![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Notes
*The author is indebted to Dr. Per Adman, Sofie Holmström, Annika Tamra and two anonymous reviewers for assistance and valuable comments. The research work was carried out with support from the Swedish Research Council (VR, formerly HSFR).
1. Rintala, The Constitution of Silence, 8; Mannheim, Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, cf. Aarelaid-Tart, “Political Generations in Estonia.”
2. Bunce, “Comparative Democratization,” 217; McFaul, “The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship.”
3. Cf. Ruutsoo, Civil Society and Nation Building in Estonia and the Baltic States, 15.
4. Raun, “Estonia”; Lagerspetz, “Constructing Post-Communism”; Kasekamp, The Radical Right in Interwar Estonia.
5. For an overview see Carey, “Parchment, Equilibria, and Institutions.”
6. Steen, “The New Elites in the Baltic States”; Åslund, Building Capitalism.
7. Berglund et al., Challenges to Democracy; Gibson, “Social Networks, Civil Society, and the Prospects for Consolidating Russia's Democratic Transition”; Åslund, Building Capitalism; Bunce, “Comparative Democratization”; McFaul, “The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship.”
8. McFaul, “The Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship.”
9. Ibid., 75. Probably as a consequence of his “bird's eye-view” and outspokenly comparative perspective, McFaul sometimes oversimplifies the complex situations at the time of transition. For example, oppositional forces not even in the Baltic States were all primarily convinced democrats. Estonians were, but in the Lithuanian and to some extent also in the Latvian cases, independence was the overriding goal. Likewise, I think it is wise to make a distinction between oppositional forces that were clearly anti-communist (like the Citizens' Committees in Estonia and Latvia) and forces that were oppositional as a result of anti-Soviet feelings (e.g. Sajudis in Lithuania).
10. Kitschelt et al.; Grzymala-Busse, Redeeming the Communist Past; Jones-Luong, Institutional Change and Political Continuity in Post-Soviet Central Asia; Ekiert and Hanson, Capitalism and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe; Bunce, “Comparative Democratization”; Collins, “The Logic of Clan Politics.”
11. Classic theorists in this field are Max Weber and Emile Durkheim.
12. Almond and Verba, The Civic Culture. As a later formulated response to the “chicken and the egg” critique that it may have been the long-lasting institutions of the United States and Britain that had strengthened or even given rise to the civic values that the authors found, Almond and Verba point out that they regard it as a model of mutual effects.
13. Putnam, Making Democracy Work.
14. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
15. The independent organization Freedom House recently re-categorized Russia, moving it from “partly free” to “not free.”
16. Eckstein et al., Can Democracy Take Root in Post-Soviet Russia?
17. Chabal and Daloz, Africa Works. Aside from the literature in English, there is a growing body of literature in Estonian on civil society, historical developments, and on transition. Examples include: Jansen and Arukaevu, Seltsid ja Ãhiskonna muutumine; Uljas, “Seltside kultuurharidduslik tegevus Eestis”; Saar, “Rahvuskesksete seltside liikmeskonna territoriaalne jaotus ja dãnaamika (1979–1989)”; Lagerspetz et al., Olemisest osalemiseni?
18. In Barghoorn, Politics in the USSR, 2.
19. Assman, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity”; Booth, “Communities of Memory”; Rothstein, Sociala fällor och tillitens problem.
20. Kitschelt, “Accounting for Postcommunist Regime Diversity,” 61.
21. Cf. Aareleid-Tart, “Political Generations in Estonia.”
22. According to Assman, Halbwachs, one of the pioneers of research into collective memory, equated collective memory with orally transmitted communication. Once objectified in writings, buildings and monuments, memories were transformed into “history.” Assman himself, however, rejects that distinction (“Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” 131).
23. Eckstein, “Social Science as Cultural Science, Rational Choice as Metaphysics”; Diamond, Developing Democracy towards Consolidation; cf. Rice and Feldman, “Civic Culture and Democracy from Europe to America”; Reisinger et al., “Political Values in Russia, Ukraine and Lithuania”; Whitefield and Evans, “Political Culture versus Rational Choice.”
24. Almond and Verba, The Civic Culture; Barry, Sociologists, Economists and Democracy, 48–50; Dalton, “Citizen Attitudes and Political Behavior,” 915.
25. Rose et al., Democracy and its Alternatives, 142.
26. Almond and Verba, The Civic Culture; Putnam, Making Democracy Work; Rice and Feldmann, “Civic Culture and Democracy from Europe to America.” However, it should be noted that Almond and Verba reserve the concept of “civic culture” for the particular mix of parochials, subjects and participants that prevailed in Britain and the United States, while in later research the concept has instead taken on the meaning of a culture characterized by particularly republican values.
27. It is not correct, of course, to speak of Estonia before 1918 as a state; rather, it comprised the territories that were to become Estonia, which at that time were in Baltic-German hands.
28. Von Rauch, The Baltic States, 87; Lieven, The Baltic Revolution, 62; Smith, “Estonia,” 13.
29. Von Rauch, The Baltic States, 88.
30. Smith, “Estonia,” 13.
31. Cf. Rutter, The New Baltic States and their Future; Uustalu, The History of Estonian People, 214.
32. Realo and Allik, “A Cross-Cultural Study of Collectivism.”
33. Ruutsoo, Civil Society and Nation Building in Estonia and the Baltic States, 58.
34. Cf. Kasekamp, The Radical Right in Interwar Estonia.
35. Ruutsoo, Civil Society and Nation Building in Estonia and the Baltic States, 57.
36. Cf. Lipping, “Land Reform Legislation in Estonia and the Disestablishment of the Baltic German Rural Elite 1919–1939,” 109–10; Hope, “Interwar Statehood,” 56; Ruutsoo, Civil Society and Nation Building in Estonia and the Baltic States, 60.
37. Ruutsoo, Civil Society and Nation Building in Estonia and the Baltic States, 57.
38. Ruutsoo, Civil Society and Nation Building in Estonia and the Baltic States, 59.
39. Von Rauch, The Baltic States, 156.
40. Cf. Almond and Verba, The Civic Culture; Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart; Putnam, Making Democracy Work; Rice and Feldman, “Civic Culture and Democracy from Europe to America.”
41. Petersson et al., Demokrati och medborgarskap, 129–32.
42. These three dimensions are observable when a dimensional analysis is conducted (principal components analysis with varimax rotation). With the exception of the last dimension, they are all additive indexed variables. A detailed description of the original variables is available on request.
43. Cf. Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization, appendix.
44. Stolle, “Clubs and Congregations”; Putnam, Bowling Alone; Rothstein, “Trust, Social Dilemmas and Collective Memories”; Uslaner, Citation2002.
45. Cf. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory.
46. Missing values for the variable “if people in general can be trusted”: 30 people (i.e. 261 out of 291 answered). Missing values for the variable “if you trust inhabitants in your own country”: 48 people (i.e. 243 out of 291 answered). This indexed variable is based on three questions; missing data were most frequent for the question of trust of Estonians/Estonians in exile (41 people). All the analyses were also conducted without including the question for which the missing values were most frequent. The results did not differ in any substantial way from those reported above. Moreover, the three dimensions of trust were discernible when a dimensional analysis (principal components analysis with varimax rotation) was performed.
47. Cf. Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization.
48. Rose et al., Democracy and its Alternatives; cf. Kornai et al., Creating Social Trust in Post-Socialist Transition.
49. Multivariate regression analyses were performed consistently in the analysis. Gender, age and childhood location (rural or urban) were controlled for. Generally, with a few exceptions, the results were not affected by including these control variables, i.e. the effect of the “institutional context during adulthood” remained.
50. I have devoted another article to a close comparison of the exile communities. See Bennich-Björkman, “A Political Culture in Exile.”