CY111-FM CY111/Howard 0521812232 October26,2002 14:17 CharCount=0 The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe MARC MORJE´ HOWARD iii CY111-FM CY111/Howard 0521812232 October26,2002 14:17 CharCount=0 publishedbythepresssyndicateoftheuniversityofcambridge ThePittBuilding,TrumpingtonStreet,Cambridge,UnitedKingdom cambridgeuniversitypress TheEdinburghBuilding,Cambridgecb22ru,uk 40West20thStreet,NewYork,ny10011-4211,usa 477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,vic3207,Australia RuizdeAlarco´n13,28014Madrid,Spain DockHouse,TheWaterfront,CapeTown8001,SouthAfrica http://www.cambridge.org (cid:2)C MarcMorje´Howard2003 Thisbookisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements, noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithout thewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress. Firstpublished2003 PrintedintheUnitedKingdomattheUniversityPress,Cambridge TypefaceSabon10/12pt. SystemLATEX2ε [tb] AcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary. LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData Howard,MarcMorje´. Theweaknessofcivilsocietyinpost-CommunistEurope/MarcMorje´Howard. p. cm. Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex. isbn0-521-81223-2–isbn0-521-01152-3(pb.) 1.Civilsociety–Europe,Eastern. 2.Democratization–Europe,Eastern. 3.Non-governmentalorganizations–Europe,Eastern. i.Title. jc599.e92h68 2002 300(cid:3).947–dc21 2002024638 isbn0521812232hardback isbn0521011523paperback Portionsoftheresearchdiscussedinthisbookwerepreviouslypublishedasashortarticle intheJournalofDemocracy:MarcMorje´Howard,“TheWeaknessofPostcommunist Society,”JournalofDemocracy,vol.13,no.1(2002):157–69.WithkindpermissionofJohns HopkinsUniversityPress. iv CY111-FM CY111/Howard 0521812232 October26,2002 14:17 CharCount=0 Contents ListofFigures pageviii ListofTables ix Preface xi 1 Introduction 1 2 AnExperientialApproachtoSocietalContinuityandChange 16 3 CivilSocietyandDemocratization 31 4 Post-CommunistCivilSocietyinComparativePerspective: AnEmpiricalBaseline 57 5 ExplainingOrganizationalMembership:AnEvaluationof AlternativeHypotheses 92 6 Why Post-Communist Citizens Do Not Join Organizations: AnInterpretiveAnalysis 121 7 Conclusion 146 AppendixA CodingoftheVariables 164 AppendixB CountryScoresontheMainVariables 167 AppendixC The Post-Communist Organizational Membership Study(PCOMS)Survey 170 AppendixD TheIn-DepthInterviews 175 References 189 Index 201 vii CY111-FM CY111/Howard 0521812232 October26,2002 14:17 CharCount=0 Figures 3.1 TheArenasofDemocratization page33 3.2 TheGroupsofPoliticalSociety,EconomicSociety,andCivil Society 36 4.1 AverageNumberofOrganizationalMembershipsperPerson, PriorRegimeTypeAverages 62 4.2 Membership in Nine Types of Organizations, Prior Regime TypeAverages 64 4.3 AverageNumberofOrganizationalMembershipsperPerson, byCountry 69 5.1 IncomeandOrganizationalMembership 94 5.2 EducationandOrganizationalMembership 95 5.3 AgeandOrganizationalMembership 97 5.4 GenderandOrganizationalMembership 98 5.5 CitySizeandOrganizationalMembership 99 5.6 ReasonsforNotJoiningAnyVoluntaryOrganizations 103 5.7 Mistrust of Communist Organizations and Organizational MembershipToday 106 5.8 Persistence of Friendship Networks and Organizational Membership 108 5.9 Post-CommunistDisappointmentandOrganizational Membership 110 viii CY111-FM CY111/Howard 0521812232 October26,2002 14:17 CharCount=0 Tables 4.1 TheImplicationsofPriorNon-DemocraticRegimeTypefor theTasksofDemocraticConsolidation page61 4.2 OrganizationalMembership,byCountry 65 4.3 Changes in Levels of Membership, 1990–91 to 1995–97: CountryRankings 71 4.4 ChangesinLevelsofMembership,1995–97to1999: Russia,EasternGermany,andWesternGermany 73 4.5 EconomicWell-BeingandOrganizationalMembership 75 4.6 Political Rights and Civil Liberties and Organizational Membership 77 4.7 “Civilization”andOrganizationalMembership 79 4.8 PriorRegimeTypeandOrganizationalMembership 80 4.9 Democratic Longevity and Organizational Membership (Post-AuthoritarianandPost-CommunistCountriesOnly) 82 4.10 OLSRegressionAnalysisofAggregateMembershipin VoluntaryOrganizations(AllCountries) 83 4.11 OLSRegressionAnalysisofAggregateMembershipin VoluntaryOrganizations(Post-Authoritarianand Post-CommunistCountriesOnly) 84 4.12 OLSRegressionAnalysisofAggregateMembershipin Voluntary Organizations, with Controls for Individual Characteristics(AllCountries) 88 4.13 OLSRegressionAnalysisofAggregateMembershipin Voluntary Organizations, with Controls for Individual Characteristics (Post-Authoritarian and Post-Communist CountriesOnly) 89 5.1 OLS Regression Analysis of Individual-Level Membership inVoluntaryOrganizations(Russia,EasternGermany,and WesternGermany,combined) 100 ix CY111-FM CY111/Howard 0521812232 October26,2002 14:17 CharCount=0 x ListofTables 5.2 OLS Regression Analysis of Individual-Level Membership inVoluntaryOrganizations(Russia,EasternGermany,and WesternGermany,separately) 102 5.3 OLS Regression Analysis of Individual-Level Membership in Voluntary Organizations (Russia and Eastern Germany, combinedandseparately) 111 6.1 TheSalienceofUnemploymentinEasternGermany 142 B.1 CountryScoresontheMainVariables 167 C.1 DistributionofPCOMSSurveyRespondents 171 D.1 ComparisonofIn-DepthInterviewandPCOMSSurvey Respondents 177 D.2 Comparison of In-Depth Interview Respondents to New DemocraciesBarometer(NDB)andNewRussia Barometer(NRB)Results 178 D.3 In-DepthInterviewRespondentCharacteristics 181 CY111-01 CY111/Howard 0521812232 September30,2002 17:48 CharCount=0 1 Introduction Thisbookexploresthegeneralthemeofhowpeopleadapttoanewdemo- craticsystem,concentratingonthecitizensofpost-communistEurope,who have lived through tremendous political and economic changes over the past two decades. It traces their life experiences and trajectories, from liv- ing in communist political and economic systems to adapting to the rapid and sweeping changes of post-communist democracy and market capital- ism. In states where the Communist Party dominated for decades with its omnipresent ideology and mechanisms of social control, ordinary people developed strategies for getting by in an economy in which shortages were rampant, and in a political system in which laws and institutions rarely functioned as intended or promised. This book shows how, to what ex- tent, and in what ways these adaptive strategies have persisted in the new post-communistera. More specifically, this book focuses on civil society – conceived of as a crucial part of the public space between the state and the family, and embodied in voluntary organizations – and it seeks to explain why post- communist civil society is distinctively weak, characterized by low levels of organizational membership and participation by ordinary citizens. The assertion that civil society is weak throughout post-communist Europe de- mands evidence and explanation. A major task of this book is therefore to present a clear and detailed account of comparative levels of participation in voluntary organizations across a wide set of countries. This “empirical baseline,”whichintroducesoriginalandrecentsourcesofdata,providesan empiricalfoundationtodebatesthatarefrequentlymarredbyincomparable data,withconclusionsoftenreducedtohunchesandwishfulthinking.While the establishment of a broad comparative baseline of organizational mem- bership is essential to this book, its most important and challenging task is toprovideacausalexplanationtoaccountfortheparticularlylowlevelsof post-communistcivicparticipation. 1 CY111-01 CY111/Howard 0521812232 September30,2002 17:48 CharCount=0 2 WeaknessofCivilSocietyinPost-CommunistEurope post-communisteurope Although the topic, data, theory, and methods of this book are of wider relevance for comparative politics, the specific project focuses on the re- gion of post-communist Europe in order to explain a remarkable pattern of low, perhaps even declining, rates of participation in the voluntary or- ganizations of civil society. These consistently low levels of organizational membership are especially surprising given the well-documented increases in the numbers of existing organizations in the region since the collapse of communism.1 Throughoutthebook,Ireferto“post-communistEurope”asadistinctive andcoherentregion.Theveryuseofthisphrasenecessitatesadefinitionof which types of countries are included and a discussion of how the region hasbeenviewedandtreatedbyotherscholars.Myuseof“post-communist Europe” has both a geographic and a substantive component. Geographi- cally,itincludesonlythosecountriesthatarelocatedontheEuropeancon- tinent, thereby leaving out non-European post-communist countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as non-Soviet countries such as China, North Korea, and Cuba. Although I believe that the similarities between European and non-European post-communist countries are probably far greater than most scholars recognize, to include the non-European nations inmyanalysiswouldgofarbeyondthescopeofthisbook,aswellasobfus- cate its conceptual and thematic focus. Substantively, since I am primarily concerned with the role of civil society in countries that are in the process of democratization – indeed, I argue that civil society requires at least the minimumlegalprotectionaffordeditbydemocraticinstitutions–Iamnot referringtocountriesthatwereblatantlynon-democraticatthetimeIcon- ducted my research. This distinction is important because, unlike studies that focus on the entire universe of up to 28 post-communist countries in EasternEuropeandtheformerSovietUnion,2 itnarrowstherealmofcases by approximately half, leaving those countries that are generally the most successfulinbothpoliticalandeconomicterms.Inshort,myuseofthecat- egory“theregionofpost-communistEurope”ismeanttoencompassthose 1 See,forexample,LesterM.Salamonetal.,GlobalCivilSociety:DimensionsoftheNonprofit Sector(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsCenterforCivilSocietyStudies,1999);Civicus,TheNew CivicAtlas:ProfilesofCivilSocietyin60Countries(Washington,DC:Civicus,1997);Grzegorz EkiertandJanKubik,RebelliousCivilSociety:PopularProtestandDemocraticConsolidationin Poland,1989–1993(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1999). 2 See,forexample,ValerieBunce,“ThePoliticalEconomyofPostsocialism,”inSlavicReview, Vol. 58, No. 4 (1999), pp. 756–793; M. Steven Fish, “Postcommunist Subversion: Social ScienceandDemocratizationinEastEuropeandEurasia,”inSlavicReview,Vol.58,No.4 (1999),pp.794–823;M.StevenFish,“TheDeterminantsofEconomicReforminthePost- CommunistWorld,”inEastEuropeanPoliticsandSocieties,Vol.12,No.1(1998),pp.31–78; M. Steven Fish, “Democratization’s Requisites: The Postcommunist Experience,” in Post- SovietAffairs,Vol.14,No.3(1998),pp.212–247. CY111-01 CY111/Howard 0521812232 September30,2002 17:48 CharCount=0 Introduction 3 post-communistcountriesontheEuropeancontinentthathaveachievedat leastabasicminimumofproceduraldemocracy.3 Broadly speaking, scholars have looked at the countries of post- communist Europe in two different ways, emphasizing either the new opportunities of the post-communist present or the lasting effects of the communist past. The first approach, which was especially dominant in the early- to mid-1990s, either assumes or argues explicitly that contemporary political and economic attributes and policies are the most important fac- tors for explaining and predicting cross-national variation. Scholars have emphasized a range of variables, including the “mode of transition,”4 po- litical “crafting,”5 institutional design,6 and economic policies and condi- tions.7Byfocusingonsuchgenericfactors,analystshavebeenabletoinclude post-communistcountriesinabroadercomparativeframework,thustreat- ing them as another set of “cases” to which they can extend the theories andargumentsdevelopedinstudiesofLatinAmericanandSouthEuropean countries. The second approach, in contrast, accounts for current developments in post-communistcountriesbyemphasizingcausalvariablesthatareparticular legaciesofthecommunistexperience.Manyadvocatesofthisapproachhave criticizedthe“tabularasa”elementofthefirst,whichtheyviewasignoring the crucial historical and cultural context of communism. The specific fac- tors of the second approach that scholars choose to emphasize are quite varied;theyincludethenatureandconsequencesofpoliticaloppositionand crises,8thesimultaneityofpost-communistpolitical,economic,and(insome cases)evennationaltransitions,9 theparticularinstitutionaldesignofcom- munist systems,10 and the attitudinal orientations and behavioral practices 3 IexplainanddiscussmycriteriaforselectingcountriesinmuchgreaterdetailinChapter4. 4 Terry Lynn Karl and Philippe C. Schmitter, “Modes of Transition in Latin America, SouthernandEasternEurope,”inInternationalSocialScienceJournal,Vol.43,No.2(1991), pp.269–284. 5 Giuseppe Di Palma, ToCraftDemocracies:AnEssayonDemocraticTransitions (Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1990). 6 ArendLijphartandCarlosH.Waisman,eds.InstitutionalDesigninNewDemocracies:Eastern EuropeandLatinAmerica(Boulder:WestviewPress,1996). 7 Adam Przeworski, Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern EuropeandLatinAmerica(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991);StephanHaggard andRobertR.Kaufman,ThePoliticalEconomyofDemocraticTransitions(Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress,1995). 8 GrzegorzEkiert,TheStateagainstSociety:PoliticalCrisesandTheirAftermathinEastCentral Europe(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1996). 9 Claus Offe, “Capitalism by Democratic Design? Democratic Theory Facing the Triple TransitioninEastCentralEurope,”inSocialResearch,Vol.58,No.4(1991),pp.865–892. 10 ValerieBunce,SubversiveInstitutions:TheDesignandtheDestructionofSocialismandtheState (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999);StevenL.Solnick,StealingtheState:Control andCollapseinSovietInstitutions(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1998). CY111-01 CY111/Howard 0521812232 September30,2002 17:48 CharCount=0 4 WeaknessofCivilSocietyinPost-CommunistEurope thatdevelopedundercommunism.11 Butthehistoricalemphasisandcausal logicaresimilar,andthecommonargumentisthatwithoutanunderstand- ingofthecommunistpast,itisdifficulttomakesenseofthepost-communist presentandfuture.Perhapsparadoxically,whileonemightexpectthepower oflegaciestodecreaseovertime,thescholarlyattentionpaidtolegacieshas actually increased since the collapse of the state socialist system, providing amuch-neededcorrectiontotheahistoricalapproachjustdiscussed. Although these two contending approaches have been hotly debated,12 many scholars are increasingly trying to incorporate elements from both.13 Moreover, scholars from both approaches – whether they emphasize contemporaryeconomicandpoliticalvariables,orcommunist-erahistorical factors – often share the assumption, or reach the conclusion, that there are great differences within the region of post-communist Europe.14 This newemphasisonpost-communistdifferenceisoftenadirectreactiontothe earlier field of Sovietology, which is perceived to have overemphasized the similarities among communist countries.15 In other words, even scholars whofocusonthepowerofthecommunistlegacytendtostressthatindivid- ualcommunistcountrieshadverydifferenthistoricalexperiences,andthey generally seek to show how those diverse experiences have contributed to lastingdifferencesinthepresent.16 11 KenJowitt,NewWorldDisorder:TheLeninistExtinction(Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press,1992);PiotrSztompka,“CivilizationalIncompetence:TheTrapofPost-Communist Societies,”inZeitschriftfu¨rSoziologie,Vol.22,No.2(1993),pp.85–95;PiotrSztompka,“The IntangiblesandImponderablesoftheTransitiontoDemocracy,”inStudiesinComparative Communism,Vol.24,No.3(1991),pp.295–311. 12 SeeespeciallythepointedexchangebetweenValerieBunce,ontheonehand,andPhilippe SchmitterandTerryKarl,ontheother:PhilippeC.SchmitterandTerryLynnKarl,“The ConceptualTravelsofTransitologistsandConsolodologists:HowFartotheEastShould TheyAttempttoGo?”inSlavicReview,Vol.53,No.1(spring1994),pp.173–185;Valerie Bunce, “Should Transitologists Be Grounded?” in SlavicReview, Vol. 54, No. 1 (1995), pp.111–127; Terry Lynn Karl and Philippe C. Schmitter, “From Iron Curtain to a Pa- perCurtain:GroundingTransitologistsorStudentsofPostcommunism?”inSlavicReview, Vol.54,No.4(1995),pp.965–978. 13 Forrecentbooksthatcombineaspectsfrombothapproaches,see,forexample,JuanJ.Linz and Alfred Stepan, ProblemsofDemocraticTransitionandConsolidation:SouthernEurope, South America, and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996);JonElster,ClausOffe,andUlrichK.Preuss,InstitutionalDesigninPost-Communist Societies:RebuildingtheShipatSea(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998);David Stark and La´szlo´ Bruszt, Postsocialist Pathways: Transforming Politics and Property in East CentralEurope(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998). 14 See,forexample,JacquesRupnik,“ThePostcommunistDivide,”inJournalofDemocracy, Vol.10,No.1(1999),pp.57–62;Fish,“Democratization’sRequisites.” 15 See Ekiert, The State against Society, for an explicit articulation of the distinction to Sovietology. 16 See,forexample,Ekiert,TheStateagainstSociety;Bunce,SubversiveInstitutions;ValerieBunce, “RegionalDifferencesinDemocratization:TheEastversustheSouth,”inPost-SovietAffairs, Vol.14,No.3(1998),pp.187–211;Bunce,“ThePoliticalEconomyofPostsocialism.”