7. 1. 1 Research Question The electricity sector has undergone and continues to experience a fundamental transformation. Liberalization, deregulation and re-regulation have spread around the world, which has led to a far-reaching restructuring of the sector. In Europe, this trend has been reinforced by a European Union (EU) directive adopted in 1996. This directive alone, however, cannot suf ciently explain how and why most co- tries, some of them not members of the EU, decided to liberalize their electricity sectors. First, the directive gave large leeway to the member states about how to implement liberalization, and second, the phenomenon is an almost global trend, not limited to Europe. Therefore, Europeanization as an explanation for the electr- ity market's liberalization has been criticized for overemphasizing the impact of the EU (Fligstein and Merand 2001; Jordana et al. 2006; Levi-Faur 2004; Verdier and Breen 2001). A more encompassing approach to explain why governments decided to lib- alize their electricity markets is offered by the recent research agenda of trans- tionalization. Transnationalization can be de ned as '[...] the regular interactions between state and non-state actors across national boundaries aimed at shaping political and social outcomes at home, abroad, and in an emerging global sphere of governance' (Orenstein and Schmitz 2006: 7). The approach of transnationalization includes both state and nonstate actors.

7. 1. 1 Research Question The electricity sector has undergone and continues to experience a fundamental transformation. Liberalization, deregulation and re-regulation have spread around the world, which has led to a far-reaching restructuring of the sector. In Europe, this trend has been reinforced by a European Union (EU) directive adopted in 1996. This directive alone, however, cannot suf ciently explain how and why most co- tries, some of them not members of the EU, decided to liberalize their electricity sectors. First, the directive gave large leeway to the member states about how to implement liberalization, and second, the phenomenon is an almost global trend, not limited to Europe. Therefore, Europeanization as an explanation for the electr- ity market's liberalization has been criticized for overemphasizing the impact of the EU (Fligstein and Merand 2001; Jordana et al. 2006; Levi-Faur 2004; Verdier and Breen 2001). A more encompassing approach to explain why governments decided to lib- alize their electricity markets is offered by the recent research agenda of trans- tionalization. Transnationalization can be de ned as ' . . . ] the regular interactions between state and non-state actors across national boundaries aimed at shaping political and social outcomes at home, abroad, and in an emerging global sphere of governance' (Orenstein and Schmitz 2006: 7). The approach of transnationalization includes both state and nonstate actors.

Is there a distinctly East European capitalism? This volume analyzes democratization and economic change in the postsocialist societies of East Central Europe. It demonstrates that the collapse of communism was not the same across the region and that the differences in how the pieces fell shaped the building blocks used for reconstructing political systems and restructuring economies in the region. Among the key concepts are the importance of social networks in the economies and of deliberative institutions in the polity that include the interests of subordinate groups in policymaking.

Can property regimes be successfully transformed while simultaneously extending citizenship rights to the property-less? This is the postsocialist challenge analyzed in this comparative study of the new democracies of a distinctly East European capitalism. Tracing the diverse pathways from the collapse of communism, a leading American economic sociologist and a pioneering Hungarian political scientist examine the innovative character, born of necessity, of postsocialist institutions in which actors are recombining economic assets and redefining political resources. Under conditions of extraordinary uncertainty, networks of enterprises become the units of economic restructuring, blurring the boundaries of public and private and yielding distinctive patterns of interorganizational ownership. In contrast to calls to liberate the market or to liberate the state, this sustained comparative analysis demonstrates the benefits of deliberative institutions that are neither market friendly nor hierarchical. By extending accountability, actors bound through associative ties make agreements that extend the authority to carry out reforms.

Can property regimes be successfully transformed while simultaneously extending citizenship rights to the property-less? This is the postsocialist challenge analyzed in this comparative study of the new democracies of a distinctly East European capitalism. Tracing the diverse pathways from the collapse of communism, a leading American economic sociologist and a pioneering Hungarian political scientist examine the innovative character, born of necessity, of postsocialist institutions in which actors are recombining economic assets and redefining political resources. Under conditions of extraordinary uncertainty, networks of enterprises become the units of economic restructuring, blurring the boundaries of public and private and yielding distinctive patterns of interorganizational ownership. In contrast to calls to liberate the market or to liberate the state, this sustained comparative analysis demonstrates the benefits of deliberative institutions that are neither market friendly nor hierarchical. By extending accountability, actors bound through associative ties make agreements that extend the authority to carry out reforms.