Third Sector in Ukraine: Civic Engagement Before and After the “Euromaidan”

Abstract

This study explores the determinants of the low level of civic engagement in Ukraine. Applying the methodological framework of analytical sociology, we consider different social mechanisms that explain the weakness of the Ukrainian third sector. First, we discuss how the political system and economic performance of the country have shaped beliefs, values, and motives of people by creating the context for their actions. Second, we focus on different aspects of people’s experiences during the Soviet times to formulate a number of hypotheses concerning unwillingness of citizens to join CSOs. Analyzing the survey data of the years 2010 (beginning of Viktor Yanukovych’s presidency) and 2014 (survey conducted right after the “Euromaidan”), we argue that some specific features of Homo Sovieticus, such as passivity, absence of political identification, and reliance on informal networks negatively affect the propensity of people to participate in CSOs. These effects are complemented by disappointment with the post-Soviet transformation and low subjective social status. Based on the results of analyses, we formulate suggestions concerning possible ways of fostering the development of civil society in Ukraine.

Resume

Cette étude explore les facteurs déterminants du faible niveau d’engagement civique en Ukraine. Appliquant le cadre méthodologique de la sociologie analytique, nous considérons les différents mécanismes sociaux qui expliquent la faiblesse du troisième secteur ukrainien. Tout d’abord, nous examinons comment le système politique et les performances économiques du pays ont façonné les croyances, les valeurs et les motivations des citoyens en créant le contexte pour leurs actions. Nous nous concentrons ensuite sur les différents aspects des expériences du peuple durant la période soviétique pour formuler plusieurs hypothèses concernant le manque de volonté des citoyens à rejoindre des organisations de la société civile. Analysant des données de sondage des années 2010 (début de la présidence de Victor Ianoukovitch) et 2014 (enquête réalisée juste après l’ « Euromaidan »), nous soutenons que certaines caractéristiques de l’Homo Sovieticus, telles que la passivité, l’absence d’identification politique et le recours aux réseaux informels nuisent à la propension du peuple à participer aux organisations de la société civile. Ces effets sont complétés par la déception causée par la transformation postsoviétique et le faible statut social subjectif. Tenant compte des résultats des analyses, nous formulons des propositions sur les pistes visant à favoriser le développement de la société civile en Ukraine.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Studie untersucht die Einflussfaktoren für das geringe Bürgerengagment in der Ukraine. Unter Anwendung des methodologischen Rahmenwerks der analytischen Soziologie betrachten wir unterschiedliche soziale Mechanismen, die die Schwäche des ukrainischen Dritten Sektors erläutern. Zunächst diskutieren wir, wie das politische System und die wirtschaftliche Leistung des Landes das gegebene Umfeld geschaffen und so die Überzeugungen, Werte und Motive der Menschen geformt haben. Als nächstes konzentrieren wir uns auf die verschiedenen Erfahrungen der Menschen während der Sowiet-Zeit, um eine Reihe von Hypothesen darüber aufzustellen, warum die Bürger gemeinnützigen Organisationen nicht beitreten wollen. Wir analysieren die Forschungsdaten der Jahre 2010 (Beginn der Präsidentschaft von Viktor Yanukovych) und 2014 (unmittelbar nach den „Euromaidan“-Protesten durchgeführte Untersuchung) und behaupten, dass sich einige spezifische Merkmale des Homo Sovieticus, wie Passivität, fehlende politische Identififizierung und ein Vertrauen auf informelle Netzwerke, negativ auf die Wahrscheinlichkeit auswirken, dass sich die Menschen in gemeinnützigen Organisationen einbringen. Diese Auswirkungen werden von der Enttäuschung über die post-sowietische Transformation und den niedrigen subjektiven sozialen Status noch verstärkt. Beruhend auf den Analyseergebnissen unterbreiten wir Vorschläge dazu, wie die Entwicklung der Bürgergesellschaft in der Ukraine gefördert werden kann.

Resumen

El presente estudio explora los determinantes del bajo nivel de compromiso cívico en Ucrania. Aplicando el marco metodológico de la sociología analítica, consideramos los diferentes mecanismos sociales que explican la debilidad del sector terciario ucraniano. En primer lugar, analizamos cómo el sistema político y el rendimiento económico del país ha dado forma a las creencias, valores y motivos de la gente creando el contexto para sus acciones. En segundo lugar, nos centramos en diferentes aspectos de las experiencias de la gente durante los tiempos de la Unión Soviética para formular un número de hipótesis relativas a la falta de disposición de los ciudadanos para incorporarse a organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OCS/CSO). Analizando los datos de encuestas de los años 2010 (comienzo de la presidencia de Viktor Yanukovich) y 2014 (encuesta realizada justo después del “Euromaidan”), argumentamos que algunas características específicas del Homo Sovieticus, tales como la pasividad, la ausencia de identificación política y la confianza en redes informales afectan de manera negativa a la propensión de la gente a participar en OSC/CSO. Estos efectos se complementan mediante la desilusión con la transformación postsoviética y el bajo estatus social subjetivo. Basándonos en los resultados de los análisis, formulamos sugerencias relativas a la posible forma de fomentar el desarrollo de la sociedad civil en Ucrania.

摘要

本研究对乌克兰公民参与水平低的决定因素进行了探讨,我们运用分析社会学的方法论框架,考虑了能够解释乌克兰第三部门薄弱原因的不同的社会机制。首先,我们讨论了国家的政治体系和经济表现如何通过为人们的行为创造环境而促使人们的信仰、价值和动机的形成; 第二, 我们集中在苏联时期人们体验的不同的方面,提出了一些有关公民不愿参加民权社会组织(CSO)的假设。我们通过 分析2010年(亚努科维奇总统任期开始之时)和2014年(调查于乌克兰亲欧盟示威之后开始)的调查数据,认为苏维埃人的一些特色对人们参加民权社会组织的倾向造成了负面影响,例如被动、没有政治身份、依赖不正式的网络,光有这些影响还不算,还存在 对后苏联时代转型和自觉性低的社会状况的失望。 根据分析结果,我们针对促进乌克兰民权社会发展的可能的途径提出了我们的建议。

ملخص

هذه الدراسة تكتشف محددات إنخفاض مستوى المشاركة المدنية في أوكرانيا. تطبيق الإطار المنهجي لعلم الإجتماع التحليلي نعتبر الآليات الإجتماعية المختلفة التي تفسر ضعف القطاع الثالث الأوكراني. أولا”، نحن نناقش كيف يمكن لنظام سياسي والأداء الإقتصادي للبلد أن يقوم بتشكيل المعتقدات، القيم ودوافع ناس من خلال خلق إطار لأعمالهم. ثانيا”، نحن نركز على جوانب مختلفة من تجارب الناس أثناء عصر السوفيت لوضع عدد من الفرضيات المتعلقة برفض المواطنين للإنضمام إلى منظمات المجتمع المدني(CSO). تحليل بيانات إستطلاع الرأي من السنوات 2010 (بداية رئاسة (Viktor Yanukovych)) و2014 (تم إجراء إستطلاع رأي مباشر بعد مظاهرات أوكرانيا(“Euromaidan”) فإننا نجادل أن بعض السمات المحددة لإنسان العصر السوفييتي، مثل السلبية، غياب الإنتماء السياسي، والإعتماد على الشبكات الغير رسمية يؤثر سلبا”على رفض الناس للمشاركة في منظمات المجتمع المدني(CSO). يتم إكمال هذه الآثار من خلال خيبة أمل مع تحول الإتحاد السوفيتي وإنخفاض الوضع الإجتماعي. بناءا” على نتائج تحليل نحن قمنا بصياغة إقتراحات بشأن السبل الممكنة لتعزيز تنمية المجتمع المدني في أوكرانيا.

Appendix: Variables description

Concept	Operationalization, wording	Values
Membership status	Are you a member of one of the following organizations?	1—Member of one of more organizations
	1. Club or interest group	0—No memberships
	2. Political party
	3. Socio-political movement
	4. Ecological movement
	5. NGO, foundation, association
	6. Trade union
	7. Artistic association
	8. Sports club/association
	9. Professional association
	10. Students’ organization, youth organization
	11. Religious community/organization
	12. Farmers organization
	13. Other organization, association, movement
“Euromaidan” participation or support	Did you participate in the protests against government in December 2013–February 2014?	1—Participated/supported
	1. I participated in the protests in Kyiv	0—Did not participate/support
	2. I participated in the protests in another city
	3. I supported the protesters by donating food, clothes, money etc.
	4. I did not participate
Political ideology preference	There are several more or less independent political ideologies that can be distinguished in a political spectrum. Some of these ideologies are indicated below. Please select one you affiliate yourself with	1—Indicated an ideology
		0—Did not indicate an ideology
	1. Communist
	2. Socialist
	3. Social-democratic
	4. Green
	5. Liberal
	6. Christian-democratic
	7. National-democratic
	8. Nationalist
	9. Other
	10. None at all
	11. I haven’t decided yet
	12. I have no notion of these ideologies
Active position in life	What in your opinion determines the course of your life in the first place?	1—Life depends more on me than on circumstances/mostly on me
	1. Life depends mostly on circumstances	0—Other categories
	2. Life depends more on circumstances than on me
	3. Life depends equally on me and on circumstances
	4. Life depends more on me than on circumstances
	5. Life depends mostly on me
Level of anomie and demoralization	An additive scale of the following items (1—agree, 0—disagree):	0–17
	1. Nowadays everything is so uncertain that it seems to me anything can happen
	2. What we lack today is genuine friendship, as in the past, friendship for the whole life
	3. Under current disorder and uncertainty, it is difficult to understand what to believe in
	4. Things around change so quickly that it is not clear which laws to follow
	5. Much of what our parents believed in is being destroyed before our eyes
	6. The current problem is that the majority of people do not believe in anything
	7. I often don’t understand what is going on, I feel awkward
	8. People felt happier in the past, because they knew how to behave properly
	9. It seems to me that others know better what is right and what is wrong
	10. A couple of strong leaders can do more for the country than all laws and discussions
	11. Much evidence is needed to convince people of some truth
	12. I think the majority of people would lie to get promoted
	13. The majority of people are honest only because they are afraid that they can be caught lying
	14. I believe that the majority of people would behave dishonestly in order to gain benefit
	15. It is safest to trust nobody
	16. I believe that practically everyone is able to lie to avoid trouble
	17. The majority of people don’t like to burden themselves by helping others
Logarithm of monthly income per household member	Please indicate the total income per capita in your household for the last month (sum up wages and other income of all household members and divide this sum by the number of household members)	2.77–9.74
Social ladder	Imagine that people with different social positions are located on some kind of a ladder: on the lowest rungs there are those, who have the lowest social position, and on the highest—those, who have the highest social position. On which rung would you place yourself?	1–7
Trust in family	How much do you trust your family, relatives?	1—Trust/rather trust
	1. Completely distrust	0—Other categories
	2. Rather distrust
	3. Hard to say trust or distrust
	4. Rather trust
	5. Completely trust
Trust in neighbors	How much do you trust your neighbors?	1—Trust/rather trust
	1. Completely distrust	0—Other categories
	2. Rather distrust
	3. Hard to say trust or distrust
	4. Rather trust
	5. Completely trust
Trust in colleagues	How much do you trust your colleagues?	1—Trust/rather trust
	1. Completely distrust	0—Other categories
	2. Rather distrust
	3. Hard to say trust or distrust
	4. Rather trust
	5. Completely trust
Trust in NGOs	How much do you trust CSOs?	1—Trust/rather trust
	1. Completely distrust
	2. Rather distrust	0—Other categories
	3. Hard to say trust or distrust
	4. Rather trust
	5. Completely trust
Age	Your age	18–94
Gender	Your gender	1—Male
		0—Female
Higher education	Your education	1—Higher education
		0—No higher education
Employment status	Please indicate your current occupation	1—Employed, self-employed
		2—Student
		3—Pensioner
		4—Not employed, housewife
		5—Other
Place of residence	Where do you currently live?	1—Kyiv
		2—City with population over 250 thousand people
		3—Small city
		4—Village
Region	West: Volyns’ka, Zakarpats’ka, Ivano-Frankivs’ka, Lvivs’ka, Rivnens’ka, Ternopils’ka, Černiveс’ka (N = 345)	1—West
	Center: Kyjiv, Kyjivs’ka, Vinnyc’ka, Žytomyrs’ka, Kirovograds’ka, Poltavs’ka, Sums’ka, Chmelnic’ka, Čerkas’ka, Černihivs’ka (N = 625)	2—Center
	South: Krym, Mykolajivs’ka, Odes’ka, Chersons’ka (N = 195)	3—South
	East: Dnipropetrovs’ka, Zaporiz’ka, Harkivs’ka (N = 354)	4—East
	Donbas: Donec’ka, Luhans’ka (N = 281)	5—Donbas