It’s been mostly about money!: a multi-method research approach to the sources of institutionalization

Although much has been written about the process of party system insti- tutionalization in different regions, the reasons why some party systems institutionalize while others do not still remain a mystery. Seeking to fill this lacuna in the literature, and using a mixed-methods research approach, this article constitutes a first attempt to answer simultaneously the following three questions: (1) What specific factors help party systems to institutio- nalize (or not)? (2) What are the links (in terms of time and degree) as well as the causal mechanisms behind such relationships? and (3) how do they affect a particular party system? In order to do so, this article focuses on the study of party system development and institutionalization in 13 postcommunist democracies between 1990 and 2010. Methodologically, the article innovates in five respects. First, it continues the debate on the importance of ‘‘mixed methods’’ when trying to answer different research questions. Second, it adds to the as yet brief literature on the combination of process tracing and qualitative comparative analysis. Third, it constitutes the first attempt to date to use a most similar different outcome/most different same outcome pro- cedure in order to reduce causal complexity before undertaking a crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis. Third, it also shows the merits of combining both congruence and process tracing in the same comparative study. Finally, it also develops a novel ‘‘bipolar comparative method’’ to explain the extent to which opposite outcomes are determined by reverse conditions and conflicting intervening causal forces

Post-Soviet transformation of Lithuanian state cultural policy: the meanings of democratisation

Straipsnyje pateikiama kultūros politikos demokratizacijos proceso Lietuvoje bendra apžvalga. Ji parengta analizuojant atvirų diskusijų apie demokratiją argumentus ir Lietuvos politinius dokumentus (1988-2011 m.). Pokyčių pradžioje (1988-1992 m.) demokratizacija įsivaizduota kaip politinių institucijų administracinė decentralizacija, ypatingai Kultūros ministerijos, ir demokratijos principų, pvz., žodžio laisvės ir kultūrinės savivaldos, įdiegimas. Daugiau esminių demokratizacijos reikšmių atskleista diskusijose apie etninę įvairovę ir socialinę lygybę. Tyrimas išryškino įtampą tarp aukštosios ir pop kultūros vertybių bei lietuvių ir tautinių mažumų tautinės etninės kultūros vieningos sampratos. Vėliau, sumažėjus etninės dimensijos reikšmei, kultūros politikos demokratizacija konceptualizuota sąveikoje su žinių ekonomika, reikalavusia keisti ankstyvąją post-sovietinę konfrontaciją tarp kultūros ir jos ekonomikos.This paper presents a general overview of the process of the democratisation of cultural policy in Lithuania by exploring explicit arguments about democratisation in debates and policy documents in Lithuania (1988-2011). At the early stage of transformation (1988-1992), democratisation was envisaged as the administrative decentralisation of political institutions, particularly the Ministry of Culture, and as the introduction of democratic principles, such as freedom of speech and cultural self-regulation. More substantial meanings of democratisation were articulated in debates about ethnic diversity and social equality. The study reveals tensions between the values of high culture and pop culture and the unitary notion of Lithuanian national ethnic culture and the cultures of national minorities. At a later stage, the salience of the ethnic dimension decreased when the democratisation of cultural policy was conceptualised in relation to the knowledge economy, which required revision of the early post- Soviet confrontation between culture and its economic use