Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:33:14.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Developing attachments to new political institutions: a multi-level model of attitude formation in post-Communist Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2010

Gerhard Loewenberg*
Affiliation:
The University of Iowa, 336 Schaeffer Hall, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA
William Mishler
Affiliation:
University of Arizona, 314a Social Science, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
Howard Sanborn
Affiliation:
Virginia Military Institute, 435 Scott Shipp Hall, Lexington, Virginia 24450, USA
*

Abstract

In America and Western Europe, legislatures preceded democratization and contributed to the establishment and maintenance of democratic regimes in the late 18th and the 19th centuries. In Central and Eastern Europe in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, legislatures and democratic regimes appeared simultaneously. In the first 15 years of post-Communist transitions in 12 countries, attachments to the new regimes have been influenced by their institutional structures, their economic performance, and their records in protecting human freedom, while attachment to the new parliaments have been predominantly influenced by cultural factors related to early life socialization including education, age, gender, social status, and attitudes toward the former communist regime. Attachment to parliament was a product more than a cause of attachment to the new regimes, but the parliamentary system of government created a context that contributed to citizens’ attachment to their new political institutions. In that respect, attitudes toward parliaments in Central and Eastern Europe played a role similar to the role that these attitudes played in an earlier stage of democratization in Europe and North America, the role of attaching citizens to new political institutions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almond, G.Verba, S. (1963), The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. (1995), Blaming the Government: Citizens and the Economy in Five European Democracies, New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Anderson, C.J. (1998), ‘Party systems and satisfaction with democracy in the new Europe’, Political Studies 46: 572588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.J.Guillory, C.A. (1997), ‘Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems’, American Political Science Review 91: 6681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C.J., et al. (2005), Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunce, V. (1999), Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Collapse of Socialism and the State, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
CESifo DICE Report (2/2007), Center for Economic Studies. University of Munich.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J.Weldon, S. (2007), ‘Partisanship and party system institutionalization’, Party Politics 13(2): 179196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, D.Hess, R.D. (1962), ‘The child’s political world’, Midwest Journal of Political Science 6(3): 229246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, D. (1965), A Systems Analysis of Political Life, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Eckstein, H. (1966), Division and Cohesion in Democracy; a Study of Norway, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, G.Whitefield, S. (1995), ‘The politics and economics of democratic commitment: support for democracy in transition societies’, British Journal of Political Science 25(October): 485514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A.Hill, J. (2007), Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, J.P. (1961), ‘The role of the lower houses of assembly in eighteenth-century politics’, The Journal of Southern History 27: 451474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, S.P. (1991), The Third Wave; Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1990), Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, D.Kiewiet, R. (1981), ‘Sociotropic politics: the American case’, British Journal of Political Science 11: 129161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornberg, A.Clarke, H. (1992), Citizens and Community: Political Support in a Representative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. (1988), Economics & Elections: The Major Western Democracies, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1992), ‘Democratization and constitutional choices in Czecho-slovakia, Hungary, and Poland, 1989–1991’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 4: 207223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Loewenberg, G.Patterson, S.C. (1979), Comparing Legislatures, Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Manski, C.F. (1995), Identification Problems in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mezey, M. (1985), ‘The functions of legislatures in the third world’, in G. Loewenberg, S.C. Patterson and M.E. Jewell (eds), Handbook of Legislative Research, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 733772.Google Scholar
Mishler, W.Rose, R. (1994), ‘Support for parliaments and regimes in the transition toward democracy in eastern Europe’, Legislative Studies Quarterly XIX (February): 532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishler, W.Rose, R. (2002), ‘Learning and re-learning regime support: the dynamics of post-communist regimes’, European Journal of Political Research 41: 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. (1999), ‘Institutional explanations of political support’, in P. Norris (ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 217235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jr.Powell, G.B., (2000), Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rogowski, R. (1974), Rational Legitimacy; A Theory of Political Support, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rolef, S.H. (2006), Public Trust in Parliament – A Comparative Study, Jerusalem: The Knesset Information Division, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar
Rose, R., Mishler, W.Haerpfer, C. (1998), Democracy and its Alternatives; Understanding Post-Communist Societies, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, R.Munro, N. (2003), Elections and Parties in New European Democracies, Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Steenbergen, M.R.Jones, B.S. (2002), ‘Modeling multilevel data structures’, American Journal of Political Science 46(January): 218237.Google Scholar
Stock, J.H., Yogo, M. (2002), ‘Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression’. NBER Technical Working Papers 0284 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. from http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberte/0284.htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlke, J.C. (1971), ‘Policy demands and system support: the role of the represented’, British Journal of Political Science 1(July): 271290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Western, B. (1998), ‘Causal heterogeneity in comparative research: a Bayesian hierarchical modelling approach’, American Journal of Political Science 42(October): 12331259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar