Report about the WG sessions in terms of the 11th EADI General Conference
The working group proceeded four sessions, at which eleven papers should be presented, accordingly to the previously composed schedule.
Session 1. Thursday, September 22, 11.15-13.00
- Introduction and Opening Speech by conveners
- Andrea Komlosy, Vienna University, Austria. Modernization Cycles in Eastern Europe from the Late 19th century until Today: Between Catching-up and Peripherisation
- Imre Levai, Institute for Political Science, Budapest, Hungary. Globalisation: Evolution of the World System
- Katarzyna Zukrowska, Warsaw School of Economics, Poland. Institutionalisation and Sequencing - Instruments Building Confidence as Precondition to Universal Development
Session 2. Thursday, September 22, 14.30-16.30
- Joris Verschueren, Antwerp University, Belgium. Space for Agency in the World-System Analysis
- Slawomir Bukowski, K. Pulaski Technical University of Radom, Poland. EU: IN Searching for a New Development Strategy
- Jan Bednarczyk, K. Pulaski Technical University of Radom, Poland. The Problem of Economic Growth: New Challenge for Europe
Session 3. Thursday, September 22, 17.00-19.00
- Slavica Roceska, Prilep University, Macedonia. Balkan Countries in the Global Economy: Present and
Prospects
- Victor Krasilshchikov, Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Moscow, Russia. An Experience of Russia as a Pattern of "Negative Development" in the Conditions of Globalisation
- Philip Casula, Institute of Sociology, Free University of Berlin, Germany. Converging and Diverging: Argentina and Russia caught in a modernisation trap
Session 4. Saturday, September 24, 11.15-13.00
- Barbara Despiney-Zochowska, ROSES/CNRS, Université Paris-1, France. La Russie entre l'espace européen et l'Asie
- Edo Andriesse, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. The role of the state for economic development in Satun (Thailand) and Perlis (Malaysia)
- Discussion. The prospects of the WG activity.
Two participants did not present their papers: Imre Lévai had arrived to Bonn but did not attend the sessions on Thursday because of serious disease, and Slavica Roceska did not come at all.
Previously, the conveners thought it necessary to start from the presentation by Prof. Andrea Komlosy, social-economic historian from Vienna University, whose paper dealt with the big cycles in the process of East European countries' modernisation. In opinion of the author, since 1989 a majority of these countries drift towards a state of the internal periphery in Europe, losing their positions in the world system. The presentation of paper by Komlosy provoked an intensive discussion and influenced, to a big degree, on the context, in which other papers had been presented. Undoubtedly, Komlosy's paper contributed to dissipating simplistic, one-dimensional vision of East European realities that is founded on the extremely extended expectations for "la manne bruxelloise".
In visible opposition to the first presentation, a series of the subsequently presented papers by the Polish colleagues (Katarzyna Zukrowska, Slawomir Bukowski, and Jan Bednarczyk) did not seemingly deviate from the economics' mainstream. Prof. Katarzyna Zukrowska, Warsaw School of Economics, focused on the problem of institutional environment for business. She had drawn attention to some important features of institutionalisation which have the universal character for all countries in a broad framework of the contemporary world system. Prof. Slawomir Bukowski, K. Pulaski Technical University of Radom, highlighted the main directions of search for new development models inside of EU taking into account, on the one hand, the challenges of globalisation, on the other hand, the differences between the development levels of old EU members and newcomers. Prof. Jan Bednarczyk form the same university spoke about a slowdown of the economic growth in the core of EU; respectively, he had considered some difficulties of the Lisbon strategy's realisation. He shared his colleague's opinion that the most essential obstacle to achieving the high rate of economic growth in EU is the state regulation inherited from the past epoch. Accordingly to the author's approach, the best way to increase the EU competitiveness is liberalisation of economy.
Joris Verschueren, post-graduate student of Antwerp University, presented paper about the social agency of transformations in the world system. He implicitly criticised the world-system analysis proposed by I. Wallerstein and G. Arrighi because these prominent scholars interpret all changes that have been observed in the world system's configuration as non-personified processes, which have been occurred without social actors. Presenting his paper, Joris Verschueren told about a role of various social movements in the world system's transformations. Replying to question about correlation between 'hegemonic cycles' of Arrighi and 'big cycles' of Kondratiev-Schumpeter, he recognised an existence of such correlation, although complicated by a set of social-cultural and political factors.
Victor Krasilshchikov, researcher of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Moscow, convener of the WG, attempted to demonstrate that the contradictory processes in Russia (growth without development, etc.) do not differ from some general trends in the world. In particular, a number of countries, which suffered a fall of GDP per capita over the last two decades of the past century (1980-2000), increased being compared to the mid-century (1950s-1960s).
In opinion of the speaker, the main problem that torments a large group of countries, including Russia, consists in absence of the real social agents of development. The political and business elites in these countries are not interested in development of their nations and are incapable to initiate even moderate reforms. In the case of Russia and other CIS countries, we deal with the so-called transfer class whose goal is a conservation of the transition period. This class is inclined to irrationality and obscurantism.
Dr. Philip Casula, Free University of Berlin, compared the social-economic and political development of Russia and Argentina since the start of neoliberal reforms in the early-1990s. He presented multidisciplinary analysis founded on concrete statistical data and theoretical generalisations as well. Accordingly to his approach, neither the financial crises nor the evident shift towards the state regulation the both countries experienced in 1998-2002 were occasional deviations from 'the main way' towards democracy and free market economy. On contrary, these events had been inevitable consequences of development in the past. As the speaker argued, the both countries had fallen into a situation of 'modernisation trap' when the preceding accomplishments, respective social institutes and governance's attitudes became the insurmountable obstacles to a further development. Recently, Russia and Argentina had overcome crises but deep causes of the latter were not abolished. In the both cases, the revival of populism can be seen. Whether this revival will be efficient from the point of view of development goals or not, is another matter.
Dr. Barbara Despiney-Zochowska, ROSES/CNRS, Université Paris-1, considered how the processes of regional development in Russia have been affected by the trends of transformation in the global scale. In particular, she analysed 'a dilemma' (false, in its essence) of west- and eastward orientations of the Russian economic policy. This dilemma could appear in the conditions of structural degradation of the Russian economy when the exports of raw materials and petroleum are increasing while that of manufactured goods is declining. Really, neither 'pro-western' nor 'pro-eastern' foreign economic policies might contradict to each other if the growth of internal market would make up 'the ground' of successful development of Russia's relations with EU and Far Eastern countries. However, without 'strong rear' it would be impossible to operate actively at the world market. Moreover, in the case of Russia, an economic expansion based on exportation of primary goods jeopardises to internal stability and entirety of the country.
Edo Andriesse, post-graduate student of Utrecht University, completed 'a series of regional studies'. He compared the experience of development of two regions: Perlis, state in the Northern part of peninsular Malaysia, and Satun, province in Thailand, near the Thai-Malaysian border. In the both cases, as the presenter argued, a big role in the regional development pertained to the developmental state which stimulated the growth of local economies and facilitated the poverty reducing. Andriesse told about differences between approaches of the both countries' governments to development of each region. He attracted attention to many imbalances and disproportions in the process of regional economies' growth. In the end, these disproportions as outcomes of rapid, artificially accelerated development turned into obstacles to transition of the regions towards new social-economic stage. The speaker assessed the arisen situation as one of 'modernisation trap'. At the same time, he demonstrated how the global processes could impact on the process of local (regional) development. Today, it is clear that policies of the developmental state have to be reconsidered in search for an optimal balance between the state intervention and market, the foreign investments and local resources for development.
The participants of the WG sessions discussed, too, some prospects of the group's activity, in particular, a possibility to organise the WG workshop. The latter should be held in Paris in May or September 2006. Conveners were appointed to be responsible for 'call for proposals' concerning a topic and order of the workshop. After Christmas/New Year holidays, conveners should have to collect all proposals and to approach to preparing 'call for papers'.
Some 'passive participants' who did not participate in discussions but had an interest to topics of the presented papers attended the sessions of the WG. Prof. Wolfgang Hein from the German Overseas Institute had expressed desire to join the working group.
Those members of the WG who did not participate in the conference will be informed about the sessions and taken decisions.
Conveners:
Victor Krasilshchikov (Krassilchtchikov), Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Moscow, e-mail: f1victor(AT)mtu-net.ru or victor_ias2004(AT)yahoo.co.in
Imre Lévai, Institute for Political Science, Budapest, e-mail: levai(AT)mtapti.hu or ILEVAI(AT)ibs-b.hu
September 30, 2005.
