Lowell W. Barrington

One Ukraine or Many? Regionalism in Ukraine and Its Political Consequences

Intra-state regional differences are a central topic in the study of European and Eurasian politics. In Ukraine, regional differences have proven to be powerful predictors of mass attitudes and political behavior. But what does the “regional factor” in Ukrainian politics represent? Is it simply the result of compositional effects, or are the regional differences more than just a sum of other demographic factors correlated with geographic divisions? When analyzing regional divisions as an explanatory variable, what are the implications of employing different regional frameworks? In this article, we demonstrate how geographic divisions in the country hold up even when others factors—such as ethnicity and language use—are controlled for. As part of this inquiry, we compare the results of three competing regional frameworks for Ukraine: one with two regions, one with four regions and one with eight regions. While the eight-region framework is uncommon in studies of Ukraine, the decision to examine eight regions is supported by historical, economic and demographic arguments, as well as by the results of the statistical analyses presented in this article. Scholars who have focused on fewer regions in Ukraine may have underestimated the effects of regional differences and missed interesting stories about intra-state variation in Ukrainian attitudes and voting behavior. The results of this study carry important implications not only for the study of Ukraine but also for those interested in intra-state regional divisions across Europe and Eurasia.

“Nation” and “Nationalism”: The Misuse of Key Concepts in Political Science *

One of the essential atarting points of any branch of science is a consistent, broadly understood terminology. Generally accepted definitions of key terms within a discipline are important in order to judge claims by scholars about a given topic. Fortunately, among those who work on the topic of nationalism, there is a growing convergence of definitions of “nation” and “nationalism.” Unfortunately, both terms are often still misused, used loosely, or used inconsistently, especially among those in political science who discuss these terms in passing. Authors of introductory textbooks, who are careful in their usage of other terms, often use these two words in varying—and even contradictory—ways in different parts of the same book. Because of their importance for the discipline, however, political scientists should be very mindful of their use of the terms “nation” and “nationalism.” In this article, definitions for “nation” and “nationalism” are proposed, with each definition followed by sections on common ways the terms are misemployed in political science. I provide examples of both misuses and “loose uses.” While the line between misuse and loose use is somewhat fuzzy (a point reinforced below in the discussion of nations vs. ethnic groups), I consider a misuse to be one in which the term is used in a way that is completely outside how the term is used by nationalism scholars. A loose use is one in which the author has captured only part of the concept or has stretched the meaning of the term to an extreme degree.

Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words?: Newspaper Photographs and Voter Evaluations of Political Candidates

Recent evidence indicates that political coverage in newspapers varies from outlet to outlet in correlation with the political atmosphere of those papers.Visual images from photographs of political candidates published in these newspapers are no exception. Although previous works have examined the importance of visual images on observer evaluations, little work has been done to assess whether differing newspaper photographs of a political candidate can actually shape how potential voters view that candidate. We address this gap in the extant literature through an experiment designed to assess the potential influence of candidate photographs on voter perceptions when partisanship is not available as a heuristic device.The results of our study indicate that newspaper photographs can shape how voters evaluate a candidates personal traits, their general impression of that candidate,and their decision whether to vote for that candidate.We also found thatwomen and men are affected differently by photographs, with the former influenced more by a positive picture and the latter triggered by a negative one.

The Domestic and International Consequences of Citizenship in the Soviet Successor States

DESPITE THEIR IMPORTANCE, the citizenship policies of the states of the former Soviet Union have not received a great deal of attention. What attention they have been given has been centred around the exclusive provisions for automatic citizenship in Estonia and Latvia, and Russian protests about these provisions. This article also discusses these cases. There is much more to citizenship than this, however, and more even to the Baltic situation than has been discussed. The interaction of the Baltic and

Bias in Newspaper Photograph Selection

Previous research has shown that visual images of political candidates can influence voter perceptions. This study examines newspaper photographs of candidates to determine whether the favorableness of these pictures is related to the “political atmosphere” of individual newspapers. In particular, we examine 435 candidate photographs from several races covered by seven newspapers during the 1998 and 2002 general election seasons. Based on our analysis, we conclude that candidates endorsed by a particular newspaper—or whose political leanings match the political atmosphere of a given paper—generally have more favorable photographs of them published than their opponents.

Examining rival theories of demographic influences on political support: The power of regional, ethnic, and linguistic divisions in Ukraine

. What effects do regional, linguistic, and ethnic divisions have on support for the government and political system? What is the effect of each when the others are controlled for? Are apparent differences in support across regions simply compositional effects of ethno-linguistic patterns in those regions? This article provides answers to these questions, through the analysis of late 1998 mass survey data from Ukraine. The results indicate that region of residence strongly shapes support for the government and regime. Ethnicity and language, on the other hand, have weaker effects than scholars would expect, once region is controlled for. Thus, regional differences are not simply reflecting ethno-linguistic patterns in Ukraine, as scholars have often implied. These findings shed light on rival theoretical approaches to understanding regional, ethnic and linguistic sources of identity. They also highlight the necessity for scholars who have emphasized ethnic and linguistic cleavages in other countries to consider controlling for region of residence before jumping to conclusions about effects on political attitudes. Finally, the findings have narrower, but important, implications for the study of Ukraine and for its stability.

Fragile Snapshot or Stable Relationships? What the Orange and Rose Revolutions Reveal About the Stability of Cross-Sectional Survey Data

One of the long-standing criticisms of cross-sectional survey data is that they provide only a contextually driven “snapshot” of attitudes. These attitudes are, the “snapshot critique” contends, highly fragile—subject to significant fluctuation based on events that arise domestically and globally. Although it makes sense that a major event can alter the percentage of people who respond to a given survey question in a particular way, it is less obvious that such an event jeopardizes the validity of multivariate analyses of survey data collected prior to the event. Given the prevalent use of cross-sectional survey data in quantitative political research, this question has significant implications for comparative politics. This study employs survey data from Ukraine before and after the “Orange Revolution” and from Georgia before and after the “Rose Revolution.” Its findings challenge the snapshot critique and support the idea that, even in the wake of a dramatic political event, the underlying relationships among variables measured by survey data can remain quite stable.

Views of the ‘ethnic other’ in Ukraine

Social psychology scholars have long understood the importance of ethnic stereotypes as a factor in ethnic relations. Relatively little attention has been paid to such views of the ‘ethnic other’, however, by those interested in ethnic relations in the post‐Communist region. Employing survey and focus group data from the late 1990s, this article presents a study of the views of Russians and Ukrainians about each other. The analysis indicates that generally positive views of the ‘ethnic other’ exist in Ukraine. These positive views appear to the result of a certain degree of ‘ethnic blurring’ in the country resulting from language‐use patterns, intermarriage and strong regionally‐based identities.

Understanding identity in Ukraine – and elsewhere

Within Eurasian studies, survey responses have served as the main type of data for many scholarly works. This is especially true of research on Ukraine, where the juxtaposition between the country’s demographic complexity and the conventional wisdom of a sharp east–west divide has offered researchers fertile ground for survey-based work (see, for example, Holdar 1995; Barrington 1997, 2001; Kubicek 2000; O’Loughlin 2001; Shulman 2001; Barrington 2002; Barrington and Herron 2004; Shulman 2005; Lane 2008; Kulyk 2011; Barrington 2012; Kulyk 2013; Frye 2015; Onuch and Sasse 2016; O’Loughlin, Toal, and Kolosov 2017). Despite this existing work, debates continue. The articles in this special issue of Post-Soviet Affairs connect to earlier scholarly controversies, but they also raise important and too-infrequently expressed concerns about how to conceptualize and measure contested identity categories such as ethnicity and language. These are important questions for the study of Ukraine, and ones for which Ukraine can be a valuable case to the field of identity studies. Ukraine can also serve as an interesting and important case study of the malleability of identity, of its often-underappreciated resiliency, and of causal questions regarding changes in its effects over time. A paradox of identity is that, once established, it is both sticky (i.e. not easily altered) and subject to change under certain conditions. Along with coordinated socialization efforts, these conditions include repeated experiences over a length of time and major (often referred to as “defining”) events. Like most countries, Ukraine’s long history includes examples of both repeated experiences and defining events. More important for the research presented in this issue of Post-Soviet Affairs, they have also both been evident in Ukraine in recent years. Tackling the study of identity in Ukraine in creative ways, the results presented in these articles are based on methodologically conscious research designs and are more nuanced than most of the previous work within Eurasian studies on these topics. Each of the projects takes advantage of an excellent data-set, varying from the use of panel data on both sides of a defining event to the examination of post-conflict populations that are missed by typical sampling approaches and qualitative data that complement and deepen the impact of the quantitative results.

Reinventing Russia: Russian Nationalism and the Soviet State, 1953–1991 . By Brudny Yitzhak M.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. 352p.

In other cases, the attempt to say something new leaves previous stones unturned. Mershons investigation of the coexistence of high cabinet instability with low coalition turnover in Italy, for instance, ignores the tradition of French literature on the topic. More significant is that, in placing the blame for Italian cabinet instability on the low office and electoral costs of defecting from a coalition, she does not mention that these low costs are implications of Sartoris conceptualization of polarized pluralism. This need not mean that Sartori is right—perhaps it is time for a new explanation—but his framework surely ought to be considered. In general, the reader should not look to this collection to resolve the puzzle for party discipline but to broaden an appreciation for its many facets. What is clear is that numerous factors may encourage or undermine party discipline in parliamentary regimes; finding out which ones are operative and under what circumstances will not be easy. There is a subterranean side to the party discipline we normally take for granted in parliamentary politics, and much of it remains to be mapped out.