Our analysis extends the search for consequences of historical legacies that may have
relevance for democratization by targeting a category of cultural attributes associated
with the concept of social capital. Different types of social capital may lead to different
developmental paths for civil society reflecting regional inequalities in interest
aggregation and articulation through democratic institutions. Furthermore, such
inequalities may impede the formation of social capital and inhibit the development of
democratic norms among citizens. Social capital built on “bonding” rather than
“bridging” (Putnam 2000) is correlated with “particularized” rather than “generalized”
trust (Uslaner 2002). The prevalence of particularized trust sharpens the edges of
political conflict and may erode support for liberal democracy.
In this paper, we assess the impact of social capital on civil society development on a
sub-national level. We ask whether civil society development in Transylvania is different
than in the rest of the country, and if this difference can be attributed to differences in
social capital. The historically-rooted cultural difference between Transylvania and the
rest of Romania, which predates the communist period, drives the hypothesized
relationship. If this proposition is valid, the finding holds significance for civil society
development strategy in Romania which until now has been largely national in scope and
concentrated in Bucharest (Carothers 1996; Kuti 2001). The results also contribute to our
general understanding of political development in new democracies.
Theoretically, regional distinctions are not monolithic. They comprise different social
cleavages and historical legacies that may be conceptualized in a variety of ways.
Included among these differences are religious systems (Huntington 1996), former
imperial influences (Reisinger 1999; Roper and Fesnic 2002), the level of socio-
economic development (Lipset 1959, 1994; Janos 2000), and the historical vibrancy of
civil society (Putnam 1993). Although each characterization holds fundamentally
different assumptions concerning the nature of regional differences, they all emphasize
the importance of historical experiences that have shaped a regional political culture.
As a “system of meaning” and the “basis of social and political identity,” cultural
differences contribute to widely diverging collective interpretations of the world which
distinguish different sub-national units (Ross 1997, 42-3). Cultural systems reproduce
2
Convention