Whitfield. Nd. Explaining Political Divisions: The Social and Ideological Bases of Partisanship in Twelve Post-Communist Demmocracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
Garton Ash, Timothy. 1990. We the People: The Revolution of ‘89 Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin and Prague. Cambridge, MA: Granta.
20.
Gibson, James L.2001. “Social Networks, Civil Society, and the Prospects for Consolidating Russian’s Democratic Transition.”American Journal of Political Science45 (1): 51-69.
21.
Gibson, James L., Raymond M. Duch, and Kent L. Tedin. 1992. “Democratic Values and the Transformation of the Soviet Union.”Journal of Politics54 (2): 329-371.
22.
Hayoz, Nicolas, and Victor Sergeyev. 2003. “Social Networks in Russian politics.” In E. Uslaner and G. Badescu, eds., Social Capital and the Transition to Democracy. London and New York: Routledge.
23.
Howard, Marc Morjé.2002. The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
Inglehart, Ronald, and Gabriela Catterberg. 2002. “Trends in Political Action: The Developmental Trend and the Post-Honeymoon Decline.”International Journal of Comparative Sociology43 (3-5): 300-316.
27.
Jackman, Robert W., and Ross A. Miller. 1996. “A Renaissance of Political Culture?”American Journal of Political Science40 (3): 632-659.
28.
Jackman, Robert W., and Ross A. Miller. 1998. “Social Capital and Politics.”Annual Review of Political Science1: 47-73.
29.
Kostadinova, Tatiana. 2003. “Voter Turnout Dynamics in Post-Communist Europe.”European Journal of Political Research42 (6): 741-759.
30.
Krishna, Anirudh2002. “Enhancing Political Participation in Democracies. What is the Role of Social Capital?”Comparative Political Studies35: 437-460.
31.
Letki, Natalia. 2002. “Lustration and Consolidation of Democracy.”Europe-Asia Studies54 (4): 529-552.
32.
Letki, Natalia, and Geoffrey Evans. Nd. “Endogenizing Social Trust: Democratisation in East-Central Europe.”British Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.
Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkin University Press.
35.
Miszlivetz, Ferenz, and Jody Jensen. 1998. “An Emerging Paradox. Civil Society from Above?” In D. Rueschemeyer, M. Rueschemeyer, and B. Wittrock, eds., Participation and Democracy East and West. Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe.
36.
Muller, Edward N., and Mitchell A. Seligson. 1994. “Civic Culture and Democracy: The Question of Causal Relationships.”American Political Science Review88 (3): 635-652.
37.
Newton, Kenneth. 2001. “Social Capital and Democracy.” In B. Edwards, M. Foley, and M. Diani, eds., Beyond Tocqueville. Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective. Hanover: Tufts University Press.
38.
Norris, Pippa. 2002. Democratic Phoenix. Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Parry, Geraint, George Moyser, and N. Day. 1992. Political Participation and Democracy in Britain. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Paxton, Pamela. 2002. “Social Capital and Democracy: An Interdependent Relationship.”American Sociological Review67 (2): 254-277.
41.
Putnam, Robert D.1993a. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
Putnam, Robert D.1993b. “The Prosperous Community. Social Capital and Public Life.”American Prospect4 (13): 35-42.
43.
Putnam, Robert D.1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.”Journal of Democracy6 (1): 65-78.
44.
Putnam, Robert D.2000. Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
45.
Rose, Richard. 2000. “Uses of Social Capital in Russia: Modern, Premodern, and Anti-modern.”Post-Soviet Affairs16 (1): 33-57.
46.
Rose, Richard. 2001. “When Government Fails. Social Capital in an Anti-modern Russia.” In B. Edwards, M. W. Foley and M. Diani, eds., Beyond Tocqueville. Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective. Hanover and London: Tufts University Press.
47.
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 2001. “Trust and Honesty in Post-Socialist Societies.”KYKLOS54 (2/3): 415-444.
48.
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Marilyn Rueschemeyer, and Björn Wittrock, eds. 1998. Participation and Democracy East and West. Comparisons and Interpretations. Armonk, New York and London: M.E. Sharpe.
49.
Rychard, Andrzej. 1998. “Institutions and Actors in a New Democracy. The Vanishing Legacy of Communist and Solidarity Types of Participation in Poland.” In D. Rueschemeyer, M. Rueschemeyer and B. Wittrock, eds., Paticipation and Democracy East and West. Comparisons and Interpretations. Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe.
50.
Scarrow, Susan E.2000. “Parties without Members? Party Organization in a Changing Electoral Environment.” In R. Dalton and M. P. Wattenberg, eds., Parties Without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
Schlozman, Kay L., Nancy Burns, Sidney Verba, and J. Donahue. 1995. “Gender and Citizen Participation: Is There a Different Voice?”American Journal of Political Science39 (2): 267-293.
52.
Schmitter, Philippe C., and Terry Lynne Karl. 1991. “What Democracy Is... and Is Not.”Journal of Democracy2: 75-88.
53.
Stolle, Dietlind. 1998. “Bowling Together, Bowling Alone: The Development of Generalised Trust in Voluntary Associations.”Political Psychology19 (3): 497-525.
54.
Stolle, Dietlind. 2001. “Clubs and Congregations: The Benefits of Joining an Association.” In K. S. Cook., ed., Trust in Society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
55.
Stolle, Dietlind, and Thomas R. Rochon. 2001. “Are All Associations Alike? Member Diversity, Associational Type, and the Creation of Social Capital.” In B. Edwards, M. Foley and M. Diani, eds., Beyond Tocqueville. Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective. Hanover: Tufts University.
56.
Thomassen, J., and Jan W. van Deth. 1998. “Political Involvement and Democratic Attitudes.” In S. H. Barnes and J. Simon, eds., The Postcommunist Citizen. Budapest: Erasmus Foundation and IPS of HAS.
57.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1969. Democracy in America. New York: Anchor Books.
58.
Uslaner, Eric M.1999. The Moral Foundations of Trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59.
van Deth, Jan W.2000. “Interesting but Irrelevant: Social Capital and the Saliency of Politics in Western Europe.”European Journal of Political Research37 (2): 115-147.
60.
Verba, Sidney, and H. Norman Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper Row.
61.
Verba, Sidney, Kay L. Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Volunteerism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
62.
Wattenberg, Mark P.2000. “The Decline of Party Mobilization.” In R. Dalton and M. P. Wattenberg, eds., Parties Without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63.
Welsh, Helga. 1994. “Political Transition Processes in Central and Eastern Europe.”Comparative Politics26 (4): 379-394.
64.
Woodhouse, Geoff, Jon Rabash, Harvey Goldstein, and Min Yang. 1996. “Introduction to Multilevel Modelling.” In G. Wood-house, ed., A Guide for Users of MLWin. London: Institute of Education.
