The article challenges the hypothesis that there is cohabitation of civic engagement and democratic institutions and practices. While valid at a general level, the relationship is not confirmed once it is scrutinized thoroughly and heterogeneous categories are disaggregated. For the European post-Communist cases, the pattern of the relationship between the regime type and the propensity to associate closely resembles the one in Latin mature democracies and non-authoritarian countries, provided that voluntary associations are chosen as measurements of vitality of social capital and robustness of civil society. A possible consequence of this provocative finding would be re-evaluating the well-established concepts in social sciences.

In this paper the current problems of socio-economic development, such as population loss, public health, and others, in independent Ukraine are presented and analyzed. Their main causes are identified as follows: extensive type of economic development, absence of the clear, sustainable goals and appropriate programs, high level of corruption, general socio-cultural (moral) crisis, passive civil position of society, lack of democracy, and inadequacy of institutions, for example, the higher education system. The contemporary problems of social capital development and inefficiency of science and higher education institutions in Ukraine are examined.

An important precondition of successful democratic consolidation is voters’ confidence that political institutions do not abuse their privileged position of power. Seeking to identify variables that explain trust in political institutions, the paper tests different theories of institutional trust with individual-level survey data from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Building on prior research, two competitive theories—the cultural and performance explanation—are identified and tested, while also controlling for the effects of party preference, ethnicity, and socio-demographic factors. The results show that both cultural and performance variables influence citizens’ trust in political institutions. In other words, institutional trust depends on how much the individual trusts other people as well as on how well they believe the economic and the political system to function. Besides cultural and performance variables, most control variables also proved to be significantly associated with institutional trust, confirming the need to include correct control variables in models of institutional trust.

This paper argues that there is a spurious correlation between social capital and economic development in the regions of post-communist Russia. This argument rejects Robert Putnam’s collectivist hypothesis that social capital is the ubiquitous cause of economic growth. Rather, the data presented in this paper indicates that individualistic behavior in the form of entrepreneurialism, has been the prerequisite for growth in post-communist Russia. While social capital may slow or accelerate economic growth, it will not cause it. Without entrepreneurialism, social capital cannot be harnessed for economic development. In essence, social capital does not create wealth, entrepreneurs do.

The two basic objectives of this study are to determine whether or not Russia has stocks of social capital upon which to draw as it seeks to democratize, and to examine the nature of the relationship between social capital and democracy in Russia. I present both qualitative and quantitative evidence that social capital exists in many parts of Russia. After a quantitative analysis of social capital and democratization, which identifies a strong positive relationship, I suggest that if the center is able to sustain democracy, Russia should be able to consolidate democratic rule.