1 In discussing legacies of the communist era, numerous adjectives have been used: “Leninist legacies,” “communist legacies,” “socialist legacies,” and “Soviet legacies.” Although we are choosing to speak about the more general framing, “communist legacies,” our argument applies to all related articulations as well. Some examples of scholarship that consider communist legacies in analyzing these outcomes include Frane Adam, Primoz Kristan, and Matevi Tomsic, “Varieties of Capitalism in Eastern Europe (with Special Emphasis on Estonia and Slovenia),” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 42, no. 1 (March 2009): 65-81; Valerie Bunce, “Regional Differences in Democratization: The East versus the South,” Post Soviet Affairs 14, no. 3 (July- September 1998): 187-211; M. Steven Fish, “Postcommunist Subversion: Social Science and Democratization in East Europe and Eurasia,” Slavic Review 58, no. 4 (Winter 1999): 794-823; Bela Greskovits, The Political Economy of Protest and Patience: East European and Latin Ameiican Transformations Compared (Budapest, 1998); Robert Rohrschneider and Stephen Whitefield, “Understanding Cleavages in Party Systems: Issue Position and Issue Salience in 13 Post-Communist Democracies,” Comparative Political Studies 42, no. 2 (February 2009): 280-313; and David Stark and Laszlo Bruszt, Postsocialist Pathways: Transforming Politics and Property in East Central Europe (New York, 1998). See also several edited volumes on the topic, including Grzegorz Ekiert and Stephen E. Hanson, eds., Capitalism and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe: Assessing the Legacy of Communist Rule (Cambridge, Eng., 2003); Beverly Crawford and Arend Lijphart, eds., Liberalization and Leninist Legacies: Comparative Perspectives on Democratic Transitions (Berkeley, 1997); and Millar, James R. and Wolchik, Sharon L., eds., The Social Legacy of Communism (Cambridge, Eng., 1994), as well as a special issue of Communist and Post- Communist Studies 42, no. 4 (December 2009).Google Scholar

2 We also searched the plural “legacies.”

3 Jowitt, Ken, New World Disorder: The Leninist Extinction (Berkeley, 1992), 304, 293.Google Scholar

4 For a full discussion of Jowitt’s contribution to communist and postcommunist politics, see Tismaneanu, Vladimir, Howard, Marc Morje, and Sil, Rudra, eds., World Order after Leninism(Seattle, 2006)Google Scholar.

5 Kopstein, Jeffrey S., “Review: Post-Communist Democracy—Legacies and Outcomes,” Comparative Politics 35, no. 2 (January 2003): 246.Google Scholar

6 Gerd Meyer, “Values, Small Life Worlds and Communitarian Orientations: Ambivalent Legacies and Democratic Potentials in Post-Communist Political Cultures,” in Detlef Pollack, Jorg Jacobs, Olaf Muller, and Gert Pickel, eds., Political Culture in Post-Communist Europe: Attitudes in New Democracies (Burlington, Vt., 2003), 171—73; J. L. Porket, Unemployment in Capitalist, Communist and Post-Communist Economies (New York, 1995).

7 Wittenberg, Jason, “What Is a Historical Legacy?” (paper, American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., September 2010).Google Scholar

8 For a detailed discussion on the features necessary to qualify as a legacy, see ibid.

9 Howard, Marc Morje, The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe (Cambridge, Eng., 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Grzymala-Busse, Anna M., Redeeming the Communist Past: The Regeneration of Communist Parties in East Central Europe (New York, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Bunce, Valerie, “The Political Economy of Postsocialism,” Slavic Review 58, no. 4 (Winter 1999): 756–93.Google Scholar

12 See, for example, Jowitt, New World Disorder; Crawford and Lijphart, eds., Liberalization and Leninist Legacies; and Hanson, Stephen E., “The Leninist Legacy, Institutional Change, and Post-Soviet Russia,” in Crawford and Lijphart, eds., Liberalization and Leninist Legacies, 228–52.Google Scholar

13 Pop-Eleches, Grigore, “Historical Legacies and Post-Communist Regime Change,” Journal of Politics 69, no. 4 (November 2007): 910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Kubik, Jan, “Cultural Legacies of State Socialism: History-Making and Cultural- Political Entrepreneurship in Post-Communist Poland and Russia,” in Ekiert and Hanson, eds., Capitalism and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, 318.Google Scholar

15 Wittenberg, , “What Is a Historical Legacy?”Google Scholar

16 Kitschelt, Herbert, “Accounting for Postcommunist Regime Diversity: What Counts as a Good Cause?” in Ekiert and Hanson, eds., Capitalism and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, 59.Google Scholar

17 For example, see Failed, Tulia G. and Lynch, Julia E., “Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis,” Comparative Political Studies 42, no. 9 (September 2009): 1143–66.Google Scholar

18 Wittenberg, , “What Is a Historical Legacy?” 15.Google Scholar Invoking Arthur Stinchcombe, Wittenberg notes that “survivals” are phenomena that continue even after the conditions that originally gave rise to them have ceased, while “replications” involve phenomena that occur because the same underlying conditions continue to generate these outcomes over time.

19 Kopstein, Jeffrey S., “1989 as a Lens for the Communist Past and Post-Communist Future,” Contemporary European History 18, no. 3 (August 2009): 289–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Minkenberg, Michael, “Leninist Beneficiaries? Pre-1989 Legacies and the Radical Right in Post- 1989 Central and Eastern Europe,” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 42, no. 4 (December 2009): 445–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Collier, David, LaPorte, Jody, and Seawright, Jason, “Typologies: Forming Concepts and Creating Categorical Variables,” in Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (New York, 2008), 158–59.Google Scholar

21 Sartori, Giovanni, “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics,” American Political Science Review 64, no. 4 (December 1970): 1033–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Hanson, “The Leninist Legacy, Institutional Change, and Post-Soviet Russia.” Similarly, in the introduction to their edited volume Liberalization and Leninist Legacies, Crawford and Lijphart distinguish between cultural, social, political, national, institutional, and administrative/economic legacies.

23 Crawford, Sue E. S. and Ostrom, Elinor, “A Grammar of Institutions,” in Michael Dean|McGinnis, ed., Polycentric Games and Institutions: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (Ann Arbor, 2000), 114.Google Scholar

24 See Howard, Weakness of Civil Society in Post- Communist Europe; and Grigore Pop- Eleches and Joshua A. Tucker, “Communist Legacies and Political Values and Behavior: A Theoretical Framework with an Application to Political Party Trust,” Comparative Politics 43 (July 2011): 379, at homepages.nyu.edu/~jat7/RefJournal_Article_CP_Pop-Eleches_ Tucker_2010.pdf (last accessed 1 June 2011).

25 See Colton, Timothy J. and McFaul, Michael, Popular Choice and Managed Democracy: The Russian Elections of 1999 and 2000 (Washington, D.C., 2003)Google Scholar; and Orenstein, Mitchell A., “Postcommunist Welfare States,” Journal of Democracy 19, no. 4 (October 2008): 80–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Luong, Pauline Jones, Institutional Change and Political Continuity in Post-Soviet Central Asia: Power, Perceptions, and Pacts (Cambridge, Eng., 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Grzymala-Busse, Redeeming the Communist Past, 10, 11; Kitschelt, Herbert, Mansfeldovna, Zdenka, Markowski, Radoslaw, and Toka, Gabor, Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation (Cambridge, Eng., 1999), 12; Howard, Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Thelen, Kathleen, “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” Annual Review of Political Science 2 (June 1999): 371.Google Scholar

29 See, for example, Paul Pierson, “The New Politics of the Welfare State,” World Politics, no. 2 (January 1996): 143–79; and Paul Pierson, “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics,” American Political Science Review 94, no. 2 (June 2000): 251-67. For a thoughtful critique of path-dependent approaches, see Scott E. Page, “Path Dependence,” Quarterly Journal of Political Science!, no. 1 (January 2006): 87-115.

30 For more detail on these concepts and their application to historical arguments, see Kathleen Thelen and Sten Steinmo, “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” in Sten Steinmo, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics (Cambridge, Eng., 1992);Google Scholar Pierson, “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics” and Wolfgang Streeck and Kathleen Thelen, “Introduction: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies,” in Wolfgang Streeck and Kathleen Thelen, eds., Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies (Oxford, 2005).

31 Hall, Peter A. and Taylor, Rosemary C. R., “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms,” Political Studies 44, no. 4 (December 1996): 942.Google Scholar See also James Mahoney, “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology,” Theory and Society 29, no. 4 (August 2000): 507-48; Giovanni Capoccia and R. Daniel Kelemen, “The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institudonalism,” World Politics 59, no. 3 (April 2007): 343, 348; Dan Slater and Erica Simmons, “Informative Regress: Critical Antecedents in Comparative Politics,” Comparative Political Studies 43, no. 7 (July 2010): 887; Ruth Berins Collier and David Collier, Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America (Princeton, 1991), 29; and Ira Katznelson, “Periodization and Preferences: Reflections on Purposive Action in Comparative Historical Social Science,” in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, Eng., 2003), 282.

32 Katznelson, , “Periodization and Preferences,” 282.Google Scholar

33 Slater, and Simmons, , “Informative Regress,” 887.Google Scholar

34 Collier, and Collier, , Shaping the Political Arena, 29.Google Scholar

35 For reproduction, see Page, “Path Dependence”; Pierson, “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics”; and Collier and Collier, Shaping the Political Arena, 35-37. For critical junctures, see Capoccia and Keleman, “The Study of Critical Junctures.”

36 Thelen, Kathleen, “How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative Historical Analysis,” in Mahoney and Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, 208-40.Google Scholar

37 Ibid.

38 See, for example, Kitschelt, Mansfeldovna, Markowski, and Toka, Post-Communist Party Systems; Grzymala-Busse, Redeeming the Communist Past; Jones Luong, Institutional Change and Political Continuity in Post-Soviet Central Asia; Grzegorz Ekiert, “Patterns of Postcommunist Transformation in Central and Eastern Europe,” in Ekiert and Hanson, eds., Capitalism and Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, 89-119; and Wittenberg, Jason, Crucibles of Political Loyalty: Church, Institutions and Electoral Continuity in Hungary (New York, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar