Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review 2019, 55(3): 319-346 | DOI: 10.13060/00380288.2019.55.3.469

Support for Market Economy Principles in European Post-communist Countries during 1999-2008

Tomáš Sirovátka, Martin Guzi, Steven Saxonberg
1 Masaryk University, Brno
2 Masaryk University, IZA and CELSI, Brno 3 Masaryk University, Brno, and Comenius University, Bratislava

Since the fall of the communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe in 1989, a neoliberal discourse has dominated the thinking of the political elite in post-communist countries, paving the way for unprecedented mass privatisation, economic deregulation, and other market reforms. In this article, we study the development of public support for market economy principles in post-communist countries compared to other European countries between 1999 and 2008, the period that directly followed the initial stage of market transformation. The article is based on data from the European Values Study covering 22 European countries for the years 1999/2000 and 2008/2009. In addition to analysing the trends, multilevel regression models are used to study the determinants and levels of support for the market economy in post-communist and other European countries. When controlling for individual and country-level variables, a significant increase in support for market economy principles is observed in the post-communist cluster, which is not the case in the other countries. There is some inconsistency in support for the individual principles of market economics: support exists in post-communist countries for the notion that the state should be responsible for the social and economic well-being of its inhabitants and for state regulation of the economy, while support is high for some market economy principles, such as free competition and private ownership. In other words, support for some kind of social market seems to prevail among people living in post-communist countries, based on the notion that the state should combine a market economy with relatively generous social policies.

Keywords: market economy, post-communist countries, free competition, private ownership, state regulation of the economy, welfare attitudes

Published: June 1, 2019Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Sirovátka, T., Guzi, M., & Saxonberg, S. (2019). Support for Market Economy Principles in European Post-communist Countries during 1999-2008. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review55(3), 319-346. doi: 10.13060/00380288.2019.55.3.469.
Download citation

References

  1. Andreß, H. J. and T. Heien 2001. 'Four Worlds of Welfare State Attitudes? A Comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States.' European Sociological Review 17 (4): 337-356, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/17.4.337. Go to original source...
  2. Appel, H. and M. A. Orenstein 2016. 'Why Did Neoliberalism Triumph and Endure in the Post-Communist World?' Comparative Politics 48 (3): 313-331, https://doi.org/10.5129/001041516818254419. Go to original source...
  3. Ban, C. 2016. Ruling Ideas. How Global Neoliberalism Goes Local. New York: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190600389.001.0001. Go to original source...
  4. Barr, N. (ed.) 1994. Labour Markets and Social Policy in Central and Eastern Europe. The Transition and Beyond. Oxford, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press.
  5. Battaglio, R. P., Jr. 2009. 'Privatization and Citizen Preferences A Cross-National Analysis of Demand for Private Versus Public Provision of Services in Three Industries.' Administration & Society 41 (1): 38-66, https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399708330256. Go to original source...
  6. Battaglio, R. P., Jr. and J. S. Legge Jr. 2009. 'Self-Interest, Ideological/Symbolic Politics, and Citizen Characteristics: A Cross-National Analysis of Support for Privatization.' Public Administration Review 69 (4): 697-709, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02018.x. Go to original source...
  7. Berend, I. T. and B. Bugaric 2015. 'Unfinished Europe: Transition from Communism to Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe.' Journal of Contemporary History 50 (4): 768-785. Go to original source...
  8. Blekesaune, M. 2007. 'Economic Conditions and Public Attitudes to Welfare Policies.' European Sociological Review 23 (3): 393-403, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcm012. Go to original source...
  9. Bohle, D. and B. Greskovits. 2007. 'Neoliberalism, Embedded Neoliberalism, and Neocorporatism: Paths Towards Transnational Capitalism in Central-Eastern Europe.' West-European Politics 30 (3): 443-466, https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380701276287. Go to original source...
  10. Cerami, A. 2006. Social Policy in Central and Eastern Europe: The Emergence of a New European Welfare Regime. Munster: LIT.
  11. Checchi, D., M. Florio and J. Carrera. 2006. 'Privatization Discontent and Its Determinants: Evidence from Latin America.' Discussion Paper No. 1587. Bonn: IZA.
  12. Dallinger, U. 2010. 'Public Support for Redistribution: What Explains Cross-National Differences?' Journal of European Social Policy 20 (4): 333-349, https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928710374373. Go to original source...
  13. Davis, C. L. and K. M. Coleman. 2001. 'Privatization and Public Opinion in Chile, Costa Rica, and Mexico: A Test of Alternative Models.' International Politics 38 (4): 561-582, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8897053. Go to original source...
  14. Denisova, I., M. Eller, T. Frye and E. Zhuravskaya. 2009. 'Who Wants to Revise Privatization? The Complementarity of Market Skills and Institutions.' American Political Science Review 103 (2): 284-304, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409090248. Go to original source...
  15. Denisova, I., M. Eller, T. Frye and E. Zhuravskaya. 2012. 'Everyone Hates Privatization, But Why? Survey Evidence from 28 Post-Communist Countries.' Journal of Comparative Economics 40 (1): 44-61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2011.11.001. Go to original source...
  16. Desai, R. and A. Olofsgård. 2006. 'Political Constraints and Public Support for Market Reform.' IMF Staff Papers 53 (5): 92-114, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.880763. Go to original source...
  17. Durant, R. F. and J. S. Legge. 2002. 'Politics, Public Opinion, and Privatization in France: Assessing the Calculus of Consent for Market Reforms.' Public Administration Review 62 (3): 307-323, https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00181. Go to original source...
  18. Easter, G. M. 2002. 'Politics of Revenue Extraction in Post-Communist States: Poland and Russia Compared.' Politics & Society 30 (4): 599-627, https://doi.org/10.1177/003232902237828. Go to original source...
  19. Estrin, S. 1994. 'Economic Transition and Privatization: The Issues.' Pp. 3-30 in Privatization in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by S. Estrin. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
  20. Estrin, S. 2008 'Privatization Impacts in Transition Economies.' Pp. 5161-5169 in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, edited by Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave, https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2547-1. Go to original source...
  21. ERBD/European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. 2018. Transition Indicators Methodology. Retrieved 10 October 2018 (https://www.ebrd.com/cs/Satellite?c=Content&cid=1395237866249&pagename=EBRD%2FContent%2FContentLayout).
  22. Eurostat. 2017a. Gross Domestic Product at Market Prices, Euro Per Capita. Retrieved 28 September 2017 (http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_10_pc).
  23. Eurostat. 2017b. Total Unemployment Rate. Retrieved 28 September 2017 (http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=tsdec450).
  24. EVS. 2015. European Values Study Longitudinal Data File 1981-2008 (EVS 1981-2008). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4804 Data file Version 3.0.0, http://dx.doi:10.4232/1.12253.
  25. Ferge, Z. 1997. 'The Changed Welfare Paradigm: The Individualization of The Social.' Social Policy & Administration 31 (1): 20-44, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00035. Go to original source...
  26. Fidrmuc, J. 1999. 'Unemployment and the Dynamics of Political Support for Economic Reforms.' Journal of Policy Reform 3: 139-159, https://doi.org/10.1080/13841289908523401. Go to original source...
  27. Fidrmuc, J. 2000. 'Political Support for Reforms. Economics of Voting in Transition Countries.' European Economic Review 44 (8): 1491-1513, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(99)00006-9. Go to original source...
  28. Fischer, S. and A. Gelb 1991. 'The Process of Socialist Economic Transformation.' Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (4): 91-105, https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.4.91. Go to original source...
  29. Golinelli, R. and R. Rovelli 2013. 'Did Growth and Reforms Increase Citizens' Support for the Transition?' European Journal of Political Economy 30: 112-137, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2013.01.004. Go to original source...
  30. Hemerijck, A. 2013. Changing Welfare States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  31. Hugh, S. and F. Sporri. 2007. 'Referendums, Trust, and Tax Evasion.' Paper prepared for a presentation at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops. Helsinki, 7-12 May.
  32. Inglot, T. 2008. Welfare States in East Central Europe, 1919-2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511510175. Go to original source...
  33. Kaltenhalter, K. C., S. J. Ceccoli and A. Michta. 2006. 'Explaining Individual-Level Support for Privatization in European Post-Soviet Economies.' European Journal of Political Research 45: 1-29, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2005.00288.x. Go to original source...
  34. Kaufmann, D. and P. Siegelbaum. 1996. 'Privatization and Corruption in Transition Economies.' Journal of International Affairs 50 (2): 419-458.
  35. Kluegel, J. R., D. S. Mason and B. Wegene. 1999. 'The Legitimation of Capitalism in the Postcommunist Transition. Public Opinion about Market Justice, 1991-1996.' European Sociological Review 15 (3): 251-283, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018263. Go to original source...
  36. Kórnai, J. 1997. Struggle and Hope. Essays on Stabilization and Reform in a Post-socialist Economy. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.
  37. Kuitto, K. 2016. Post-Communist Welfare States in European Context: Patterns of Welfare Policies in Central and Eastern Europe. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784711986. Go to original source...
  38. Legge, J. S., Jr. and H. G. Rainey 2003. 'Privatization and Public Opinion in Germany.' Public Organization Review: A Global Journal 3 (2): 127-149, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024216313373. Go to original source...
  39. Lipsmeyer, C. S. and T. Nordstrom. 2003. 'East Versus West: Comparing Political Attitudes and Welfare Preferences across European Societies.' Journal of European Public Policy 10 (3): 339-364, https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176032000085342. Go to original source...
  40. Miller, A. H., V. Hesli and W. Reisinger. 1994. 'Reassessing Mass Support for Political and Economic Change in the Former USSR.' American Political Science Review 88 (2): 399-411, https://doi.org/10.2307/2944712. Go to original source...
  41. Offe, C. 1996. Modernity and the State: East, West. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  42. Orrenstein, M.A. 2001. Out of the Red. Building Capitalism and Democracy in Postcommunist Europe. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press, https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11540. Go to original source...
  43. Orrenstein, M. A. 2009. 'What Happened in East European (Political) Economies? A Balance Sheet for Neoliberal Reform.' East European Politics and Societies 23 (4): 479-490, https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325409342109. Go to original source...
  44. Oskarsen, M. 2007. 'Social Risk, Policy Disaffection and Political Alienation: A Comparison of Six European Countries.' Pp. 117-148 in The Political Sociology of the Welfare State: Institutions, Social Cleavages, and Orientations, edited by S. Svallfors. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, https://doi.org/10.11126/stanford/9780804754354.003.0004. Go to original source...
  45. Panizza, U. and M. Yañez. 2005. 'Why Are Latin Americans So Unhappy about Reforms?' Journal of Applied Economics 8 (1): 1-29, https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2005.12040616. Go to original source...
  46. Raghunathan, T. E., J. M. Lepkowski, J. Van Hoewyk and P. Solenberger 2001. 'A Multivariate Technique for Multiply Imputing Missing Values Using a Sequence of Regression Models.' Survey Methodology 27: 85-95.
  47. Renwick, A. G. and G. Tóka. 1998. 'East Meets West.' Pp. 149-171 in International Social Attitudes: The 15th British Social Attitudes Report, edited by R. Jowell. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
  48. Roland, G. 2002. 'The Political Economy of Transition.' Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (1): 29-50, https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330027102. Go to original source...
  49. Rose, R., W. Mishler and C. Haerpfner. 1998. Democracy and Its Alternatives: Understanding Post-Communist Societies. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  50. Rose, R. 2001. 'How People View Democracy: A Diverging Europe.' Journal of Democracy 12 (1): 93-106, https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2001.0014. Go to original source...
  51. Rothstein, B. 1998. Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598449. Go to original source...
  52. Rovelli, R. and A. Zaiceva. 2013. 'Did Support for Economic and Political Reforms Increase During the Post-Communist Transition, and If So, Why?' Economics of Transition 21 (2): 193-240, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12009. Go to original source...
  53. Saxonberg, S. 2005. 'Transition Matters: Bringing Welfare Attitudes into the Debate.' European Societies 7 (2): 287-319, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616690500083477. Go to original source...
  54. Saxonberg, S. 2007. 'Post-Communist Welfare Attitudes: Was Czech Exceptionalism a Myth?' East European Quarterly 41 (1): 81-115.
  55. Saxonberg, S., T. Sirovátka and M. Janoušková. 2013. 'When Do Policies Become Path Dependent? The Czech Example.' Journal of European Social Policy 23 (4): 437 -450, https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928713507465. Go to original source...
  56. Studlar, D.T., I. McAllister and A. Ascui. 1990. 'Privatization and the British Electorate: Microeconomic Policies, Macroeconomic Evaluations, and Party Support.' American Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 1077-1101, https://doi.org/10.2307/2111472. Go to original source...
  57. Švejnar, J. 2002. 'Transition Economies: Performance and Challenges.' Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (1): 3-28, https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330027058. Go to original source...
  58. Thompson, L. and R. C. Elling. 2000. 'Mapping Patterns of Support for Privatization in the Mass Public: The Case of Michigan.' Public Administration Review 60 (4): 338-348, https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00096. Go to original source...
  59. Torgler, B. 2003. 'Tax Morale in Transition Countries.' Post-Communist Economies 15: 357-381, https://doi.org/10.1080/1463137032000139052. Go to original source...
  60. Torgler, B. 2005. 'Tax Morale and Direct Democracy.' European Journal of Political Economy 21: 525-531, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2004.08.002. Go to original source...
  61. Van Apeldoorn, B. 2002. Transnational Capitalism and the Struggle over European Integration. London: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203166802. Go to original source...
  62. Vanhuysse, P. 2006. Divide and Pacify. Budapest: Central European University Press.
  63. Vis, B., K. van Kersbergen and T. Hylands. 2011. 'To What Extent Did the Financial Crisis Intensify the Pressure to Reform the Welfare State?' Social Policy and Administration 45 (4): 338-353, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00778.x. Go to original source...
  64. Williams, A. M. and V. Balaz. 1999. 'Privatisation in Central Europe: Different Methods, Legacies and Implications.' Environment and Planning: Government and Policy 17 (6): 731-752, https://doi.org/10.1068/c170731. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.