Is the past a burden or a boon? The struggle for survival of communist-era youth and nature protection organizations in the Czech Republic, 1989–2019

References

• ‘Time-lapse. The Annual Report of Pioneer’ (in Czech) 2018. Pioneer (https://pionyr.cz/vyr_zpravy/VZ_Pionyr_2018_web.pdf).
   Google Scholar
• ‘The Diary of Pioneer’s Dog: The Annual Report of Pioneer 2017’ (in Czech) 2017. Pioneer (https://pionyr.cz/vyr_zpravy/vyrocni_zprava_pionyr_2017.pdf).
   Google Scholar
• ‘The History of CUNP’ (in Czech). 2008. CUNP (http://www.ČSOP.cz/index.php?cis_menu=1&m1_id=1001&m2_id=1062&m_id_old=1000).
   Google Scholar
• ‘Who We Are, About Us’ (in Czech) n.d. PTO Vlčata (https://www.vlcata.cz/index/page/onas).
   Google Scholar
• ‘Concept. The Letter of the City Council to the Local Branches of CUNP’ (in Czech) 1980. Archive of K.Hudec (KH Archive), EI Veronica (EIV), Brno.
   Google Scholar
• ‘Special National Conference of Pioneer Functionaries’ (in Czech) 1990. Dated 20 January Brno. Pioneer (https://pionyr.cz/o-pionyru/historie/mimkonf90/).
   Google Scholar
• ‘The Proposal of the Founding Resolution Conference of the Czech Union of Nature Protectors’ (in Czech) 1980. Dated 27 February KH Archive, EIV, Brno.
   Google Scholar
• ‘Nonprofits Are Leeches on the Body of the State, Thinks Zeman’ (in Czech) 2016. Echo24.cz (https://echo24.cz/a/wFDxx/neziskovky–jsou–pijavice–statu–mysli–si–zeman#disqusAnchor).
   Google Scholar
• ‘Annual Report 2017. The Czech Union of Nature Protectors’ (in Czech) 2017. CUNP (http://www.csop.cz/docs/up/nove/soubory/vz2017.pdf).
   Google Scholar
• ‘Annual Report of Veronica, the Local Branch of CUNP in 2017’ (in Czech) 2017. Institut Veronica (https://www.veronica.cz/soubory/vyrocky/vz_2017.pdf).
   Google Scholar
• ‘We Are Creating Pioneer Sections’ (in Czech) 1949. Ústřední Výbor ČSM (https://pionyr.cz/o-pionyru/historie/kdojsoupionyri1949/).
   Google Scholar
• Alasuutari, P. 2015. “The Discursive Side of New Institutionalism.” Cultural Sociology 9(2):162–84. doi: 10.1177/1749975514561805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldrich, H. 2000. Organizations Evolving. London, UK: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Anheier, H. K. 2004. Civil Society: Measurement, Evaluation, Policy. London, UK: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Ashworth, R., G. Boyne, and R. Delbridge. 2007. “Escape from the Iron Cage? Organizational Change and Isomorphic Pressures in the Public Sector.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(1):165–87. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, S. H. 2006. “The Changing Political Participation of Postcommunist Citizens.” International Journal of Sociology 36(2):76–98. doi: 10.2753/IJS0020-7659360203.
   Google Scholar
• Bělohlávek, M. 2015. “25 Years On Our Own Way. The Declaration of Pioneer Towards Its 25th Anniversary of Renewing Independent Activity” (in Czech). Pioneer (https://www.pionyr.cz/o-pionyru/vyroci/slovo-predsedy/).
   Google Scholar
• Bělohlávek, M. 2018. “Round Anniversaries Celebrated through Good Work” (in Czech). Časosběr. Výroční zpráva Pionýra: 1 (https://pionyr.cz/vyr_zpravy/VZ_Pionyr_2018_web.pdf).
   Google Scholar
• Binka, B. 2008. Green Extremism: Ideas and Mentality of Czech Environmental Movements (in Czech). Brno, Czech Republic: Masarykova univerzita.
   Google Scholar
• Bolton, J. 2012. Worlds of Dissent: Charter 77, the Plastic People of the Universe, and Czech Culture under Communism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Botelho, A. 2014. “Political Sociology: State-Society Relations.” Current Sociology 62(6):868–85. doi: 10.1177/0011392114533213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A. 2009. The Rise and Fall of Communism. London, UK: Bodley head.
   Google Scholar
• Carmin, Jo Ann, and Petrčka Jehlička. 2005. “By the Masses or for the Masses? The Transformation of Voluntary Action in the Czech Union for Nature Protection.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 16(4):397–416. doi: 10.1007/s11266-005-9149-8.
   Google Scholar
• Carmin, J., and P. Jehlička. 2010. “Navigating Institutional Pressure in State-Socialist and Democratic Regimes: The Case of Movement Brontosaurus.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 39(1):29–50. doi: 10.1177/0899764008328820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chimiak, G. 2006. How Individualists Make Solidarity Work. Warsaw, Poland: Biblioteka pożytku publicznego.
   Google Scholar
• Císař, O., and K. Vráblíková. 2013. “Transnational Activism of Social Movement Organizations: The Effect of European Union Funding on Local Groups in the Czech Republic.” European Union Politics 14(1):140–60. doi: 10.1177/1465116512456311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, E., and A. Soulsby. 1999. Organizational Change in Post-Communist Europe: Management and Transformation in the Czech Republic. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, B., and A. Lijphart. 1995. “Explaining Political and Economic Change in Post-Communist Eastern Europe: Old Legacies, New Institutions, Hegemonic Norms, and International Pressures.” Comparative Political Studies 28(2):171–99. doi: 10.1177/0010414095028002001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P., and W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48(2):147–60. doi: 10.2307/2095101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doherty, B. 2002. Ideas and Actions in the Green Movement. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ekiert, G., and J. Kubik. 2014. “The Legacies of 1989: Myths and Realities of Civil Society.” Journal of Democracy 25(1):46–58. doi: 10.1353/jod.2014.0009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekiert, G. and Kubik, J. (eds.). 1999. Rebellious Civil Society: Popular Protest and Democratic Consolidation in Poland, 1989–1993. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ekiert, G., J. Kubik, and M. Wenzel. 2017. “Civil Society and Three Dimensions of Inequality in Post-1989 Poland.” Comparative Politics 49(3):331–50. doi: 10.5129/001041517820934230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagan, A. 2004. Environment and Democracy in the Czech Republic: The Environmental Movement in the Transition Process. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Fagan, A., and P. Jehlička. 2003. “Contours of the Czech Environmental Movement: A Comparative Analysis of Hnuti Duha (Rainbow Movement) and Jihoceske Matky (South Bohemian Mothers).” Environmental Politics 12(2):49–70. doi: 10.1080/09644010412331308184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairhurst, G. T., and L. Putnam. 2004. “Organizations as Discursive Constructions.” Communication Theory 14(1):5–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00301.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fear, J. 2013. “Mining the Past: Historicizing Organizational Learning and Change.” Pp. 169–91 in Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods, edited by M. Bucheli and R. D. Wadhwani. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frič, P. 1998. Activities and Needs of Non-Profit Organizations in the Czech Republic: The Results of a Quantitative Sociological Inquiry (in Czech). Prague: Agnes – Agentura neziskového sektoru.
   Google Scholar
• Frič, P. 2001. “Social and Political Context of the Current Non-profit Sector Development in the Czech Republic’ (in Czech).” Pp. 73–125 in Neziskový Sektor v ČR: výsledky Mezinárodního Srovnávacího Projektu Johns Hopkins University, edited by P. Frič and R. Goulli. Prague: Eurolex Bohemia.
   Google Scholar
• Frič, P., R. Goulli, and O. Vyskočilová. 2004. “Small Development Within the Bureaucracy Interests: The Nonprofit Sector in the Czech Republic.” Pp. 601–33 in Future of Civil Society, edited by A. Zimmer and E. Priller. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Friedland, R., and R. R. Alford. 1991. “Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions.” Pp. 232–63 in The New Institutionalism in Organization Analysis, edited by W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Geddes, B. 1995. “A Comparative Perspective on the Leninist Legacy in Eastern Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 28(2):239–74. doi: 10.1177/0010414095028002003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwood, R., and C. Hinings. 1996. “Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing Together the Old and the New Institutionalism.” Academy of Management Review 21(4):1022–54. doi: 10.5465/amr.1996.9704071862.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwood, R., C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby. 2008. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–46 in The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by R. Greenwood. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Guarneros-Meza, V. 2009. “Mexican Urban Governance: How Old and New Institutions Coexist and Interact.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33(2):463–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00864.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley, S., and M. A. Vachudova. 2018. “Understanding the Illiberal Turn: Democratic Backsliding in the Czech Republic.” East European Politics 34(3):276–96. doi: 10.1080/21599165.2018.1493457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanzlová, R. 2019. “Trust in Selected Institutions of Public Life” (in Czech). Centrum pro výzkum veřejného minění (https://cvvm.soc.cas.cz/cz/tiskove-zpravy/politicke/politicke-ostatni/4897-duvera-k-vybranym-institucim-verejneho-zivota-brezen-2019).
   Google Scholar
• Heimann, M. 2009. Czechoslovakia: The State That Failed. London, UK: Yale University Press..
   Google Scholar
• Howard, M. 2003. The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu, C., and Y. Jiang. 2015. “An Institutional Approach to Chinese NGOs: State Alliance versus State Avoidance Resource Strategies.” The China Quarterly 221:100–22. doi: 10.1017/S0305741014001568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, J. Y. J., C. L. Hsu, and R. Hasmath. 2017. “NGO Strategies in an Authoritarian Context, and Their Implications for Citizenship: The Case of the People’s Republic Of China.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 28(3):1157–79. doi: 10.1007/s11266–016–9806–0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huntington, S. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Touchstone book.
   Google Scholar
• Janáková, B. 2018. “Zeman Wants to Cut Down the Money for Nonprofits, Specialists Talk of Populism” (in Czech) iDnes.cz (https://zpravy.idnes.cz/neziskove–organizace–snemovna–prezident–milos–zeman–pdd–/domaci.aspx?c=A180110_130727_domaci_bja).
   Google Scholar
• Jehlička, P. 2001. “The New Subversives – Czech Environmentalists after 1989.” Pp. 81–94 in Pink, Purple, Green: Women’s, Religious, Environmental and Gay/Lesbian Movements in Central Europe Today, edited by H. Flam. Boulder: East European Monographs.
   Google Scholar
• Jehlička, P., and T. Kostelecký. 1995. “Czechoslovakia: Greens in a Post-Communist Society.” Pp. 208–31 in The Green Challenge. The Development of Green Parties in Europe, edited by D. Richardson and C. Rootes. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Keane, J. 1998. Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Conference K28. 2018. Kaprálův mlýn, 19–21 January 2018, video recording. Archive of a Brontosaurus interviewee (in Czech).
   Google Scholar
• Kouřil, V. 2014. “It’s not Enough to Just Plant Trees” (in Czech). Sedmá generace (https://www.sedmagenerace.cz/nejde-jenom-sazet-stromy/).
   Google Scholar
• Kraatz, M., and E. J. Zajac. 1996. “Exploring the Limits of the New Institutionalism: The Causes and Consequences of Illegitimate Organizational Change.” American Sociological Review 61(5):812–36. doi: 10.2307/2096455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraatz, M. S., and E. S. Block. 2008. “Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism.” Pp. 243–75 in The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by R. Greenwood. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Krejčí, J., and P. Machonin. 1996. Czechoslovakia, 1918–92: A Laboratory for Social Change. Basingstoke and London: Macmillan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kulin, J., and J. Johansson Sevä. 2019. “The Role of Government in Protecting the Environment: Quality of Government and the Translation of Normative Views about Government Responsibility into Spending Preferences.” International Journal of Sociology 49(2):110–29. doi: 10.1080/00207659.2019.1582964.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, H., C. W. Lo, and S. Tang. 2017. “Nonprofit Policy Advocacy under Authoritarianism.” Public Administration Review 77(1):103–17. doi: 10.1111/puar.12585.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, T. 2019. “How Bureaucratic Power Structure Affects Personnel Structure.” Problems of Post-Communism 66(2):83–95. doi: 10.1080/10758216.2017.1315309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipartito, K. 2013. “Historical Sources and Data.” Pp. 285–305 in Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods, edited by M. Bucheli and R. D. Wadhwani. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J., and B. Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83(2):340–63. doi: 10.1086/226550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mishler, W., and R. Rose. 2001. “What Are the Origins of Political Trust? Testing Institutional and Cultural Theories in Post-Communist Societies.” Comparative Political Studies 34(1):30–62. doi: 10.1177/0010414001034001002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mumby, D. K., and J. Mease. 2011. “Organizational Discourse.” Pp. 283–302 in Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, edited by T. A. van Dijk. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Oertel, S., K. Thommes, and P. Walgenbach. 2016. “Organizational Failure in the Aftermath of Radical Institutional Change.” Organization Studies 37(8):1067–87. doi: 10.1177/0170840615622071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, C. 1991. “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes.” Academy of Management Review 16(1):145–79. doi: 10.5465/amr.1991.4279002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orrú, M., N. Biggart, and G. Hamilton. 1991. “Organizational Isomorphism in East Asia: Broadening the New Institutionalism.” Pp. 361–89 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by W. Powell and P. DiMaggio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Otáhal, M. 2011. Oppositional Currents in the Czech Society 1969–1989 (in Czech). Prague: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny Akademie Věd ČR.
   Google Scholar
• Pache, A.-C., and F. Santos. 2010. “When Worlds Collide: The Internal Dynamics of Organizational Responses to Conflicting Institutional Demands.” Academy of Management Review 35(3):455–76. doi: 10.5465/amr.35.3.zok455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer, D. A., and N. W. Biggart. 2017. “Organizational Institutions.” Pp. 259–80 in The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, edited by J. A. C. Baum. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. doi: 10.1002/9781405164061.ch11.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, M. 2015. “Between Sociology and the Business School: Critical Studies of Work, Employment and Organization in the UK.” The Sociological Review 63(1):162–80. doi: 10.1111/1467-954X.12166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penn, S. 2005. Solidarity’s Secret: The Women Who Defeated Communism in Poland. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, N., T. Lawrence, and C. Hardy. 2004. “Discourse and Institutions.” Academy of Management Review 29(4):635–52. doi: 10.2307/20159075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pokorný, V. 1984. The Chronicle of 35 Years of Building a Unitary Children and Youth Organization in Czechoslovakia (in Czech). Prague: Mladá fronta.
   Google Scholar
• Pospíšilová, T. 2011. “Volunteering in the Czech Republic before 1989: Discourses, Definitions, Cross-References’ (in Czech).” Czech Sociological Review 47(5):887–910. doi: 10.13060/00380288.2011.47.5.01.
   Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., and A. Zimmerman. 2017. “Pathways to Ambidexterity: A Process Perspective on the Exploration-Exploitation Paradox.” Pp. 315–32 in Handbook of Organizational Paradox, edited by W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, and A. Langley. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, R. 2009. Understanding Post-Communist Transformation: A Bottom up Approach. Abingdon, UK; New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz, J. 2009. “Sociological Discourse Analysis: Methods and Logic.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 10(2):26. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0902263.
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez Salgado, R. 2014. Europeanizing Civil Society: How the EU Shapes Civil Society Organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, R. 2005. “Institutional Theory: Contributing to a Theoretical Research Program.” Pp. 460–84 in Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, edited by K. Smith and M. Hitt. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, R. 2008. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests, 3rd ed. Los Angeles; London; New Delhi; Singapore: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Seo, M.-G., and W. E. D. Creed. 2002. “Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective.” Academy of Management Review 27(2):222–47. doi: 10.5465/amr.2002.6588004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, W., and B. L. Connelly. 2018. “Is Regulatory Adoption Ceremonial? Evidence from Lead Director Appointments.” Strategic Management Journal 39(8):2386–413. doi: 10.1002/smj.2901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverman, D. 2014. Interpreting Qualitative Data. Los Angeles: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A., and F. Graetz. 2011. Philosophies of Organizational Change. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, W., M. Erez, S. Jarvenpaa, M. Lewis, and P. Tracey. 2017. “Adding Complexity to Theories of Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change: Introduction to Organization Studies Special Issue on Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change.” Organization Studies 38(3–4):303–17. doi: 10.1177/0170840617693560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soulsby, A., and E. Clark. 2007. “Organization Theory and the Post-Socialist Transformation: Contributions to Organizational Knowledge.” Human Relations 60(10):1419–42. doi: 10.1177/0018726707083470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spicer, A, et al). 2014. “Organization Studies, Sociology, and the Quest for a Public Organization Theory.” Pp. 709–35 in Oxford Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory, and Organization Studies: Contemporary Currents, edited by P. Adler. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suddaby, R., and R. Greenwood. 2009. “Methodological Issues in Researching Institutional Change.” Pp. 176–95 in The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, edited by D. A. Buchanan and A. Bryman. Los Angeles: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Vajdová, T. 2005. An Assessment of Czech Civil Society in 2004: After Fifteen Years of Development. Prague: CIVICUS.
   Google Scholar
• Vaněk, M. 1996. It Was Impossible to Breathe Here. Ecology in the Czech Lands between 1968 and 1989 (in Czech). Prague: Maxdorf.
   Google Scholar
• Vaněk, M. (ed.). 2009. Ordinary People…?! Insight into the Life of the so-Called Silent Majority: Biographical Narratives of Members of Working Professions and Intelligentsia (in Czech), Vol. 1–3. Prague: Academia.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Y. 2016. “Homology and Isomorphism: Bourdieu in Conversation with New Institutionalism.” The British Journal of Sociology 67(2):348–70. doi: 10.1111/1468-4446.12197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zucker, L. G. 1987. “Institutional Theories of Organization.” Annual Review of Sociology 13(1):443–64. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.002303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar