Hostname: page-component-6565fbc58-47s52 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-12T22:50:29.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Kseniia Gatskova  and
Maxim Gatskov
Kseniia Gatskova*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Migration and Integration, Institute for East and Southeast European Studies (IOS), Landshuter Str. 4, 93047 Regensburg, Germany
Maxim Gatskov
Affiliation:
Bavarian Academic Center for Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe (BAYHOST), University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
*
gatskova@ios-regensburg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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

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

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

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

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。

要約

要約

本研究では、ウクライナ市民が関与する低レベルの決定要因を探る。社会学の方法論的な枠組みを適用して、ウクライナにおける第三セクターの脆弱性を提示する社会の仕組みを考える。まず、どのように政治制度と国の景気が、信念、価値観、人々のアクションを構成するかを議論する。第二に、ソ連時代の人々の経験のさまざまな側面に焦点を当てて、市民社会に参加する市民の不本意に関わる仮説を定式化する。2010年 (ヴィクトル・ヤヌコーヴィッチ大統領政権の最初) から 2014 年 (「ユーロマイダン」直後)の調査データを分析して、受動性、政党の不在、否定的な非公式のネットワークの依存度などのホモ・ソビエティクスの特長について議論するが、この特長はCSOに参加する人々の傾向に悪影響を与える。効果としては、ソ連崩壊後の転換と主観的な社会的地位の失望によって補完されている。解析結果から、ウクライナにおける市民社会の発展を促進する方法についての提案を定式化する。

ملخص

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.

Keywords

Third sectorUkraineHomo Sovieticus“Euromaidan”Political culture

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 673 - 694
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400874569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekkers, R. (2005). Participation in voluntary associations: Relations with resources, personality, and political values. Political Psychology, 26(3), 439–454. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00425.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidee, J., Vantilbourgh, T., Pepermans, R., Huybrechts, G., Willems, J., Jegers, M., & Hofmans, J. (2013). Autonomous motivation stimulates volunteers’ work effort: A self-determination theory approach to volunteeris. Voluntas, 24(1), 32–47. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9269-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borisova, E. I., Polischuk, L. I., & Peresetsky, A. (2014). Collective Management of residential housing in Russia: The importance of being social. Journal of Comparative Economics, 42(3), 609–629. doi: 10.1016/j.jce.2014.04.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cepel, Z. U. (2012). An analysis of state–civil society relations in Finland: A case of Joensuu. Voluntas, 23(2), 328–349. doi: 10.1007/s11266-011-9199-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerham, W. C., Hinote, B. P., Cockerham, G. B., & Abbott, P. (2006). Health lifestyles and political ideology in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Social Science and Medicine, 62(7), 1799–1809. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, K. S., & Gerbasi, A. (2009). Trust. In Hedström, P. & Bearman, P. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of analytical sociology (pp. 218–241). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahrendorf, R. (1996). Economic opportunity, civil society and political liberty. Development and Change, 27(2), 229–249. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.1996.tb00587.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Tocqueville, A. (1969). Democracy in America. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.10.56021/9780801860140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golovaha, E., & Panina, N. (2006). Osnovnye ėtapy i tendencii transformacii ukrainskogo obščestva: ot perestrojki do “oranževoj revolucii”. Sociologija: Teorija, Medody, Marketing, 3, 32–51.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M., & Soong, R. (1983). Threshold models of diffusion and collective behavior. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 9, 165–179. doi: 10.1080/0022250X.1983.9989941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gromadzki, G., Movchan, V., Riabchuk, M., Solonenko, I., Stewart, S., Sushko, O., & Wolczuk, K. (2010). Beyond colours: Assets and liabilities of ‘post-orange’ Ukraine. Kyiv: International Renaissance Foundation.Google Scholar
Haivas, S., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2012). Self-determination theory as a framework for exploring the impact of the organizational context on volunteer motivation: A study of Romanian volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1195–1214. doi: 10.1177/0899764011433041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havel, V. (1992). Summer meditations. Toronto: Knopf Canada.Google Scholar
Hedström, P. (1994). Contagious collectivities: On the spatial diffusion of swedish trade unions, 1890–1940. American Journal of Sociology, 99(5), 1157–1179. doi: 10.1086/230408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedström, P., & Bearman, P. (Eds.). (2009). The oxford handbook of analytical sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Howard, M. M. (2003). The weakness of civil society in post-communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511840012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, M. M., & Gilbert, L. (2008). A cross-national comparison of the internal effects of participation in voluntary organizations. Political Studies, 56(1), 12–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00715.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kõlves, K., Millner, A., & Värnik, P. (2013). Suicide rates and socioeconomic factors in Eastern European countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union: trends between 1990 and 2008. Sociology of Health & Illness, 35(6), 956–970. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuts, S., & Palyvoda, L. (2006). Civil society in Ukraine: Driving engine or spare wheel for change? CIVICUS Civil Society Index Report for Ukraine. Kyiv: Counterpart Creative Center. Retrieved October 1, 2014 from http://www.civicus.org/new/media/CSI_Ukraine_Country_Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Letki, N. (2009). Social capital in East-Central Europe. In Svendsen, G. T. & Svendsen, G. L. (Eds.), Handbook of social capital: The troika of social sociology, political science and economics (pp. 162–176). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Levada, Ju (Ed.). (1993). Sovetskij prostoj čelovek. Opyt socialnogo portreta na rubeže 90-h. Moskva: Mirovoj Okean.Google Scholar
Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Maćków, J. (Ed.). (2009). Autoritarismus in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.10.1007/978-3-531-91615-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oostlander, J., Güntert, S. T., van Schie, S., & Wehner, T. (2014). Leadership and volunteer motivation: A study using self-determination theory. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(5), 869–889. doi: 10.1177/0899764013485158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palyvoda, L., & Golota, S. (2010). Civil society organizations in Ukraine: The state and dynamics (2002–2010). Kyiv: Kupol.Google Scholar
Paxton, P. (2007). Association memberships and generalized trust: A multilevel model across 31 countries. Social Forces, 86(1), 47–76. doi: 10.1353/sof.2007.0107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perelli-Harris, B. (2008). Ukraine: On the border between old and new in uncertain times. Demographic Research, 19, 1145–1178. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rikmann, E., & Keedus, L. (2013). Civic sectors in transformation and beyond: Preliminaries for a comparison of six central and eastern European societies. Voluntas, 24, 149–166. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9305-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofer, E., & Longhofer, W. (2011). The structural sources of association. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 539–585. doi: 10.1086/661593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sønderskov, K. M. (2010). Does generalized social trust lead to associational membership? Unravelling a bowl of well-tossed spaghetti. European Sociological Review, 27(4), 419–434. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcq017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srole, L. (1956). Social integration and certain corollaries. American Sociological Review, 23(3), 709–716. doi: 10.2307/2088422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadelmann-Steffen, I., & Freitag, M. (2010). Making civil society work: Models of democracy and their impact on civic engagement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 526–551. doi: 10.1177/0899764010362114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepanenko, V. (2006). Civil society in post-soviet Ukraine: Civic ethos in the framework of corrupted sociality?. East European Politics and Societies, 20(4), 571–597. doi: 10.1177/0888325406293292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, S. (2009). NGO development in Ukraine since the orange revolution. In Besters-Dilger, J. (Ed.), Ukraine on its way to Europe (pp. 177–194). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Strachwitz, R. G. (2010). Policy initiatives towards civil society in Germany. A story of missed opportunities?. In Gidron, B. & Bar, M. (Eds.), Policy initiatives towards the third sector in international perspective (pp. 67–85). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1259-6_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundstrom, L. M. (2006). Funding civil society: Foreign assistance and NGO development in Russia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
USAID (2010/2011/2012/2013). The CSO sustainability index for central and eastern Europe and Eurasia. Retrieved October 1, 2014 http://www.usaid.gov.Google Scholar
Vorona, V., & Šulha, M. (Eds.). (2010). Ukrajins’ke suspil’stvo 1992–2010. Sociolohičnyj monitorynh. Kyiv: Institut sociolohiji NAN Ukrajiny.Google Scholar
Wallace, C., Pichler, F., & Haerpfer, C. (2012). Changing patterns of civil society in Europe and America 1995–2005: is Eastern Europe different?. East European Politics and Societies, 26(1), 3–19. doi: 10.1177/0888325411401380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weßels, B. (2003). Die Entwicklung der Zivilgesellschaft in Mittel- und Osteuropa: Intermediäre Akteure, Vertrauen und Partizipation. In Gosewinkel, D., Rucht, D., van den Daele, W., & Kocka, J. (Eds.), Zivilgesellschaft: Bedingungen, Pfade, Abwege (pp. 173–198). WZB-Jahrbuch 2003. Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
White, S., & McAllister, I. (2009). Rethinking the “orange revolution”. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 25(2–3), 227–254. doi: 10.1080/13523270902903947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, D. R. (2000). Alternative models of government-nonprofit sector relations: Theoretical and international perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 149–172. doi: 10.1177/0899764000291009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, D. R. (2010). Nonprofits and public policy in the United States: The evolution of accountability. In Gidron, B. & Bar, M. (Eds.), Policy initiatives towards the third sector in international perspective (pp. 45–66). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1259-6_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar