This volume explores institutional and policy developments in the EU and its member states in a parallel examination of citizens' views of the effectiveness of crisis response reflected in public trust, output legitimacy, and satisfaction with democracy. Our approach to understanding the crisis posits EU-level governance and institutional change, national-level policymaking, and domestic politics as interrelated, interdependent domains of political action and public spheres that collectively shape the political landscape of post-crisis Europe. The volume sheds new light on the relationship among the institutional, policy, and polity consequences of the crisis. The book has two fundamental aims. The first is to demonstrate the interconnected nature of European governance, domestic reform, and democratic politics. The unprecedented complexity of the financial, sovereign debt, economic, and social crises in Europe has led to a political crisis that reflects the struggle to effectively address its various causes and effects. The second objective is to present a theoretically informed assessment of the consequences of the European crises for state-society relations and democratic legitimacy. Our analysis of the crisis in a variety of national contexts and European governance highlights the difficulties faced by political decision-makers. We find that the domestic policy process is selectively affected or disconnected from the process of rule-making at the EU level, that public opinion still matters in the process of policy formation and EU crisis response, and that the salience of the EU agenda in the domestic public sphere increasingly depends on the preferences of political actors. Public response to the crisis has become increasingly complex as well, ranging from declining trust in the political institutions, emerging national stereotypes, changing expectations of the EU level of crisis response, growing disconnect between political parties and voters, and evolving intra-regional distinctions across the EU's east-west divide.

After the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, more than a dozen countries undertook aggressive privatization programs. Proponents of economic reform championed such large-scale efforts as the fastest, most reliable way to make the transition from a state-run to a capitalist economy.
The idea was widely embraced, and in the span of a few years, policymakers across the region repeatedly chose an approach that distributed vast amounts of state property to the private sector essentially for free-despite the absence of any historical precedent for such a radical concept. But privatization was not a panacea. It has, instead, become increasingly synonymous with collusion, corruption, and material deprivation.
Why was privatization so popular in the first place, and what went wrong? In answering this question, Hillary Appel breaks with mainstream empirical studies of postcommunist privatization.
By analyzing the design and development of programs in Russia, the Czech Republic, and across eastern Europe, Appel demonstrates how the transformation of property rights in these countries was first and foremost an ideologically driven process. Looking beyond simple economic calculations or pressure from the international community, she argues that privatization was part and parcel of the foundation of the postcommunist state.
"A New Capitalist Order" reveals that privatization was designed and implemented by pro-market reformers not only to distribute gains and losses to powerful supporters, but also to advance a decidedly Western, liberal vision of the new postcommunist state. Moreover, specific ideologies-such as anticommunism, liberalism, or nationalism, to name but a few-profoundly influenced the legitimacy, the power, and even the material preferences of key economic actors and groups within the privatization process.

"This is the first book to systematically examine the variation in policies of Eastern European countries. There is a theoretical contribution to understandings of variation in tax policies, but just as impressive is the in-depth empirical analysis and in particular the data from interviews with key players in the process."
--Yoshiko Herrera, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Post-Communist tax reform, like institutional reform in other areas of the post-Communist transition, holds tremendous material consequences for different groups in society. Consequently, one would expect the allocation of resources and the distribution of the financial burden of that allocation to be highly sensitive to domestic politics. Indeed the political stakes should be especially high since post-Communist tax reform requires not merely a simple adjustment at the margin, but the fundamental reallocation of the responsibility for government revenue. In Eastern Europe, however, important areas of tax policy do not reflect traditional domestic variables (e.g., interest groups and partisanship) so much as the international imperatives associated with regional and global economic integration.

In "Tax Politics in Eastern Europe," Hilary Appel analyzes the domestic and international factors that drive tax policy. She begins with a review of the greatest challenges in the initial creation of the capitalist tax systems in former Communist states and then turns to the evolution of specific forms of taxation in order to gauge the relative impact of domestic politics on tax policy. Appel concludes that, although some tax areas, such as personal income taxes, remain politicized, most other taxes, such as corporate income taxes and all forms of consumption taxes, have been less subject to domestic political pressures because of powerful constraints resulting from regional and global economic integration.