Attitudes About Privatization and the Shadow of Communism: 25 Years of Anti-market Scepticism



The authors investigate changing attitudes towards privatization of land and enterprises in Ukraine. The support of privatization declined dramatically in Ukraine from 1992 to 2018. Such a reversal of initial positive attitudes towards privatization has been observed in some transition countries. The literature suggests two hypotheses to explain this reversal. According to the shadow of communism hypothesis, people who were socialized during the period of communist regimes internalized specific ideas critical to privatization. The second one implies that people in social strata who have been disadvantaged by transition hold more negative views toward privatization. The authors review the previous literature and present new data from the Ukrainian Society survey. The data suggest that the shadow of communism hypothesis explains the case of Ukraine quite well.


Economic transition Economic attitudes Socialization Shadow of communism 


  1. Aghion, P., Algan, Y., Cahuc, P., & Shleifer, A. (2010). Regulation and distrust. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3), 1015–1049.Google Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., & Angeletos, G. M. (2005). Fairness and redistribution. American Economic Review, 95(4), 960–980.Google Scholar
  3. Åslund, A. (2009). How Ukraine became a market economy and democracy. Washington, DC: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Braithwaite, J., Grootaert, C., & Milanovic, B. (2016). Poverty and social assistance in transition countries. New York: Springer. Google Scholar
  5. Coupe, T., & Obrizan, M. (2016). The impact of war on happiness: The case of Ukraine. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 132, 228–242.Google Scholar
  6. Denisova, I. (2016). Institutions and the support for market reforms. IZA World of Labor.Google Scholar
  7. Denisova, I., Eller, M., Frye, T., & Zhuravskaya, E. (2012). Everyone hates privatization, but why? Survey evidence from 28 post-communist countries. Journal of Comparative Economics, 40(1), 44–61.Google Scholar
  8. Duch, R. M. (1993). Tolerating economic reform: Popular support for transition to a free market in the former Soviet Union. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 590–608.Google Scholar
  9. Fukuyama, F. (2006). The end of history and the last man. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  10. Gatskova, K., & Gatskov, M. (2016). Third sector in Ukraine: Civic engagement before and after the “Euromaidan”. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(2), 673–694.Google Scholar
  11. Gaviria, A., Graham, C., & Braido, L. H. (2007). Social mobility and preferences for redistribution in Latin America [with comments]. Economía, 8(1), 55–96.Google Scholar
  12. Gimpelson, V., & Treisman, D. (2018). Misperceiving inequality. Economics and Politics, 30(1), 27–54.Google Scholar
  13. Gorodnichenko, Y., & Grygorenko, Y. (2008). Are oligarchs productive? Theory and evidence. Journal of Comparative Economics, 36(1), 17–42.Google Scholar
  14. Guriev, S. (2018). Fairness and support for the reforms: Lessons from the transition economies (No. 24). SUERF Policy Note.Google Scholar
  15. Havlik, P., & Astrov, V. (2014). Economic consequences of the Ukraine conflict (Policy Notes and Reports 14). WIIW.Google Scholar
  16. Kaufman, R. R., & Zuckermann, L. (1998). Attitudes toward economic reform in Mexico: The role of political orientations. American Political Science Review, 92(2), 359–375.Google Scholar
  17. Kohn, M. L., Slomczynski, K. M., Janicka, K., Khmelko, V., Mach, B. W., Paniotto, V., … & Heyman, C. (1997). Social structure and personality under conditions of radical social change: A comparative analysis of Poland and Ukraine. American Sociological Review, 62, 614–638. Google Scholar
  18. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2002). The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 51–65.Google Scholar
  19. Milanovic, B. (1998). Income, inequality, and poverty during the transition from planned to market economy. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  20. Mirimanova, N. (2017). Economic connectivity across the line of contact in Donbas (Working paper). Ukraine.Google Scholar
  21. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Peisakhin, L. (2010). Living historical legacies: The “why” and “how” of institutional persistence—“The case of Ukraine.” Paper prepared for presentation at the 15th Annual World Convention of the Association for the Study of the Nationalities (pp. 15–17), Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Pop-Eleches, G., & Tucker, J. A. (2017). Communism’s shadow: Historical legacies and contemporary political attitudes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Popova, O. (2014). Can religion insure against aggregate shocks to happiness? The case of transition countries. Journal of Comparative Economics, 42(3), 804–818.Google Scholar
  25. Restrepo Cadavid, P., Quintero Escobar, L. E., Stewart, B., McWilliams, K. L., Zhukova, S., Timofeev, A., … & Hamilton, D. A. (2015). Ukraine—Urbanization review. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  26. Rovelli, R., & Zaiceva, A. (2013). Did support for economic and political reforms increase during the post-communist transition, and if so, why? Economics of Transition, 21(2), 193–240.Google Scholar
  27. Ryder, N. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30, 843–861.Google Scholar
  28. Sutela, P. (2012). The underachiever: Ukraine’s economy since 1991. Retrieved March 31, 2019 from
  29. Svolik, M. W. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Varga, M. (2017). Small farms survival and growth: Making investments despite credit constraints. Sociologia Ruralis, 57, 641–660.Google Scholar
  31. Voas, D., & Chaves, M. (2016). Is the United States a counterexample to the secularization thesis? American Journal of Sociology, 121(5), 1517–1556.Google Scholar
  32. World Bank. (2019). Ukraine economic update. Retrieved July 22, 2019 from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kyiv School of EconomicsKyivUkraine
  2. 2.Independent ResearcherKyivUkraine

Personalised recommendations