10.1177/0888325404267395 ARTICLE Explaining Labor Weakness in Post-Communist Europe East European Politics and Societies Explaining Labor Weakness in Post-Communist Europe: Historical Legacies and Comparative Perspective Stephen Crowley* With expansion of the European Union (EU), the transformation of indus- trial relations in Eastern Europe becomes increasingly important. Studies on labor relations in post-communist countries have flourished in recent years, yet these studies have not reached a consensus on what they seek to explain. Is labor in post-communist societies weak or (in some countries) strong? And strong or weak compared to what? To the extent labor is weak, what would explain this weakness? This study demonstrates that labor is indeed a weak social and political actor in post-communist societies, espe- cially when compared to labor in Western Europe. The article examines a number of hypotheses that have been proposed to explain labor’s weak- ness, concluding that the institutional and ideological legacies of the com- munist period best explain this overall weakness. Because labor in post- communist societies more resembles American-style flexibility than the European “social model,” the ability to extend the European model to new EU entrants is questioned. Keywords: labor unions; trade unions; post-communism; corporatism; strikes; European Union expansion With the European Union now expanded to include several post- communist countries, the transformation of industrial relations in Eastern Europe becomes increasingly important. To what extent are Eastern European unions and workplaces becoming more like those in Western Europe, and to what extent are they remain- ing distinct, and what might the consequences be for a broader Europe? This article will argue that while labor around the world 394 East European Politics and Societies, Vol. 18, No. 3, pages 394–429. ISSN 0888-3254 © 2004 by the American Council of Learned Societies. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1177/0888325404267395 * This article has been through a number of iterations, and I will inevitably neglect to mention the names of some who have helped shape it. Nevertheless, I would like to acknowledge the comments of Phinneas Baxandall, Marc Blecher, Chris Howell, Wade Jacoby, Mark Kramer and David Ost. An earlier version of this article appeared as Harvard University’s Center for European Studies Central and Eastern European Working Paper no. 55. The research for this article also benefited from my being a research scholar in East European Studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars.