IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v90y1996i01p153-166_20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Political Change in Post-Soviet Societies: A Further Commentary on Finifter and Mickiewicz

Author

Listed:
  • Miller, Arthur H.
  • Reisinger, William M.
  • Hesli, Vicki L.

Abstract

Modernization theory suggests that in the post–World War II period increased education promoted public support for democratic principles and an individual opportunities society in the former Soviet Union. Finifter and Mickiewicz (1992), however, based on a 1989 survey in the Soviet Union, found that the less well educated were more supportive of individual locus of control than were the better educated. Examining survey data collected in the former USSR during 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1995, we find consistent reconfirmation of the modernization theory, despite a major decline in support for an opportunities society that occurs between 1992 and 1995. This recent increase in preference for socialism is explained by rising nationalism, growing nostalgia for communists, and disillusionment with certain aspects of the market economy, particularly the perceived growth of social inequality.

Suggested Citation

  • Miller, Arthur H. & Reisinger, William M. & Hesli, Vicki L., 1996. "Understanding Political Change in Post-Soviet Societies: A Further Commentary on Finifter and Mickiewicz," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(1), pages 153-166, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:90:y:1996:i:01:p:153-166_20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S000305540020539X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grosjean, Pauline & Senik, Claudia, 2007. "Should Market Liberalization precede Democracy ? Causal Relations between Political Preferences and Development," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Docweb) 0704, CEPREMAP.
    2. Pauline Grosjean & Claudia Senik, 2011. "Democracy, Market Liberalization, and Political Preferences," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 365-381, February.
    3. Pauline Grosjean & Claudia Senik, 2007. "Should market liberalization precede democracy? Causal relations between political preferences and development," Working Papers halshs-00588060, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:90:y:1996:i:01:p:153-166_20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.