1. We use the word “transition” advisedly, concurring with David Stark that it presupposes an end state instead of a multifaceted process that is framed by not only the ultimate goal but by the current state as well as the history of the institution.

2. Sears, David O., Hensler, Carl P. and Speer, Leslie K., “Whites’ Opposition to ‘Busing': Self-Interest or Symbolic Politics?” American Political Science Review 73 (1979): 369–84Google Scholar; Sears, David O., Lau, Richard R., Tyler, Tom R. and Allen, Harris M., Jr., “Self-Interest versus Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting,” AmericanPolitical Science Review 74 (1980): 670–83Google Scholar; L. Page, Benjamin, “Elections and Social Choice: The State of the Evidence,” American Journal of Political Science 21 (1977): 639–68Google Scholar; Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

3. Schumpeter, Joseph Alois, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper and Bros., 1942)Google Scholar.

4. Berger, Peter, “The Uncertain Triumph of Democratic Capitalism,” Journal of Democracy 3 (1993): 7–16 Google Scholar; Offe, Claus, “Capitalism by Democratic Design? Democratic Theory Facing the Triple Transition in East Central Europe,” Social Research 58 (1991): 864–902 Google Scholar; Waisman, Carlos, “Capitalism, the Market and Democracy,” in Reexamining Democracy: Essays in Honor of Seymour Martin Lipset, eds. Marks, Gary and Diamond, Larry Jay (Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1992 Google Scholar.

5. Rose, Richard, “Escaping from Absolute Dissatisfaction: A Trial-and-Error Model of Change in Eastern Europe,” Journal of Theoretical Politics 4 (1992): 371–93Google Scholar

6. Alexis, de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2 (New York: Vintage, 1945 Google Scholar; Lipset, Seymour Martin, “The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited,” Presidential Address, American Sociological Association, Miami, Florida, 1993; Larry Diamond, “Three Paradoxes of Democracy,” in The Global Resurgence of Democracy, eds. Diamond, Larry and Plattner, Marc F. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993 Google Scholar.

7. Berger, “The Uncertain Triumph of Democratic Capitalism,” 7–16.

8. Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lipset, , “The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited” Barrington Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966 Google Scholar.

9. Przeworski, Adam, Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Of course there are different types of capitalism and democracy. Our discussion is based on support of basic principles that would arguably undergird most types of capitalism or democracy. See Karl, Terry and Schmitter, Phillippe, “Modes of Transition in Latin America, Southern and Eastern Europe,” International Social Science Journal 128 (March 1991)Google Scholar, for further discussion of the different types of capitalism and democracy. The distinction between liberal democratic and free market enthusiasts and skeptics is obviously more nuanced than represented in our heuristic typology. We choose the terms “enthusiasts” and “skeptics” to emphasize that these are new ideas and that it is unlikely they have crystallized into solid support or opposition in the short time since 1989.

11. Page, “Elections and Social Choice: The State of the Evidence,” 639–68.

12. Sears, Lau, Tyler and Allen, “Self-Interest versus Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting,” 670–83.

13. We posit a nonreciprocal model which is ordered based on the generally held view that directionality flows from general attitudes to more specific ones. We acknowledge that many of the linkages between these attitudinal measures might be more accurately represented in a reciprocal model, but this is beyond the scope of this paper.

14. Sears, Hensler and Speer, “Whites’ Opposition to ‘Busing': Self-interest or Symbolic Politics?” 369–84.

15. Mcintosh, Mary E. and Abele Mac Iver, Martha, “Coping with Freedom and Uncertainty: Public Opinion in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, 1989–92,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 4 (1992): 375–91.Google Scholar

16. Lewis-Beck, Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies; R. Kinder, Donald and Kiewiet, D. Roderick, “Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgments in Congressional Voting,” American Journal of Political Science 23 (1979): 495–517 Google Scholar; Fiorina, Morris P., “Short and Long-term Effects of Economic Conditions and Individual Voting Decisions,” Social Science Working Paper 244, California Institute of Technology (December 1978)Google Scholar; M. Duch, Raymond, “Tolerating Economic Reform: Popular Support for Transition to a Free Market in the Former Soviet Union,” American Political Science Review 87 (1993): 590–606.Google Scholar

17. Lewis-Beck, Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies.

18. Our hypotheses are the reverse of those of Duch because our data were collected later in the reform process. Using 1990 data, Duch hypothesized that the more negative one's view of the economic system (before reforms started), the higher one's support for a free market. Since the reference point in our surveys was the economic system after free market reforms had begun, our expectations are reversed.

19. Laszlo Bruszt and Janos Simon, “The Great Transformation in Hungary and Eastern Europe: Theoretical Approaches and Public Opinion about Capitalism and Democracy” (unpublished manuscript, 1992).

20. Przeworski, Democracy and the Market.

21. Fiorina, “Short and Long-term Effects of Economic Conditions and Individual Voting Decisions “; Kinder and Kiewiet, “Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgements in Congressional Voting. “

22. Sears, David O. and Kinder, Donald R., “Racial Tensions and Voting in Los Angeles,” in Los Angeles: Viability and Prospects for Metropolitan Leadership, ed. Hirsch, Werner Z. (New York: Praeger, 1971 Google Scholar.

23. Sears, David O., Tyler, Tom R., Citrin, Jack and Kinder, Donald R., “Political System Support and Public Response to the Energy Crisis,” American Journal of Political Science 22 (1978): 56–82.Google Scholar

24. Duch, “Tolerating Economic Reform: Popular Support for Transition to a Free Market in the Former Soviet Union,” 590–606.

25. Reiss, Albert J., Jr., “Monitoring the Quality of the Criminal Justice Systems,” in The Human Meaning of Social Change, eds. Campbell, Angus and Converse, Philip E. (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972 Google Scholar.

26. Citrin, Jack, Reingold, Beth and Green, Donald P., “American Identity and the Politics of Ethnic Change,” Journal of Politics 52 (1990): 1124–54Google Scholar; Sears and Kinder, “Racial Tensions and Voting in Los Angeles “; Sears, Lau, Tyler and Allen, Jr., “Self-Interest versus Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting. “

27. Sears, David O. and Citrin, Jack, Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California, enl. ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985 Google Scholar.

28. Rokeach, M., Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968)Google Scholar.

29. Feldman, S., “Economic Individualism and American Public Opinion,” American Political Quarterly 11 (1983) 3–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lukes, S., Individualism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1973 Google Scholar.

30. Ada Finifter and Ellen Mickiewicz, “Redefining the Political System of the USSR: Mass Support for Political Change,” American Political Science Review 86 (1992): 857–74; Dahrendorf, Ralf, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: In a Letter Intended to Have Been Sent to a Gentleman in Warsaw (New York: Times Books, 1990 Google Scholar.

31. Mcintosh and Mac Iver, “Coping with Freedom and Uncertainty: Public Opinion in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, 1989–92,” 375–91.

32. David Mason, “Attitudes Towards the Market and the State in Post-Communist Europe,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, Phoenix, Arizona, 1992; P. MacGregor, James, “Value Structures in a Developed Socialist System: The Case of Czechoslovakia,” Comparative Politics 23 (1991): 181–99Google Scholar; Volten, Peter M. E., “Introduction and Assessment,” in Bound to Change: Consolidating Democracy in East Central Europe, ed. Volten, Peter M. E. (New York: Institute for East-West Studies, 1992)Google Scholar.

33. This research, as well as that of others, have noted that central and east Europeans welcome some differentiation in income. Yet the key question is not whether people accept the idea of differential rewards for different skill levels and quality of performance, but whether economic equality is more important than political freedom.

34. Richard Rose and Christian Haerpfer, “New Democracies Between State and Market: A Baseline Report on Public Opinion,” Center for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, no. 204, 1992; Bruszt and Simon, “The Great Transformation in Hungary and Eastern Europe: Theoretical Approaches and Public Opinion about Capitalism and Democracy “; Chong, Dennis, McClosky, Herbert and Zaller, John, “Patterns of Support for Democratic and Capitalist Values in the United States,” British Journal of Sociology 13 (1983): 401–40.Google Scholar

35. Przeworski, Democracy and the Market; Bunce, Valerie, “Rising Above the Past: The Struggle for Liberal Democracy in Eastern Europe,” World Policy Journal 7 (Summer 1990): 395–430.Google Scholar

36. Rose and Haerpfer, “New Democracies Between State and Market: A Baseline Report on Public Opinion. “

37. Russel Dalton, “Communists and Democrats: Attitudes Toward Democracy in the Two Germanies,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 1991.

38. Bahry, Donna and Silver, Brian D., “Soviet Citizen Participation on the Eve of Democratization,” American Political Science Review 84 (1990): 821–47Google Scholar; Miller, Arthur, “In Search of Regime Legitimacy,” in Public Opinion and Regime Change: The New Politics of Post-Soviet Societies, eds. Miller, Arthur H., Reisinger, William M. and Hesli, Vicki L. (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993 Google Scholar; Dahl, Robert A., Democracy and Its Critics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989 Google Scholar; Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Banfield, Edward C. with the assistance of Fasano Banfield, Laura, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society (New York: Free Press, 1958 Google Scholar; Inglehart, Ronald, “The Renaissance of Political Culture,” American Political Science Review 82 (1982): 1203–30Google Scholar; Mason, David S., Revolution in East-Central Europe: The Rise and Fall of Communism and the Cold War (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992 Google Scholar.

39. Gibson, James, Duch, Raymond and Tedin, Kent, “Democratic Values and the Transformation of the Soviet Union,” The Journal of Politics 54 (1992): 329–71.Google Scholar

40. Ibid.

41. James Gibson, “Political and Economic Markets: Connecting Attitudes toward Political Democracy and a Market Economy within the Mass Culture of the USSR,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 1993; Duch, “Tolerating Economic Reform: Popular Support for Transition to a Free Market in the Former Soviet Union,” 590–606.

42. D. Weil, Frederick, “The Variable Effects of Education on Liberal Attitudes: A Comparative-Historical Analysis of Anti-Semitism Using Public Opinion Survey Data,” American Sociological Review 50 (August 1985): 458–74Google Scholar; Dalton, “Communists and Democrats: Attitudes Toward Democracy in the Two Germanies. “

43. W. Hahn, Jeffrey, “Continuity and Change in Russian Political Culture,” British Journal of Political Science 21 (1991): 393–421 Google Scholar; Silver, Brian, “Political Beliefs of the Soviet Citizen: Sources of Support for Regime Norms,” in Politics, Work and Daily Life in the USSR: A Survey of Former Soviet Citizens, ed. Millar, James R. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987 Google Scholar; Bahry, Donna, “Society Transformed? Rethinking the Social Roots of Perestroika,” Slavic Review 52 (Fall 1993): 512–54Google Scholar; Mary E. Mcintosh, Martha Abele Mac Iver, Daniel G. Abele and David Nolle, “Minority Rights and Majority Rule: Ethnic Tolerance in Romania and Bulgaria,” forthcoming in Social Forces.

44. Chong, Dennis, McClosky, Herbert and Zaller, John, “Patterns of Support for Democratic and Capitalist Values in the United States,” British Journal of Sociology 13 (1983): 401–40.Google Scholar

45. Finifter, Ada and Mickiewicz, Ellen, “Redefining the Political System of the USSR: Mass Support for Political Change,” American Political Science Review 86 (1992): 857–74.Google Scholar

46. Hahn, “Continuity and Change in Russian Political Culture,” 393–421; Richard Dobson, “Communism's Legacy and Russian Youth,” unpublished manuscript; Finifter and Mickiewicz, “Redefining the Political System of the USSR: Mass Support for Political Change,” 857–74.

47. Duch, “Tolerating Economic Reform: Popular Support for Transition to a Free Market in the Former Soviet Union,” 590–606; Mason, “Attitudes Towards the Market and the State in Post-Communist Europe “; Heyns, Barbara and Jasinska-Kania, Aleksandra, “Values, Politics and the Ideologies of Reform: Poland in Transition,” in Research on Democracy and Society: A Research Annual, ed. Weil, Frederick (Greenwich: JAI Press, 1993 Google Scholar.

48. Carnaghan, Ellen and Bahry, Donna, “Political Attitudes and the Gender Gap in the USSR,” Comparative Politics (July 1990): 379–99Google Scholar; Jennings, Kent M., Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49. Bruszt and Simon, “The Great Transformation in Hungary and Eastern F “urope: Theoretical Approaches and Public Opinion about Capitalism and Democracy.“

50. Measuring support for liberal democracy is a matter of some debate. Rose and Mishler have challenged the “idealistic” approach of measuring the extent to which citizens embrace norms considered fundamental to democratic government, arguing instead for a “realist” approach that ascertains support for the current regime. Using such a measure, they find majorities or near majorities of democratic supporters throughout eastern Europe. Mcintosh and Mac Iver find similar majorities preferring the current political system over the previous communist one. Measures of support for ideal norms such as a multiparty system, political dissent and freedom of the press show nearly as sizable majorities embracing democratic principles.

Much as we hope the optimism voiced by these researchers about the prospects for democracy in central and eastern Europe is warranted, the historical precedent of democratic reversals noted by Huntington and others suggests to us that a more rigorous test of support for democratic principles may be in order. Respondents may prefer the current democratic regime and voice agreement with abstract democratic principles, but not consider those norms as essential for their political system. Therefore, based primarily on Dahl's conception of liberal democracy, we seek to measure the extent to which respondents regard the norms of competitive elections, freedom to criticize the government and equality under the law as essential for a democracy. While some may argue that this does not directly measure support for these norms, we would counter that it is indeed a more rigorous test of support. Our analysis indicates that individuals who regard one of these principles as essential generally meet the Rose and Mishler test of a democrat (prefer the current democratic regime over the former communist one), while not all who support the new system regard these norms as essential. It is not the case that individuals view these principles as essential for a democracy but then don't themselves support them. While our measure may underestimate democratic support among publics in the region, we would argue that this more cautious measure is at least as appropriate, if not more so, than others.

51. See Gibson, Duch and Tedin, “Democratic Values and the Transformation of the Soviet Union,” 329–71, for extensive discussion.

52. Held, David, Models of Democracy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987); Georg Sorensen, Democracy and Democratization: Processes and Prospects in a Changing World (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993 Google Scholar.

53. Romania is an exception. The question was asked in fall 1991 but the wording was changed, thus comparisons are impossible to make.

54. The following analyses are based on the November 1992 data in Hungary and the early 1993 data in the other countries.

55. The factor loadings for both the liberal democracy and market economy indicators for all four countries are presented in Table 5.

56. Richard Rose and William Mishler, “Reacting to Regime Change in Eastern Europe: Polarization or Leaders and Laggards?” Center for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, no. 210, 1993.

57. Mcintosh, Mary E. and Iver, Martha Abele Mac, “Transition to What: Publics Confront Change in Central and East Europe,” East European Studies Program Occasional Paper Series, Woodrow Wilson Center, 1993 Google Scholar.

58. The correlations between market and democracy measures are: Hungary i =.21; Bulgaria r = .35; Poland r = .13; Romania r = .39.

59. Duch, “Tolerating Economic Reform: Popular Support for Transition to a Free Market in the Former Soviet Union,” 590–606; Gibson, “Political and Economic Markets: Connecting Attitudes toward Political Democracy and a Market Economy within the Mass Culture of the USSR. “

60. The R² when the symbolic politics variables are entered first into the equation are: Hungary, democracy .02, market .16; Poland, democracy .06, market .20; Romania, democracy .16; market .40; and Bulgaria, democracy .09, market .37.

61. Mixed views on democracy and capitalism are not necessarily an indication of lack of constraint or consistency in attitudes. Unlike Finifter and Mickiewicz (1992), who early in the transition process concluded that Soviet publics displayed little consistency in their attitudes toward change, our data show a moderately high degree of consistency.

62. Chong, McClosky and Zaller, “Patterns of Support for Democratic and Capitalist Values in the United States,” 401–40.