DO NOT CITE: THIS IS A DRAFT VERSION ONLYPaper prepared for the conference
Cultural Policies, Trade Liberalization, and Identity Politics:
Testing the Limits of the State
University of Windsor
May 12 - May 15, 2006
Petia Draguieva
University of Montreal
petia.draguieva@umontreal.ca
The Phantom Civil Society: Consumer Culture and Democratization in Post-Communist BulgariaAbstract: Scholars have focused on the analysis of social capital in terms of civic engagement in voluntary organizations. However, social capital in liberal democracies is characterized by civic participation in both cultural, political, economic, and social processes altogether. Scholars have argued that social capital in Bulgaria is inexistent as it was crushed by the communist regime. However, while in Bulgaria social capital remained less active in terms of political and social engagement, it acted economically. In a way, after the transition Bulgarian society emerged as a consumer society in a global economy. However, the question I try answering is: are consumers all the same in all countries? If not what are the differences between consumers in developed and transitional countries. My paper adopts a sociological perspective on consumption to suggest that consumers in developed market democracies are more active and analytical, while those in transitional countries are more passive and accepting. Next, I suggest that some types of consumption lead to more stable democratic institutions, while others, lead to less stable institutions. Economic development leads to democratization due to changes in social culture as related to individual consumer behavior. I consider that limited state capacity renders traditional political participation inefficient. On the contrary, economic participation through consumption gains new vigor in the context of a global market economy. I use a case study on women’s participation to show that Bulgarian women failed in influencing political life by traditional means. Nonetheless, they succeeded gaining economic power which helped them become analytical and confident consumers. Their consumption practices resulted in institutionalization that works for the benefit of society and democratic consolidation.
The Communist Legacy, Democratization, and Social Capital MeasurementIt has been argued that democracies require a particular set of autonomous civil institutions in order to check the power of the state (Putnam 1993). Civil society is seen as an essential condition for successful democratization (Gibson 2003: 61). According to Schmitter and Karl, “modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their action in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives” (Schmitter and Karl 1993: 40). However, post-communist states function in a different framework that refutes the above criteria, rather than reinforce them, as we shall see.
Bulgaria makes part of the so-called “countries in transition from communism”, in which democratization has occurred but not as successfully, yet. One of the predominant critiques for the failure to democratize “properly” is aimed against civil societies. Civil society was subsumed by the communist state to a “phantom” mass incapable of conceiving the idea of democracy and market economy. Some scholars argue that the weakness of civil society in Eastern and Central European countries poses a serious threat to their ability to consolidate democratic change (Bartkowski 2003; Ekiert 1991; Arato and Cohen 1992). Other scholars suggest that it is not the weakness of civil society but the lack of it that is one of the main reasons for unsuccessful democratization (Rau 1991). Civil societies in post-communist countries are labeled apathetic, helpless, and inexistent mostly because of their communist past (Mason et al. 1991). Giatzidis states, “the single most important feature of totalitarianism, its central characteristic, was the complete suppression and destruction of civil society and its institutions” (21). It is evident that no aspect of social life remained outside the ideology of the political regime and the very consciousness of the population was molded by it (Giatzidis 2002; Rau 1991).
In addition, while it is true that communist legacy presented one of the strong factors for the transformation of Bulgarian civil society, apathy within society also stems from the sense that it is powerless against international institutions, “for there exist no interest articulation mechanisms in the World Bank or IMF” (Nagle and Mahr 1999: 91). Neoliberal reforms were achieved independently of public opinion and without the participation of political forces (Przeworski 1992: 56). A Bulgarian political scientist argues that during transition periods “governments do not have a lot of room for maneuver. In order to stay, they should follow the reform agenda prescribed by the EU or IMF” (Krastev 2004: 159). Furthermore, he emphasizes “the decision of the international factor to limit the flexibility of governments resulted from the permanent failure of governments to keep their promises. It is the external constraints that ensure basically the policy predictability of the region” (159). External constraints are necessary in order to prevent abuses of political elites. However, what happens is that these elites use external factors to excuse and justify their lack of social responsibility. Thus, “viewed from below, the Balkan democracies are political regimes in which the voters are free to change governments, but are very much constrained in changing policies” (160).
No internal social actor could influence the state in transition. Instead, by participating in political life society and social groups discovered that they could not influence state policies in a direction they wanted. This is not to say that nobody tried; like in no other Eastern-European country do politicians and parties change their positions as frequently as in Bulgaria (Brahm 1994: 5). Changes in political governance did not bring about changes in social conditions and “in the end, society is taught that it can vote but not choose; legislatures are given the impression that they have no role to play in the elaboration of policy; nascent political parties, trade unions, and other organizations learn that their voices do not count” (Przeworski 1992: 56). This leads to two important consequences: first, legitimacy of the government was undermined and people became skeptical about politics and democratization as a whole . Second, for civil society the relationship between civil participation and levels of democratization was destroyed (Dowley and Silver 2003: 116). The disenchantment and frustration of Bulgarian citizens came to be associated with increased negative public attitude combined with passivity and withdrawal from public life (Geremek 1996; Rupnik 1996).
Nonetheless, the assumption that civil society in Bulgaria is inexistent is overstated. I contend that the present measurement of social capital is flawed, as social capital in Bulgaria exists; however, as it does not take on traditional political and civic engagement for a number of reasons, scholars undermine its role as a consumer society with specific consumer culture based on private networks. “Understood roughly as networks of social relations and their associated norms that may be called on to facilitate action […]” , social capital in Bulgaria has been transformed under the pressures of communism but has not disappeared. Actually, scholars have found through empirical research that “there is no clear East-West difference in the size of the social networks. […] Ironically, one of the most democratic countries in the group (the United States) has one of the lowest percentages of respondents with large networks, while perhaps the least democratic country (Bulgaria) has a considerably higher percentage” (Gibson 2003: 68). The emergence of these social networks in communist countries is explained primarily “as a response to the repressive state” (Gibson 2003: 70). Unable to organize publicly, communist societies have substituted private social networks for formal organizations. However, these networks are closed and they link individuals together to an extent that is not recognized by most scholars (Gibson 2003: 70).
A decrease in conventional forms of civic and political engagement occurred not only in Bulgaria, but also in older Western democracies (Putnam, 1995, 2000, 2002). Simultaneously, economic participation through production and consumption increased for both democratized and democratizing countries (Gwartney et al. 2005). While some scholars debate the importance and precedence of decreasing conventional participation, others reject these and launch into searching for new forms of participation to which “academic” tools are not yet tuned. The study of new forms of participation:
“forces us to reconsider where we locate political participation. Traditional forms of participation link citizens to democratic government. Even in recent revisions of the political participation literature both the government and the state are seen as the ultimate targets for political participation (for example, Dalton et al. 2004: 127-8). However, as states tend to lose control or meet with competition from other spheres over the authoritative allocation of values in society, citizens seek new arenas for political participation” (Stolle et al. 2005: 251).
According to the authors, one such arena of political participation is the market. A new form of civic engagement aimed at influencing economic markets directly is called political consumerism. Defined as “the consumer choice of producers and products based on political or ethical considerations, or both” (Micheletti et al. 2003), political consumerism presents a new perspective on civic participation. Contrary to most scientists who view physical survival and civic participation as mutually exclusive processes, political consumerism allows us to view civil engagement as contingent with economic survival. In addition, the process of political consumerism allows us to seize an important change in social consciousness and culture as related to consumption practices and consumer behavior. Consumption previously in the perimeter of subconscious activity moved to conscious awareness and social responsibility in Western democracies. Changes in consumer behavior in the West led to the institutionalization of different consumer organizations such as Consumers International, The European Consumers’ Organization, European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation, etc.
Culture, Politics, and MarketsCulture is a prerequisite for any type of social, political or economic change that is to be successful. Neither political, nor economic institutions work and endure without a substantiating culture. Unfortunately, in explaining the relationship between democratization and institutions scholars put greater emphasis on relationships between culture and politics, and less so between culture and economics. In most cases culture is attached exclusively to political participation, undermining the fact that culture is both dependent on individual decision-making and consumption practices. This narrow focus on politics and culture maybe the basic reason why scholars do not mark much of the changes occurring in the economic field of culture. Political culture is seen as a necessary condition for the endurance of democratic regimes (Lane and Ersson 2002: 299; Almond 1963; Almond and Verba 1980). However, as it is oftentimes the case, democratic regimes are tied with liberal economies. Therefore, culture structures democratic institutions, so does culture structure the different economic agents within a market economy. Or, culture is married to both politics and economics. As consumption practices represent a crucial part of culture they play an important role in conditioning the relationship and interdependencies between state agents and economic agents on both international and domestic level. Individuals within a society are both market agents and citizens with particular political and consumer culture. Therefore, culture emerges as the basic element linking markets and politics in democratic societies.
In my paper, consumption is the way an audience receives and responds to products, services or experiences, and the way this reception generates changes within society and individual behavior. In a sense individual consumers that hold purchasing power are critics of production, and as Bourdieu puts it “all critics declare not only their judgment of the work but also their claim to the right to talk about it and judge it. In short, they take part in a struggle for the monopoly of legitimate discourse about the work [of art], and consequently in the production of the value of the work [of art]” (Bourdieu 1993: 36). Thus, criticizing not only art goods but all sorts of consumer products provides consumers with increased confidence and legitimate authority to criticize .
Culture determines how consumers behave as customers, how they practice consumption, and how they form communities. Market is socially constructed by the different types of consumption practices. As Holt finds:
“cultural frameworks of tastes, then, organize interpretations of consumption objects and how they are consumed, give meaning to consumption objects, constitute the desirability of consumption objects and the preferred ways of consuming them, and structure the felt experience of consuming” (Holt 1997: 332).
“Membership in a collectivity is not necessarily a conscious phenomenon, (i.e., collectivities can operate separate from members’ self-understanding)” (Holt 1997: 326).
According to Holt, “another important characteristic of collectivities is that they are constituted and sustained through social processes—they are socially constructed. Thus, just because people share a common demographic characteristic does not mean that they form a collectivity” (326). Consequently, the market is socially constructed, not so much as by who consumes and what is consumed as much as by the type of consumption practice itself.
Simultaneously, consumption is what Giddens (1984) terms “practical knowledge”, meaning that gradually consumers learn to consume acting rationally and practically in a market economy. Therefore, consumption culture is not a static phenomenon, but a phenomenon that involves social learning. If consumers develop conscious and demanding consumption practices, suppliers will be more likely to respond to consumer demands in order to maintain their competitiveness on the market (Mitchell et al. 2001: 85). Consequently, regularities of individual consumption practices lead to institutionalization.
Furthermore, consumption is related to culture, politics, and economics through the process of buyers seeking change through consumption.
“Much of the dynamism of consumption results from consumers seeking to reinvent themselves in order to take on desired roles or to participate in desired social worlds. The prevalence of assimilating and producing practices among consumers suggests that research should focus on mapping those institutional frameworks to which consumers aspire (see, e.g., Richins 1991) as well as the valorization processes through which these frameworks come to exert such motivational force on consumers” (Holt 1995: 14).
According to Pine and Gilmore, contemporary individual buyers are actually aspirants to change: “aspirants will entrust their futures only to those with whom they share a common worldview” (Pine 1999: 173, 183). Thus, consumers will be the ones leading social processes of change.
The relationship between culture, economics, and politics is clarified if we explore the types of decision-making and consumption practices under the different economic systems. In economic terms, there is one basic difference between a market and command economy that is crucial to social capital and culture: the opportunity to make choices about what to consume and how to consume it. In a market economy, the price system coordinates with relative efficiency the decentralized decisions made by private consumers and producers (Lipsey and Ragan 2001: 4, 17). The basic decision makers in a market economy are individual consumers and producers. Culture is structured by individual consumer decisions. On the contrary, in a command economy the government determines individual economic behavior. The state decides what to produce, how to produce it, and who gets it. Decision-making in a command economy is centralized and independent from consumers and producers. Culture reflects party ideology. The two types of economies are unified through the last type of economy--the traditional economy--“in which behaviour is based mostly on tradition, custom, and habit” (16-17). Finally, all real economies are mixed and combine significant elements of the three systems .
Did Economic Liberalization Lead to Changes in Consumer Behavior, Culture, and Institutions in Bulgaria?According to the type of economy we may distinguish between different consumer behaviors as representing different consumption cultures. We may argue that in command economies consumers behave passively and acceptingly as state institutions structure their consumption culture. In market economies consumers exert active, “stakeholder” behavior, and their consumption culture structures institutions.
Under the static conditions of communism, not only did individual consumers have no economic choice, but also producers did not have to compete in order to respond to consumers’ demands. Thus, in a command economy, consumers’ tastes do not count to suppliers, and popular culture is politically molded, as cultural products are not produced in a way that satisfies the tastes of individual consumers, but in a way that promotes the party ideology. In addition, consumers are deprived of the right to complain or criticize products. Not only are people told what to consume, and how much of it, but also how to consume it. I would suggest that under communism, and especially during the economic crisis in the years before the fall, ruling elites stigmatized consumption as a shameful materialist experience . Thus, communist consumers were mere receptors of goods, products, and services that carry ideological values. They were passive consumers with no ability to criticize or exert their free will.
The hasty transition to market economy brought about new institutions; however, the process prevented society from developing a culture that could sustain them. The transformations envisaged after the fall of communism ironically mirrored the communist project itself (Przeworski 1992: 45). The sphere of free markets remained beyond social awareness for a long time, and despite the fact that consumption increased in quantitative and qualitative terms, consumer behavior remained mostly traditional. Even today, a greater part of Bulgarian citizens aim their criticisms against governments, the judiciary, the police, the IMF, the bureaucracy, but as consumers they remain passive as they were taught under communism.
Applying Lipset’s theory that economic development—education, industrialization, urbanization, and wealth—leads to democratization, we may expect to find some changes in both consumption and consumption culture in post-communist Bulgaria (Lipset 1959: 78). As consumption is a practical knowledge learned from experience (Kendall and Sproles 1990) free markets eventually lead to the transformation of consumers from passive, and accepting to proactive, and practical. Therefore, liberalization is expected to bring about changes not only in terms of quantity produced and consumed; the new economic system is supposed to transform individual consumer behavior as well (for example see Inglehart 1997). In addition, we may suggest that economic liberalization influences consumers by rendering them rational, critical, and active. According to consumer behavior theories, active consumers will have higher community involvement rates (Warland et al. 1984: 64). Finally, I suggest that the type of consumption will determine the stakeholder power of consumers in policy formation processes and institutionalization (Warland et al. 148) .
An Example: Bulgarian Women’s Movement and Consumer Behavior
Waylen (1994) argues that women’s movement played a minimal role in Eastern Europe as compared to Latin America. She states that the institutional democratization of states did not “necessarily entail a democratization of power relations in society at large, particularly between men and women”. She adds that “politics then becomes a largely male activity, as women are not part of political elites in great numbers and therefore do not appear as politically active. This downplays the significance of exactly those sorts of wider political activities—social movements, for example—in which women are most likely to be involved” (Waylen 1994: 333).
Firstly, when Waylen refers to power she emphasizes political power while she underestimates the importance of economic power. This fact is especially important in post-communist societies where responsiveness of governments has been considered extremely low. While it is true that women in post-communist societies were slow to organize themselves in unions and movements to attain political and social rights, it is definitely wrong to consider that women had no power in society at large. It has been shown that women played crucial role in the period of transition by carrying the greatest burden—that of providing economic subsistence to members of their families. Women have adapted faster to the conditions of transition and consequently with the alleviation of the economic crisis they are turning to politics. Secondly, Waylen says that politics became a largely male activity because women did not make part of political elites in great numbers. This is of course true, but as I will argue, women chose not to get involved in politics. This response was triggered by general lack of trust in political institutions not only by women, but also by the society as a whole.
I suggest that women intentionally stayed away from political participation and involvement in mass feminist organizations. Instead of engaging in organized movements, women in Bulgaria engaged in a competition for gaining economic power. Thus, women did not seek to make themselves a place on the political stage, but rather to provide themselves with economic power to begin with. They sought leading economic positions by increasing their wealth and consumer power. The demise of communism did not make women withdraw in large numbers to become full-time housewives, as predicted by various researchers (Lippe and Fodor 1998).
A fact is that Bulgaria has one of the highest female labor force participation rates in Europe (Genov et Krasteva 2001: 122). In addition to being strongly represented in the labor force the percentage of women with high university degrees rose drastically. Women and men had equal access to educational institutions, however, from 1964 to 1995 the percentage of women graduating from universities increased from 29 percent to 61 percent in 1995 (quotation). Lipset extensively supports his argumentation that better educated population increases the chances for democratic regime survival . Furthermore, Lipset says that high level of education is a necessary condition in the modern world. In addition, Lipset shows that all other factors leading to the consolidation of democratic regimes such as industrialization, urbanization, and wealth are related to education. It is obvious that education is to play a crucial role for the process of democratic consolidation and consumer empowerment in Bulgaria; as this might be the case women will definitely hold a crucial part of the stabilization of the regime.
Scholars have shown that it is not open market economies that pose the greatest threats to democratic consolidation, but rather the emerging inequalities that underlie the process of market liberalization. Gender gap inequalities have been harsh in other Eastern and Central European countries; however, Domanski finds out that only in Bulgaria and Slovakia the gender gap is statistically insignificant as related to earnings:
“Results of national surveys carried out in East-European countries convincingly showed that after the fall of communism the gender gap in earnings remained substantial. I find considerable cross-national variation in the odds of female/male membership in the underclass: women in Poland, Russia and Hungary appear to be most heavily over-represented in this category, while in Bulgaria and Slovakia, the effect of gender does not exist”* .
It is evident that the filling of the gender gap income inequality is Bulgarian women’s achievement.
The most important conclusion to be drawn from the above paragraphs is that if economics were to play any role in the future development of Bulgaria, women’s voice would have to be taken into serious consideration. Lister has argued that financial dependency stands on the way of women’s active citizenship (Lister 1990). By gaining financial independence women stabilized their position as economically independent. However, financial independence did not mean income equality (Genov and Krasteva 2001: 124); nonetheless, women showed concern about equality of capabilities instead of income. According to scholars such as Sen (1992), women attached greater importance to freedom rather than equality. This attitude change led to important changes in women’s psychology and consumer behavior. Not only did women embrace freedom—a liberal value of crucial importance to democracy—but their independence was reflected in increased confidence on the market.
By gaining financial independence women’s perceptions changed, and their consumption practices changed from passive to active. Changes in consumption practices led to changes in culture reflected in the attitudes of young girls. As studies by Adnanes (2001) reveal, in a survey of 560 students in Bulgaria showed that young women were highly ambitious and placed significantly more importance on pursuing a career than their male peers. Female students also expressed more progressive and modern attitudes, emphasizing gender equality, both within the family and society. Male students, on the other hand, held more conservative attitudes, maintaining traditional gender roles (Adnanes 2001).
A perfect example of women's empowerment is not the growing rate of memberships in feminist organizations, nor a growing impact of feminist non-governmental organizations on policy formation. Instead, empowerment is reflected in changes in individual behavior and more precisely in individual consumption practices of women. Women learned to protect their rights by consuming objects critically. Thus, an advertisement campaign that used traditionally indiscriminative language depicting women as objects led the Zagorka brewery to the court.
“in July 2001, in Plovdiv, the second largest city in Bulgaria, the first legal claim against the Zagorka brewery was launched. The claimant, who had initially insisted upon anonymity, was a 48-year old successful businesswoman who was in the past a national fencing champion. She did not have any affiliation with a feminist movement or women’s organizations in the country” (Millan and Elliott 2004: 480).
The fact that the claimant did not participate in a feminist movement does not refute the proposition that some form of social movement or, for instance, a consumer organization influenced her behavior. However, the influence of this hypothetical movement or organization is realized through a transformed practice of consumption. The advertisement product was received critically and actively, despite the fact that it used traditionally acceptable discourse. This marks an exceptional change in consumer behavior. The authors claim that to the best of their knowledge “this is the first case in Eastern Europe when individuals have challenged companies in the courts of law because of offence caused by an advertisement” (Millan and Elliott 475). No other case has provoked so much public debate in Bulgaria “which polarised Bulgarian public opinion and galvanized Bulgarian feminists” (476).
It is essential that the case against the Zagorka brewery was decided in accordance with prevailing social values—the claimant lost the case as there was no sufficient court practice on gender discrimination, and the court did not have the basis to decide the case otherwise. However, the raised public awareness on gender issues established a precedent in Bulgarian judicial practice, which is “likely to have long-term implications for the advertising industry and public policy concerning advertising practices in the future” (491).
This case provides a viable example of how changes in consumption practices result in institutionalization of social norms of behavior. The impact of social movements and nongovernmental organizations is exercised through sensitizing individuals on particular issues, and thus changing their consumption practices from passive, and accepting to active, and analytical. This in turn is related to the conditions creating demand for information, a situation prone to the emergence of non-profit organizations. As Snavely puts it, “it has been argued that non-profit organisations arise as a solution to the problem of information asymmetry in the market place, a situation in which suppliers have more information than consumers about the quality and cost of services such as nursing…” (in Hansman 1980: 835). If information is provided without real consumer demand, then such information will be more likely to provoke apathy, and less likely to promote institutionalization. Therefore, active consumption practices are more likely to lead to liberal-democratic culture, consequently to increased demand for information, and finally, to institutionalization.
ConclusionsIn my paper I argued that consumption is an important economic-cultural process that deserves the attention of political scientists. Social capital in liberal democracies is characterized not only by political, and social, but also by economic participation. Consumption practices result in individual and collective norms of behaviour that have crucial importance on social and political culture underlying democratic institutions. Powerless as voters and as social actors, both because of communist legacy and international organizations, civil society in Bulgaria can still play a role in determining its fate through changing its consumption practices from passive to proactive. It is in the context of increased globalization and trade that social capital in Bulgaria could narrow down or broaden further its field of participation to include the market. Popular consumer culture could structure market institutions, and thus help the state deal efficiently with economic pressures. Under those circumstances, the role of the government is identifying and supporting independent consumer initiatives arising due to the process of economic development and interdependency (see McGregor 2005).
BibliographyAdnanes, M. 2001. “Youth and Gender in Post-Communist Bulgaria,” Journal of Youth Studies 4 (1): 25-40.
Almond, Gabriel Abraham. 1963. The Civic Culture; Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, in Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba eds. (Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press).
Almond, Gabriel, and Verba, S. eds. 1980. The Civic Culture Revisited (Boston : Little Brown).
Arato, A. and Cohen, J. 1992. Civil Society and Democratic Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Bartkowski, J. 2003. “Social Capital in Poland” in Gabriel Badescu and Eric M. Uslaner, eds., Social Capital and the Transition to Democracy (New York, NY: Routlege): 184-199.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. “The Field of Cultural Production, or the Economic World Reversed,” The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. Randal Johnson (Cambridge: Polity Press): 29-73.
Brahm, Heinz. 1994. Bulgarien an einem Kreuzweg, Bericht des BIOst, No. 3, Cologne.
Dalton, Russell J., Scarrow, Susan E. and Cain, Bruce E. 2004. “Advanced Democracies and the New Politics,” Journal of Democracy 15(1) 124-138.
Deltcheva, Roumiana. 1996. “New Tendencies in Post-Totalitarian Bulgaria: Mass Culture and the Media,” Europe-Asia Studies 48 (2): 305-315.
Dowley, Kathleen M., Silver, Brian D. 2003. “Social Capital, Ethnicity, and Support for Democracy in the Post-Communist States” in Gabriel Badescu and Eric M. Uslaner, eds., Social Capital and the Transition to Democracy (New York, NY: Routlege): 95-119.
Ekiert, G. 1991. “Democratization Processes in East Central Europe: A Theoretical Reconsideration,” British Journal of Political Science 21: 285-313.
Genov, Nikolai and Krasteva, Anna eds. 2001. Recent Social Trends in Bulgaria 1960-1995 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press).
Geremek, B. 1996. “Civil Society Then and Now” in L. Diamond and M. F. Plattner, eds. The Global Resurgence of Democracy (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).
Giatzidis, Emil. 2002. An Introduction to Post-Communist Bulgaria: Political Economic and Social Transformation (New York: Manchester University Press).
Gibson, James L. 2003. “Social Networks, Civil Society, and the Prospects for Consolidating Russia’s Democratic Transition” in Gabriel Badescu and Eric M. Uslaner, eds., Social Capital and the Transition to Democracy (New York, NY: Routlege): 61-80.
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press).
Government of Canada. 2003. Social Capital Workshop: Concepts, Measurement, Implications. Policy Resarch Initiative Project: Social Capital as a Public Policy Tool, June: 15.
Gwartney, James D., Lawson, Robert A., and Clark J. R. 2005. “Economic Freedom of the World, 2002,” The Independent Review 9 (4): 573-593.
Hansman, Henry. 1980. “The Role of Nonprofit Enterprise,” The Yale Law Journal 89 (April): 835-898.
Holt, Douglas B. 1995. “How Consumers Consume: A Typology of Consumption Practices,” The Journal of Consumer Research 22 (1): 1-16.
Holt, Douglas B. 1997. “Poststructuralist Lifestyle Analysis: Conceptualizing the Social Patterning of Consumption in Postmodernity,” The Journal of Consumer Research 23 (4): 326-350.
Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press).
Kendall Sproles, Elizabeth and Sproles, George B. 1990. “Consumer Decision-Making Styles as a Function of Individual Learning Styles,” The Journal of Consumer Affairs 24 (1): 134-147.
Krastev, Ivan. 2004. “Bringing the State Up” in The State Against the Reforms. Sofia: East West Publishing House.
Lane, Jan-Erik and Ersson, Svante. 2002. Culture and Politics: A Comparative Approach (Burlington, VT: Ashgate).
Lippe, T.V.D. and Fodor, E.. 1998. Acta Sociologica 41 (2): 131-149.
Lipset, Martin Seymour. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy,” The American Political Science Review 53 (1): 69-105.
Lipsey, Richard, and Ragan, Christopher. 2001. Microeconomics. 10th Canadian ed. (Toronto : Addison Wesley Longman).
Lister, Ruth. 1990. “Women Economic Dependency and Citizenship,” Journal of Social Policy 19 (4): 445-468.
Mason, David, Daniel Nelson and Bohdan Szklarski. 1991. “Apathy and the Birth of Democracy: The Polish Struggle,” East European Politics and Societies 5(2): 205-233.
McGregor, Sue. 2005. “Sustainable Consumer Empowerment Through Critical Consumer Education: A Typology Of Consumer Education Approaches” International Journal of Consumer Studies 29 (5): 437-447.
Micheletti, Michele, Follesdal, Andreas and Stolle, Dietlind, eds. 2003. Politics, Products, and Markets: Exploring Political Consumerism Past and Present (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press).
Millan, Elena and Elliott, Richard. 2004. “Offensive Advertising, Public Policy, and the Law: The Rulings on the Zagorka Case,” Journal of Consumer Policy 27: 475-493.
Mitchell, Jeremy; Kutin, Breda and Macgeorge, Alastair. 2001. “Guidelines for Consumer Policy in Central and Eastern Europe,” Journal of Consumer Policy 24: 83-109.
Nagle, John D. and Mahr, A. 1999. Democracy and Democratization: Post-Communist Europe in Comparative Perspective (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Pine II, Joseph. 1999. The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).
Przeworski, Adam. 1992. “The Neoliberal Fallacy,” Journal of Democracy 3 (July): 45-59.
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R. Y. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Putnam, Robert, ed. 2002. Democracies in Flux (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Putnam, Robert. 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital”, Journal of Democracy 6 (1): 65-78.
Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster).
Rau, Zbigniew (ed.). 1991. The Reemergence of Civil Society in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
Richins, Marsha. 1991. “Social Comparison and the Idealized Images of Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research 18 (June): 71-83.
Rupnik, J. 1996. “The Post-Totalitarian Blues” in L. Diamond and M. F. Plattner, eds. The Global Resurgence of Democracy (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).
Schmitter, P. and Karl, T. 1993. “What Democracy Is…And What It Is Not” in L. Diamond and M. Plattner, eds. The Global Resurgence of Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).
Sen, Amarya. 1992. Inequality Reexamined (New York: Clarendon Press).
Snavely, Keith. 1996. “The Welfare State and the Emerging Non-Profit Sector in Bulgaria,” Europe-Asia Studies 48 (4): 647-662.
Stolle, D., Hooghe, M. and Micheletti, M. 2005. “Politics in the Supermarket: Political Consumerism as a Form of Political Participation”, International Political Science Review 26 (3): 245-269.
Tilkidjiev, Nikolai and Dimov, Martin. 2003. Status Basis of Democratic Consolidation under Post-Communism (Sofia: East-West Publishing House).
Uslaner, Eric M. 2003. “Trust and Civic Engagement in East and West” in Gabriel Badescu and Eric M. Uslaner, eds., Social Capital and the Transition to Democracy (New York, NY: Routlege): 81-94.
Uslaner, Eric M. and Badescu, Gabriel. 2003. “The Challenges to Social Capital in the Democratic Transition” in Gabriel Badescu and Eric M. Uslaner, eds., Social Capital and the Transition to Democracy (New York, NY: Routlege): 219-232.
Warland, Rex H., Herrmann, Robert O., and Moore, Dan E.. 1984. “Consumer Complaining and Community Involvement: An Exploration of Their Theoretical and Empirical Linkages,” The Journal of Consumer Affairs 18 (1): 64-78.
Warland, Rex H., Herrmann, Robert O., and Willits, Jane. “Dissatisfied Consumers: Who Gets Upset and Who Takes Action,” Pennsylvania Agr. Experimental Station Journal Series 4893: 148-163.
Waylen, Georgina. 1994. “Women and Democratization: Conceptualizing Gender Relations in Transitions Politics,” World Politics 46 (3): 327-354.
