REVIEWS 567 identity has over the last eighty years become peripheral. Moreover, he describesthe territoryof Macedonia as part of the Serb semi-core identification , but then he failsto explain why the Serb leadershipallowed Macedonia to secede from Yugoslavia. Obviously, group and individual identity change over time. The issue is the mechanism for change. Why is it that a territory thatwas once core becomes peripheralor vice versa? These theoretical considerationsare importantas White explores his three country case studies. As he correctly observes, territory is a subjective component of identity, and therefore the classification of territory is a subjective process. Which territories, locations, events and individuals are part of any nation-building process is a difficult question to answer. While White does a good job of classifyingterritoriesand locations, there are some classifications that are more problematic than others. For example, he considers Transnistria to be a peripheral territory to Romanian nationbuilding .However asidefroma briefperiod duringWorldWarII, Transnistria has never been part of Romania properor part of the national identity.While the theoretical arguments could have been developed more, this book identifiesan important and often times neglected issue in the discussionover nation and nationalism. Department ofPolitical Science STEVEN D. ROPER EasternIllinois University Wolchik,Sharon L. and Zviglyanich,Volodymyr(eds). Ukraine. TheSearchfor a NationalIdentity.Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MA and Oxford, I999, XXVi + 3I0 pp. Maps. Tables. Notes. Index. $35.00: C27.oo (paperback). IF the above volume has a general theme, it is that 'the search for a national identity'is a processthat is stillcontinuing in Ukraine. Elements of ambiguity and uncertaintyareidentifiedby most of thekeycontributors.Orest Subtelny, for example, provides the necessarymise-en-scene in his introductoryhistorical essay.As he perceptivelyremarks,'Sovietnationalitypolicyplaced Ukrainians in an uncertainsituation, for it forced them to chose between two ephemeral identities:"Ukrainian",which in the senseof a modern, nationalidentity,had little chance to establish itself throughout Ukraine, and "Soviet", which was stillin the process of formation. In effect, when the USSR collapsed in i99 i, Ukrainians found themselves drifting between two rather hazy concepts' (p. 4). 'Ukraine as an independent state', adds Victor Basiuk, 'was created before its national ethos was fully formed' (p. 31). Janusz Bugajski and Grigory Nemiria expand on this theme in two chapters on Ukraine's ethnic and regional problems. Most authors convey the impression that Ukraine is actually coping quite well with its diverse and often uncertain inheritance an absence of overdefinition being no bad thing in many respects. Evhen Holovakha is not so sure about the effects of this approach in the political sphere. He provides an interesting argument that Ukraine's political system is 'half-open, half-closed'; adding that it Iis closer to the "open" pole in political freedom, but has made 568 SEER, 79, 3, 200 I minimum movement from the "closed" pole in the economic field' (p. 200). Given the widespread if 'undefined fear of social change' (p. 202), and the persistence of paternalisticand clientelistic attitudesand social networks(see also Martha Bohachevsky-Chomak's chapter on women's organizations), politicianshave been able to excuse the factthat they have 'neithera clear-cut economic strategy nor a global agenda' (p. 21I). 'There is a danger', Holovakha argues, 'that a rudimentarydemocracy will be establishedwithin the boundaries of an authoritarian political regime, a state-monopolistic economy, and a spreading,outdated,national-stateideology' (p. I99). In their chapter, Miller, Klobucar and Reisinger argue that the gap between the political attitudesof elites and massesis in fact much wider than that between any region or sub-groupin Ukraine. The chapterson the economy (Havrylyshyn,Zviglyanich)also develop the theme of ambiguity and half-measures, and are especially good on the problems of 'delayed reform' and the pursuit of a chimerical 'Ukrainian model' of political economy that combines 'instrumental'pragmatismand a 'national-protectionistmodel of statehood'(pp. 243 and 241). Ilya Prizel launches in a differentdirection, claiming, as also in his I998 book for CambridgeUniversityPress,National Identity andForeign Policy,that 'it was in the sphere of foreign policy that Ukraine's people found a common denominator for nation-building' (p. 28). Moreover, he argues, Kravchuk's 'national foreign policy' complemented Kuchma's 'pragmatic approach' (p. 28). The latterhas seeminglybrought more dividends,but could not have been implemented without Kravchuk...