Transition Studies Review

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 807–821 | Cite as

Political Efficacy of Emerging Elites in Post-Socialist Countries: The Impact of Disciplinary Culture and Political Opportunities

  • Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl
  • Eszter Simon
  • Alex Fischer
Reprint

Abstract

Political efficacy is a key determinant of political participation, yet what are the determinants of political efficacy? While the role of demographic and socio-economic factors has been widely studied in this context, less attention has been given to early life socialization and to the aggregate political environment. This paper develops and empirically tests the hypotheses that political efficacy of emerging elites in post-Socialist countries is determined by (1) individuals’ internalized values, which we proxy with the concept of ‘disciplinary culture,’ (2) the structure of political opportunities, measured by the degree of a country’s political competitiveness and openness, and (3) the historical legacy of socialism. Our study contributes to a scarce literature on the topic of political efficacy in post-Socialist countries and to an even more scant literature on political efficacy of young people and emerging elites.

Keywords

Political efficacy Disciplinary culture Political opportunity structure Early life socialization Socialism Emerging elites 

JEL Classification

P2 L3 Z0 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Rositsa Bateson and Anca Simionca for their help in implementing the CEU survey. We would also like to thank Peter Grajzl and Gabor Toka for valuable comments.

References

  1. Amnå E, Munch I, Zetterberg P (2004) Meaningful participation? Political efficacy of adolescents in 24 countries. Paper presented at the emerging repertoires of political action: toward a systemic study of post-conventional forms of participation at ECPR joint sessions of workshops, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson CJ, Tverdova YV (2001) Winners, losers, and attitudes about government in contemporary democracies. Int Polit Sci Rev 22(4):321–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armingeon K (2001) Fachkulturen, soziale Lage und politische Einstellungen der Studierenden der Universität Bern (unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar
  4. Armingeon K, Beyer M, Fischer A (2000) Studierende und Politik. Eine Befragung der Studierenden der Universität Bern, BernGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowler S, Donovan T (2002) Democracy, institutions, and attitudes about citizen influence on government. Br J Polit Sci 32(2):371–390Google Scholar
  6. Cohen A, Vigoda E, Samorly A (2001) Analysis of the mediating effect of personal-psychological variables on the relationship between socioeconomic status and political participation: a structural equation framework. Polit Psychol 22(4):727–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eisinger PK (1973) The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. Am Polit Sci Rev 67:11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Social Survey. Available at: http://qb.soc.surrey.ac.uk/surveys/ess/main_questionnaire02.pdf. Last accessed in March 2009
  9. Fox RL, Lawless JL (2005) To run or not to run for office: explaining nascent political ambition. Am J Polit Sci 49(3):642–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freedom House, www.freedomhouse.org
  11. Grajzl P, Murrell P (2009) Fostering civil society: why and when. Econ Transit 19(1):1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karaman T (2004) Political efficacy and its antecedents in Russia. J Communist Stud Trans Polit 20(2):30–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kriesi H (1995) The political opportunity structure of new social movements. In: Craig Jenkins J, Klandermans Bert (eds) The politics of social protest: comparative perspectives on states and social movements. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  14. Langton KP, Karns DA (1969) The relative influence of the family, peer group, and school in the development of political efficacy. Polit Res Quart 22(4):813–826Google Scholar
  15. Letki N (2004) Socialization for participation? Trust, membership and democratization in east-central Europe. Polit Res Quart 57(4):665–679Google Scholar
  16. Madsen D (1978) A structural approach to the explanation of political efficacy. Am J Polit Sci 22(4):867–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marshall MG, Jaggers K (2002) Polity IV project: users’ manual. Available: www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/polity. Last accessed on October 15, 2008
  18. McAdam D, McCarthy JD, Mayer N. Zald (1996) Introduction: opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes—towards a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In: Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, Mayer N. Zald (eds) Comparative perspectives on social movements. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NYGoogle Scholar
  19. OECD (2003) Reviews of national policies for education: south eastern Europe, vol. 2: FYROM, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  20. Pinkleton BE, Weintraub Austin E, Fortman KKJ (1998) Relationship of media use and political disaffection to political efficacy and voting behavior. J Broadcast Electron Media 42(1):34–50Google Scholar
  21. Rado P (2001) Transition in education: policy making and the key educational policy areas in the central-european and baltic countries. Open Society Institute, Education Support Program Paper # ED457308. Available at: http://www.osi.hu/iep/papers/transit.pdf. Last accessed on December 18, 2008
  22. Seligson MA (1980) Trust, efficacy and modes of participation: a study of costa-rican peasants. Br J Polit Sci 10(1):75–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stevens D, Bishin BG, Barr RR (2006) Authoritarian attitudes, democracy, and policy preferences among latin american elites. Am J Polit Sci 50(3):606–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tarrow S (1994) Power in movement: social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Tewksbury D, Hals ML, Bibart A (2008) The efficacy of new broadcasting: the relationship of news consumption style and social and political efficacy. J Mass Commun Quart 84(2):257–272Google Scholar
  26. Titma M, Tooding LM, Brandon Tuma N (2004) Communist party members: incentives and gains. Int J Soc 34(2):72–99Google Scholar
  27. Windolf P (1992) Fachkultur und Studienfachwahl. Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Studienanfängern. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 55(1):76–98Google Scholar
  28. Windolf P (1995) Selection and self-selection at German mass universities. Oxford Rev Educ 21(2):207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. World Value Survey. Available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/. Last accessed on December 14, 2008
  30. Wu C-L (2003) Psycho-political correlates of political efficacy: the case of the 1994 new orleans mayoral election. J Black Stud 33(6):729–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl
    • 1
  • Eszter Simon
    • 2
  • Alex Fischer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public PolicyCentral European UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.University of Szeget, European Studies CenterSzegetHungary

Personalised recommendations