The MOST Phase II website is available at: www.unesco.org/shs/most.
|
| You
are in the MOST Phase I website (1994-2003). The MOST Phase II website is available at: www.unesco.org/shs/most. |
Summary Report
by
Péter Tamási (Hungary)
Rapporteur of the Conference
The ideas and opinions expressed in this report are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.Contents
3. The aims of MOST and the Conference
4. The Political Management of Social Transformations
5. Multicultural/Multi-ethnic Issues; Political Aspects of the Transformation
6. Role of Cities in the Current Social Changes
(Russian Federation)
7. From Economic Transformation towards Modernization
8. The Role of Social Sciences in the Transformation Process
9. Policy Issues relating to Social Transformation in Central and Eastern Europe
On the initiative of UNESCO, the first Central and Eastern European Regional Conference on Management of Social Transformations (MOST) was organized by the Hungarian National Commission for UNESCO in Budapest from 29 to 31 May 1995. The conference was attended by 36 participants from 16 countries. The participants represented the countries of the Central and East European region, as well as some international organizations, foundations, non-governmental organizations, universities and research institutes (Annex 1 - List of Participants). Mr Gabor Demsky, Lord Mayor of Budapest, graced the meeting with his presence and gave a lecture on some aspects of the transformation process. He also held a reception in honour of the participants. Dr Zoltan Szabo, State Secretary of the Ministry of Culture of Hungary, also honoured the Conference by offering dinner to the participants. Professor Bela Köpeczi, President of the Hungarian National Commission for UNESCO, greeted the participants of the Conference and announced the agenda (Annex 2 - Programme of the Conference). The Chairman of the morning session, Professor Rudolf Andorka, Sociologist, Rector of the Budapest University of Economics, asked for proposals for the election of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairmen and the Rapporteur of the Conference. The proposal, namely: Professor Antoni Kuklinski (Poland) as Chairman, Professor Nikolaï Genov (Bulgaria) and Professor Attila Harmathy (Hungary) as Vice-Chairmen, and Peter Tamási (Hungary) as Rapporteur, was accepted unanimously.
Introduction by Paul de Guchteneire (UNESCO) Paul de Guchteneire, from the UNESCO MOST Secretariat, presented the basic aims of the MOST Programme. It intends to build a bridge between the independent research community and the policy-makers. Furthermore, it aims to stimulate international policy-relevant comparative research in the social sciences within the main fields of the programme, namely: (i) management of change in multi-cultural/multi-ethnic societies, (ii) cities as accelerators of social transformations, and (iii) coping locally and regionally with economic, technological and environmental issues of transformation. MOST also intends to fulfil the role of a clearing house to promote exchange of information within its field of activity, as well as to contribute to capacity building in the areas of social science research. As regards the organizational structure of MOST, there is an Intergovernmental Council, consisting of 33 Member States of UNESCO, which provides policy guidance, and a Scientific Steering Committee which reviews the proposed projects and gives advice on scientific issues, A small secretariat at UNESCO Paris co-ordinates the programme. The MOST programme is intended to run for an initial period of eight years from now. In general it is not planned to finance actual research projects, but rather to provide seed money for the initial stages to bring together social scientists to start the relevant projects. The countries of the Central and Eastern European region are experiencing a period of rapid political, economic and social transformation, many of the social consequences of which are not yet clear. Hence, the main objective of the Conference was to identify the priorities of policy-relevant research topics in the region and to initiate international comparative research projects in line with these priorities.
Keynote lecture by Professor Antoni Kuklinski (Poland) The division of Europe into East and West has come to an end, as is also indicated by the title of this Conference. The Central and the Eastern regions of Europe have their specificities, so the present approach is more precise. Historical and cultural traditions must be taken into account. There are three dimensions of the transformation in the countries of the region, namely: political, economic and social. In all countries of the region the importance of social transformation is underestimated. These societies have lived through a special period of history in the last few years, the significance of which was recognized neither in the highly developed countries of Europe, nor in the countries of the Central and the Eastern European region. The countries of the region have to cope with two kinds of changes simultaneously: those in their own countries and those at the global level. All this has to be undertaken with the heavy burden of the material and intellectual legacy of communism and that of the low efficiency of the local political elite. As a result, several aspects of the management of the transformation can be discerned and it can be stated that the historic opportunity of change was not properly used. Central and Eastern Europe can be considered a special laboratory of social transformations. The MOST Programme should concentrate on this aspect. When speaking about social transformation, the creation of a new middle-class is very important. The countries of the region should develop their own new elites. All these societies must become competitive to be able to progress. They have to solve very serious problems, such as massive unemployment, increasing poverty, etc.. The main vision for the future of these societies is a welfare state based on more or less social-democratic ideas. In the course of the discussion, the spontaneity of the transformation versus its management was dealt with thoroughly. One school - the neo-liberal - holds that the guidance of the transformation process is not needed, whereas another believes that guidance is absolutely necessary. It is the task of the social sciences to explore in which field guidance is needed and to what extent. The question of continuity versus renewal has also been discussed. It has been pointed out that it is not only the legacy of the last forty and some years that is with us in this region, but there are also much more time-honoured historical and cultural traditions that should be taken into account as well. It has been mentioned that the process of modernization had remained unfinished. The continuation of this process would need innovative societies, but actually imitation is forced on the region by the main financing institutions. Some participants even mentioned the risk of being " invaded " by Western thoughts and patterns. It has been stressed that there can be several methods of modernization, and a variety of solutions should be attempted. There is, for example, a division amongst the countries of the region where some accept forced integration into the European Union, and others refuse it. Both the modernization process and economic growth are culture-intensive, but the cultural dimension of these processes is completely neglected. As a result of the transformation, people have won political freedom and experienced democracy but still they are not happy. This is primarily due to the illusion that freedom and welfare go together. This, however, is not the case. Opposite examples, where economic growth has been achieved without democracy and political freedom, could also be mentioned. But this is not a pattern for Central and Eastern Europe to follow. Here growth has to be achieved within the framework of democratic systems.
Keynote lecture by Professor Attila Agh (Hungary) There are four basic scenarios to be found in the rich litterature on this topic, which, however, cannot be directly applied to any country for long periods. (i) The so-called " Sleeping Beauty " scenario which was characteristic of late 1989 and early 1990. According to this, Eastern and Central Europe had been in a state of deep sleep, the region having been part of Europe, until diverted by communism. There was general euphoria, everything seemed simple and promising, the multi-national problems were thought to be solved automatically by democratization. The process of democratization, however, shows great differences: in some countries it is thorough-going, in others it is just on the surface (so-called facade democracies). (ii) In early 1990, partly as opposed to the former one, the " Deep-freeze " scenario developed which maintained that there was a historical continuity in the region, which lacked democracy and that the region would never be like Western Europe. The problems had so far been deep frozen, now the demons were set free. The only question in this scenario is whether practice will return to the post First World War or to the post Second World War situation. That is, the countries of the region are not able to learn from history and they use nationalism to legitimize political power. This scenario was actually used by some Western powers as a pretext for explaining why their attention had been diverted from the region. (iii) The " Latin-Americanization " scenario developed somewhat later. It held that at the end of the 1980s the countries of the region were actually in a worse situation than they had been forty years earlier; the middle-classes had been annihilated, living standards relative to the western part of Europe had declined. There is an element of truth in this, namely, the middle layers of society are economically weak, but at the same time, they are active in politics, they enforce their interests, and those backing the nationalistic movements also originate from these layers. (iv) The fourth model, the " Fair Weather " model, is positive, it is similar to the first one, but more cautious and less optimistic. It realises that the process of integration into the European Union (EU) is a long and painful one, determined by the great powers. Integration into the EU necessitates regional co-operation as well as bilateral co-operation between the countries of the region. The EU does not want to import conflicts. Multi-ethnic problems are to be solved by federalization or through local or regional autonomy. For a lasting solution, consensus democracy and electoral systems should be applied which facilitate the representation of minorities. In the discussion, the issue of national identity has been raised emphatically. There was a gap of some decades in the nation-building process. Healthy national identity should be developed without xenophobia and racism. This aspect of the transformation is greatly neglected and it usually cannot be found in the simplified transformation models of the region that are widespread in the West. An original idea, namely to abandon the term Central and Eastern Europe, was also brought up, suggesting that Europe as a whole should be studied and then, on the basis of the results, a new typology could be formulated. National minority problems are not at all characteristic in only the Central and Eastern part of Europe, for example the Basque issue and the problems in Northern Ireland. In solving multi-ethnic, multi-cultural problems both in the East and in the West, intercultural communication could play an important role. It could lead to a solution if some kind of unity could be achieved from multi-cultural diversity. In order to get reliable results, research methodology should also be developed to explore the field of subconscious ethnic attitudes. Historical traditions also play a great role in this respect, though their perception has been changing over time. The various aspects, like language, culture, jurisdiction etc. should all be examined in the course of research. Joint ventures with multi-ethnic participants might also help to develop better understanding between the different ethnic populations. It was furthermore mentioned that the countries in the region have had a strong development during the past four decades, and that it is false to suppose that they would go back to their past patterns. The present changes must comply with the situations, institutions, values and attitudes prevalent in a given country. It is not true either that the countries of the region have not learnt from the lessons of history. Many countries seem to have a better relation with each other than previously. With regard to democracy, it was stated that in political science, democracy does not mean that the majority decides. It is likewise a mistake to believe that only homogenous societies can be democratic. National minorities should be integrated through policy; proper political culture has a balancing capacity: there are good examples of this in Belgium, for instance. Each minority group should be autonomous in choosing, for example, its own leader and, constitutionally, must have a minority veto for vital issues.
Keynote lecture by Professor Natalia Rimashevskaya (Russian Federation) The lecturer gave an account of the joint Russian-American Taganrog city project which included surveys in various historical periods, namely at the end of the 1960s, at the end of the 1970s, at the end of the 1980s, then in 1993/1994. In the course of this project various aspects of the living standards of 10,000 families, as well as municipal management were examined. Six monographs have been published. Three main tasks have been identified on the level of state social policy: (i) to overcome the crisis in social life, (ii) to establish market structures and to adapt to them, and (iii) to develop a civil society. On the level of the city the main tasks are to develop urban areas to satisfy the needs of the citizens, and to develop urban communities and a new attitude of citizens to their place of residence. In the discussion that followed the supposition was put forward that global societies will be organized by global cities and not by states. The question arose how many and which cities of the Central and Eastern European region will take part in this process. The size of a city is not necessarily decisive in the case of becoming a global city; its impact can be great even if it is not a megalopolis; the power of decision-making is more important in this respect. Further aspects to be taken into account are the military, political and economic powers. Some investigations in the region have proved that cities are the locomotives of progress. Detailed studies would be needed to learn more about the various roles played by the cities, e.g. their role in the development of a middle-class. Furthermore, there are several problems that arise primarily in urban environments, such as criminality, homelessness, etc.
Keynote lecture by Dr Judit Kiss (Hungary) There are four local issues in this respect: (i) The basic elements of economic transformation are: privatization, marketization and liberalization. Privatization in the region has followed different practices and achieved different results. The degree of marketization also differs in the individual countries of the region. Liberalization (of foreign trade, prices, etc.) had led in many cases to excessive liberalization which now has to be corrected. There was an illusion that transformation into a market economy would solve the problems. The legal and institutional transformations should be followed by a thoroughgoing micro-level transformation to make the market system work properly. The individual countries of the region are at different states in the transformation process. There are signs of disintegration, to which more attention should be paid. (ii) The most striking consequences of the economic transformation - different in time and degree - are: production and investment decline, increasing macro-economic imbalances (deteriorating foreign-trade balance and balance of payments, worsening debt situation, high budget deficit), unemployment, increasing income differentiation and polarisation, deteriorating welfare, education and research system, decreasing technological level, and increasing environmental problems. As positive signs, the structural changes, significant inflow of foreign direct investments, and the reorientation of foreign-trade relations can be mentioned. (iii) The tasks to be solved are: to stabilise the social and economic situation, to regain macro-economic balances, to speed up the transformation process, to continue the restructuring of the economy, to decrease the social and regional differences, and to start medium and long term economic and social modernisation. That is, to bring about a market economy which is efficient, internationally competitive, environmentally friendly, socially acceptable and sustainable in the long term. (iv) As regards the issue of how to cope with all these problems, it must be stated that the region should primarily rely on its own resources. However, as the local resources are very limited, the countries of the region should also turn to international sources: the international capital markets, international financial markets and foreign assistance. Due to the limited sources, the countries in the region are looking for a sort of development anchor, which could be the EU. However, the EU does not seem to be a generous partner, as it is not in its interest to integrate the Central and Eastern European countries quickly. True, these countries are not well prepared for integration into the EU, but neither is the EU well prepared for their integration. First it has to digest the EFTA enlargement and the GATT agreement, and it has to reform its Common Agricultural Policy. In the long run, however, it will be in the interest of the EU to turn the European Union into a United Europe. A debate evolved on the issue of whether it is correct to diminish the differences between regions and between individuals at the present state of development. To be competitive, the more efficient should progress faster. However, a distinction should be made between growing differentiation and marginalization. Constructive differences can be turned into destructive differences, when the differences exceed a certain degree. The role of the state in the management of the transformation process has also been discussed, primarily in market regulation and in the process of privatisation. The state has to be active on at least two grounds: as an owner, and as a regulator. These roles are played by the state in the developed market economies too, and not always in a market-relevant manner (e.g. the agricultural policy system in Western Europe). The state also has its role in the field of social policy, where the problems are not specifically Central and Eastern European. However, the magnitude of the problems greatly differs in the various parts of Europe (e.g. unemployment, poverty, etc.). The issue of efficiency, differentiation and social cohesion is a global one that would be worth investigating, together with the reshaping of the partnership among the three " sectors ": the state, the private sector and the civil society. Much more attention should be paid to the social consequences of the transformation. Time is also a factor that should be taken into account in the management of social transformations. Political and institutional changes can be carried through in a short time. Economic changes already need a longer period, and the social changes may take several decades, sometimes the lifetime of one or two generations. There was also a discussion about the political and ideological underpinning of the economic processes and the influence of the neo-liberal ideology. Attacks against this ideology might come from prospective as well as from retrograde circles. It was generally agreed that the Central European countries have no other choice than to integrate into the EU. However, it was proposed that the countries of the region should develop a more diversified external relations structure (markets, foreign direct investments, debt structure).
Keynote lecture by Dr Peter Tamási (Hungary) Although social science literature on the transformation is vast, we know very little about the degree of utilisation of social science results. It is furthermore important to know under what circumstances the social sciences can work. Unfortunately, comparative data on this are very scarce. Four main topics have been concentrated on: (i) What can the social sciences do to promote the transformation process. The social sciences have a threefold function: they have to reveal the real processes; they have to help in understanding these processes (why and how these come about, how they take their course, and what will be the consequences) and give diagnoses of the already existing and the potential problems; and they should work out options for the policy-makers as to how to solve the problems and which possible ways and means to choose from. They have to influence policy-makers to think in longer-term perspectives in the interest of the stable and long-range development of the country, since politicians usually think in shorter terms, as they are primarily interested in short-term successes. The main areas of investigation are as follows: social restratification and mobility, as well as socio-psychological factors (feeling of security, tolerance, endurance, etc.); the economic processes; the fields of legal regulation; the system of institutions; the political changes; and historical antecedents. All this has to be investigated in an interdisciplinary way. (ii) There are tensions in the relations between social scientists and politicians. The main reasons for this are: claims on the part of the politicians to apologetic functions; the critical attitude of scientists and the hierarchical attitude of politicians; longer-term thinking of scientists versus the shorter-term thinking of politicians; problems in understanding the language of science. Channels of information might be through " translating " groups, think-tanks, advisers, commissioning of research projects, so as to make decision-making rely on as much knowledge as possible. (iii) The situation of the social sciences in the region is not promising. It is a neglected field, the importance of the results is not recognized and acknowledged. Varying in degrees in different countries, there has been a radical decline in the number of scientific personnel over the last few years and there has been a heavy out-migration from the field of research. A double (internal as well as abroad) process of brain drain has commenced in each country of the region, to a different extent. Although it also has positive consequences when scientists stay abroad, the absence of these brains in the home country reduces its intellectual capacity, which is badly needed in the process of transformation. There is a sharply decreasing trend in the financing of research from the state budget as a percentage of the GNP. There was a shift in the method of financing, namely from financing institutions towards financing research topics. The overall decline in funding is leading to a crisis situation in most of the countries. There is a lack of researchers of a new generation, the infrastructure situation has been deteriorating and many research institutes are struggling for survival. Although social scientists have become autonomous, and have got rid of direct political and ideological influences in almost all countries of the region, these positive changes cannot compensate for the critical situation of the social sciences. It will take decades to build up the proper intellectual capacity again. The on-going process is dangerous, since without the help of the social sciences the transformation is doomed to failure. International co-operation in the social sciences, and more specifically MOST, can contribute to the promotion of the transformation process through organizing such comprehensive research projects which help to understand and compare the real processes going on in the countries of the region. Problems of comparison (methodological, terminological, data) can be solved through careful preparation of the projects. The results of these projects should be brought together with the already existing results, so that together they can lead to comprehensive and reliable knowledge of the transformation on which the policy-makers can really rely. It was emphasized that not much interest is shown by politicians towards social science results. Economics could perhaps be mentioned as an exception. Often when politicians ask for input from social scientists, they use experts from Western Europe. These may not always have adequate knowledge of the region. It also slows down the development of their research capacity in the countries in the region. The social consequences of the changes have not been sufficiently thought over. A crisis situation is developing in the region. Besides the similarities, however, there are many differences among the countries as well. There is a danger that the region will be treated like a colony, similarly to the developing countries. Social sciences in the region have been challenged. To what extent could they meet this challenge? And what capacities do they still have to meet the challenges in the future? Results achieved by social sciences in the region should be made better known. Very few references to these results can be found in the Western literature. Social sciences are also neglected within the region, and the social sciences of the region seem to be treated as peripheral or semi-peripheral by many Western experts. With the change in financing - i.e. financing projects instead of financing institutions - short-term interests have come to the fore. This can result in the cheap exploitation of social science knowledge through which the development of the social sciences is threatened. The situation of social sciences research in the region has been continuously deteriorating; talented young people avoid the field of research, and valuable researchers leave the area or go abroad. The prestige of social sciences has been decreasing. The very important role of training and educating the new generation of scientists cannot be emphasized enough. Social sciences should become a priority. Comprehensive, long-term comparative projects are needed to provide reliable scientific knowledge on the real situation of the region. It was also mentioned that social sciences are worse organized than the natural sciences; they do not have such a powerful representation on the international scene as do the natural sciences. More public relations activity would be needed for the social sciences. As there are comprehension problems between scientists and politicians, UNESCO/MOST should consider how to deal with this, and include in the programme the involvement and " training " of politicians to understand better the results of the social sciences.
Introduced by Professor Antoni Kuklinski (Poland) There are two main approaches to social transformation: (i) it is a spontaneous process, directed by the market forces; (ii) it is guided by policies (economic, social, educational, scientific, etc.). The policy-making mechanism in Central and Eastern Europe is rather weak. Politicians often apply short-term, populist solutions. The impact of the liberal idea of laissez-faire is great, sometimes it is used as a pretext for inactivity. The transformation process should at least be monitored. In the course of the discussion it was expressed that the different segments of the transformation (political, economic and social) develop in a different time-frame and that the countries of the region are at various stages of the transformation. Doubts were cast on the possibility of rationally managing the transformation process, though it was admitted that several problems could be alleviated if more effective policies were applied. Furthermore, it was emphasized that even in the countries with developed market economies, the economic and social processes are not without the guidance/control of the state/government. However, there are differences in the methods of control. It was stressed that much more attention should be paid to the human consequences. There is a strong need for advanced analyses of the social consequences. This should be part of a long-term strategy for transformation in the countries of the region. With regard to the relationship between policy-making and the social sciences, the following process should be kept in mind: (i) identification of policy issues, (ii) the formulation of policy, (iii) implementation of policy, (iv) monitoring, (v) modification of the policy and/or establishment of new policies. The role of the social sciences is important in the identification of policy issues (i) and monitoring (iv), somewhat less in the formulation of policy (ii) and modification of policy and/or establishment of new policies (v), and almost none in the implementation of policy (iii). The present practice of intervening only when the problems are already serious is very negative, having an ad hoc character. Instead, a preventive and long-range approach should be applied. The possible identities and differences between policy issues and research topics were also discussed, touching upon the question of policy-oriented versus " basic " or independent social science research.
Introduced by Ali Kazancigil (UNESCO) Mr Ali Kazancigil, Director of the Division of Social Sciences, Research and Policy of UNESCO, summarized the basic aims of the Conference. The intention was to organize an initial international meeting where: (i) the MOST programme could be made known, (ii) social scientists of the region could be attracted to the programme, and (iii) the priorities of the region could be identified in order to work out policy-related research topics. The broadest long-term objective of MOST is to improve the interaction between independent social science research and the users (policy makers, media, NGOs, civil society, private sector, etc.). Another objective of MOST is to make the social sciences more international (without imposing any school or paradigm) and also to promote the comparative character of social science research. The MOST programme is international, it is building upon the social scientists in the individual countries. Peter Tamási as rapporteur of the Conference gave an account of the project proposals which were either submitted in a written form or proposed in the course of the discussions or by the key-note speakers. Altogether some 40 individual research proposals were submitted in four major fields: 10 in the multi-ethnic/multi-cultural issues, 24 in the economic and social issues, two relating to cities, and four relating to the social sciences. On the basis of these proposals, concentrated topics were formulated that would serve as the research proposals of the Conference. There were two proposals in the field of multi-ethnic/multi-cultural issues, three in the economic and social issues, one relating to the cities, and one relating to capacity-building and the development of the social sciences. In the discussion that followed it was pointed out that not only social scientists of the region should be involved in research on the region. This is suggested for two reasons. First, scientists from other countries might bring in ideas which can enrich the research, and secondly, through scientists in the West it is easier to get access to the financial sources of the developed countries. However, the leaders of the research should preferably be from the region. As a result of the discussion on the topics, one broad topic was accepted in the multi-ethnic/multi-cultural issues, namely: " Comparative research on national and cultural identity, on the traditions and transmissions of cultures, on intercultural communication and on the techniques of handling multi-ethnic and multi-cultural problems ". It will be prepared and co-ordinated by Pal Tamas (Hungary) in co-operation with Nada Svod-Dokic (Croatia). On the issues of economic and social transformations, Nikolaï Genov (Bulgaria) agreed to co-ordinate the process towards building a MOST project in Central and Eastern Europe on " The interaction between economic transformation and social cohesion and the role of the state and the new institutions " The topic " Cities as the main locomotives of the transformation process and as the locus of the negative consequences of transformation " will be prepared and co-ordinated by Lubomir Faltan (Slovakia). Finally, the topic " The situation of the social sciences, qualitative conditions of research, the possibilities of capacity-building and changes in research priorities " will be prepared and co-ordinated by Peter Tamási (Hungary). Professor Kuklinski, as Chairman of the Conference, expressed his conviction that this Conference was very useful. He thanked the Hungarian National Commission for UNESCO for the excellent organization of the Conference, and Mr Ali Kazancigil and Mr Paul de Guchteneire of UNESCO for making it possible to have this regional Conference organized. Professor Attila Harmathy, on behalf of the Social Science Committee of the Hungarian National Commission for UNESCO, also thanked all participants for devoting time to this Conference and for their contributions. He considered the Conference to have been very interesting. Thanks were also expressed to UNESCO and MOST for organizing this Conference, which carries the important message that this region is not forgotten and that the importance of social sciences is not forgotten. |
To MOST Clearing House Homepage