Contrast and History – Michel Foucault and Neoliberalism

The paper is suggesting one possible angle for the re-examination of Foucault’s portrayal of the historical role of German neoliberalism in his 1979 lectures entitled Naissance de la biopolitique. This particular season has been the object of the increased interest in recent decades for various reasons. One of the reasons is the broader theme of “biopolitics” developed in them (as well as in the two immediately preceding seasons), which was instrumental in subsequent interpretations and applications even before the 1979 lectures became available integrally. Another reason that has fuelled various interpretations and contentions, that are still ongoing as some recent publications attest, has to do with the general setting and tone of Foucault’s dealings with neoliberalism. Debates that have ensued have mostly been centred on the question of whether or not Foucault embraced certain neoliberal tenets that he was explaining in these lectures. But what is usually overlooked in these debates is the question of the historical accuracy of the impression that emerges from the 1979 lectures about the role that German “ordoliberalism” had after WWII. It is in a way surprising considering that Foucault’s relationship with the “historians’ guild” was strained, interspersed with criticisms and polemics. Some of these critiques are sketchily reproduced here to point at certain repeating weaknesses in Foucault’s dealings with the past. Crucial failing seems to be the concept of the “cut” or discontinuity whose consequence was usually such that Foucault was often forcing great contrasts onto the past. The concluding section proposes, although in a preliminary fashion and through a short comparison, that Foucault might have overstated the role that “ordoliberal” ideas had in Germany during the 1950s and 1960s precisely because he might have accepted the view that some of these ideas were not only the motor of economic and social development, but sort of a “third way” solution

Sadašnjost zarobljena u prošlosti. Inovacijske i komercijalizacijske aktivnosti u OECD i Srednjoistočnim europskim zemljama

The trajectory of development defined as top-down model in the CEEC and bottom-up model in the OECD left long lasting effects on the institutional collaboration, innovation output and commercialization activities. Using international statistics data for 19 OECD and 13 Central and Eastern Europe countries the analyses reveals the following differences. The bottom up model in the OECD results in a close positive relationship between sub-systems. The high level of inter-connectiveness between institutions positively influences the efficiency of sub-systems. The level of innovation output is higher and is a function of development indicators and of economic openness. The commercialization activity shows that business-industry R&D expenditure stimulates the patents and publication. The top down model in the CEEC is still present and is keeping the sub-systems relatively separate. That results in a less intensive and positive relationship between education and economy and consequently in less efficiency of sub-systems. The level of innovation output is extremely low and indicates low system effectiveness. The government is the dominant source of R&D expenditures which has a negative impact on commercialization, patents and publications.Putanja razvoja definirana kao model od vrha prema dolje u Srednjoistočnim europskim zemljama i model odozdo prema vrhu u OECD-u ostavio je dugotrajne efekte na institucionalnu suradnju, inovacijski output i komercijalizacijske aktivnosti. Koristeći međunarodne statističke podatke za 19 zemalja OECD-a i 13 Srednjoistočnih europskih zemalja analiza otkriva slijedeće razlike. Model odozdo prema vrhu u OECD-u rezultira u bliskoj pozitvnoj povezanosti između podsistema. Visoka razina međupovezanosti institucija utječe pozitivno na efikasnost podsistema. Razina inovacijskog uotputa je viša i funkcija je indikatora razvoja i gospodarske otvorenosti. Komercijalizacijske aktivnosti pokazuju da izdaci za istraživanje i razvoj u gospodarstvu stimuliraju patente i publikacije. Model od vrha prema dolje je još uvijek prisutan u zemljama Srednje i Istočne Europe i održava podsiteme relativno odvojenim. To rezultira manje intenzivnom i pozitivnom povezanošću obrazovanja i gospodarstva i konzekventno u manjoj efikasnosti podsistema. Vlada je dominatni izvor izdataka za istraživanje i razvoj što ima negativni utjecaj na komercijalizaciju, patente i publikacije

Globalizacijske kontroverze

Globalisation is the latest stage in the permanent process of social change that started as industrialisation and modernisation in Europe but now is spreading globally. The paper analyzes different globalisation theories and how the recent wave of globalisation (in the last 30 years) is related to historical events that caused change in economy, ideology and technology. Globalisation is defined as the process of converting separate national economies into an integrated world economy; in the social sphere as intensifying social relations on distance and in the political sphere as a loss of power and authority of nation-states. Starting with that definition the main part of the paper is devoted to analysing economic, social and political indicators, and the consequences of globalisation. As a term and ongoing process globalisation becomes widely recognised, and people with usually very different ideological views begin to foim a new “strange” alliance against globalisation.Globalizacija je posljednji stadij u stalnom procesu društvene promjene koja je započela industrijalizacijom i modernizacijom u Europi ali se sada globalno širi. Članak analizira različite teorije globalizacije i kako se novi val globalizacije (u posljednjih 30 godina) odnosi prema povijesnim događajima koji su prouzročili promjene u ekonomiji, ideologiji i tehnologiji. Globalizacija je definirana kao proces pretvaranja odvojenih nacionalnih ekonomija u integriranu svjetsku ekonomiju; u području društvene sfere očituje se kao pojačavanje društvenih odnosa na daljinu, a u području javnosti kao gubitak moći i autoriteta država-nacija. Polazeći od te definicije veći dio članka je posvećen analiziranju ekonomskih, društvenih i političkih indikatora, i posljedica globalizacije. Kao termin i kao proces koji traje globalizacija postaje široko prepoznata, a ljudi s uglavnom različitim ideološkim pogledima počinju stvarati novi “čudan” savez protiv globalizacije

Globalizacijske kontroverze

Globalisation is the latest stage in the permanent process of social change that started as industrialisation and modernisation in Europe but now is spreading globally. The paper analyzes different globalisation theories and how the recent wave of globalisation (in the last 30 years) is related to historical events that caused change in economy, ideology and technology. Globalisation is defined as the process of converting separate national economies into an integrated world economy; in the social sphere as intensifying social relations on distance and in the political sphere as a loss of power and authority of nation-states. Starting with that definition the main part of the paper is devoted to analysing economic, social and political indicators, and the consequences of globalisation. As a term and ongoing process globalisation becomes widely recognised, and people with usually very different ideological views begin to foim a new “strange” alliance against globalisation.Globalizacija je posljednji stadij u stalnom procesu društvene promjene koja je započela industrijalizacijom i modernizacijom u Europi ali se sada globalno širi. Članak analizira različite teorije globalizacije i kako se novi val globalizacije (u posljednjih 30 godina) odnosi prema povijesnim događajima koji su prouzročili promjene u ekonomiji, ideologiji i tehnologiji. Globalizacija je definirana kao proces pretvaranja odvojenih nacionalnih ekonomija u integriranu svjetsku ekonomiju; u području društvene sfere očituje se kao pojačavanje društvenih odnosa na daljinu, a u području javnosti kao gubitak moći i autoriteta država-nacija. Polazeći od te definicije veći dio članka je posvećen analiziranju ekonomskih, društvenih i političkih indikatora, i posljedica globalizacije. Kao termin i kao proces koji traje globalizacija postaje široko prepoznata, a ljudi s uglavnom različitim ideološkim pogledima počinju stvarati novi “čudan” savez protiv globalizacije

Das Konzept gesellschaftlicher Ausgeschlossenheit

Ovaj rad ima dvije svrhe. Prvo, njime se analiziraju dimenzije va`ne za razumijevanje koncepta dru{tvene isklju~enosti. Po~inje definiranjem koncepta, zatim analizira ~imbenike koji pridonose procesu isklju~ivanja te kreira tipologiju dru{tvenih isklju~enosti. Nadalje, ~lanak razmatra ulogu dru{tvenih institucija i sustava vrijednosti, globalizacije kao aktera dru{tvene promjene koji pridonosi suvremenom obliku dru{tvene isklju~enosti. Kona~no, nabrajaju se klju~ni indikatori za mjerenje razine dru{tvene isklju~enosti. Drugo, rad razmatra odr`ava li koncept dru{tvene isklju~enosti nastanak novih teorijskih spoznaja o funkcioniranju dru{tvenoga svijeta – spoznaja koje nisu postojale u ranijim teorijama – ili koncept odra`ava prija{nje spoznaje koje su prethodno bile izra`avane upotrebom drugih izraza, no koje su sada "modernizirane" u skladu s trenuta~nim dru{tvenim i politi~kim kontekstom.This article has two functions. Firstly it is designed to analyse those dimensions which are important in developing an understanding of the concept of social exclusion. It begins with defining the concept. It then analyses those factors that contribute to the exclusion process, it creates a typology of social exclusion, investigates the role of social institutions and value systems, globalisation as an agent of social change that contributes to social exclusion and finally looks at the key indicators for measuring levels of social exclusion. Second, the paper examines whether the concept of social exclusion reflects the development of new theoretical knowledge about the operation of the social world that was previously not present in the earlier theories, or whether the concept reflects existing knowledge that was previously expressed using different language but has now been "modernised" within the current social and political context.Dieser Artikel hat zweierlei Ziele. Als Erstes werden Dimensionen analysiert, die für das Verständnis des Konzeptes gesellschaftlicher Ausgeschlossenheit wichtig sind. Die Autorin beginnt mit einer Definition des Konzeptes, schreitet sodann zur Analyse von Faktoren, die zum Prozess des Ausschließens beitragen, und verfasst eine Typologie von Formen gesellschaftlicher Ausgeschlossenheit. Des Weiteren untersucht sie die Rolle gesellschaftlicher Institutionen, des Wertesystems sowie der Globalisierung, die als Akteur des gesellschaftlichen Wandels auf den Plan tritt und zur heutigen Form gesellschaftlicher Ausgeschlossenheit beträgt. Schließlich werden die wichtigsten Indikatoren aufgezählt, anhand deren das Niveau gesellschaftlicher Ausgeschlossenheit gemessen werden soll. Das zweite Ziel dieses Artikels ist zu untersuchen, ob das Konzept gesellschaftlicher Ausgeschlossenheit den Ansatz zu neuen theoretischen Erkenntnissen über das Funktionieren der Gesellschaft enthält – oder ob in ihm nur bisherige Erkenntnisse enthalten sind, die vormals andere Namen trugen, die jedoch nun "modernisiert" worden sind in Übereinstimmung mit dem aktuellen gesellschaftlichen und politischen Kontext

Europski i hrvatski identitet: Kognitivna mobilizacija ili latentni konflikt

The focus of the analysis is attachment to Europe and Croatia as an indirect measure of identity. Variables used to explain these different attachments are demographic, social and ideological. The attachment to Croatia is best explained by the ideological variables, with those being more nationalistic, religious, socially conservative having a closer attachment to Croatia. Closeness to Europe, on the other hand, is more determined by social variables like occupational position. People with a higher position within the division of labour and decision-making processes feel closer to Europe compared with those lower down on the occupational scale. We have found positive correlation between the attachments to Europe and Croatia. The attachment to Europe does not replace the national identification but can be seen as a part of the process of the broadening of the identity space. The European identification is not in contradiction with the national identification, but rather an expansion of it.U centru analize je osjećanje privrženosti Europi i Hrvatskoj kao indirektna mjera identiteta. U objašnjavanju raznih oblika privrženosti korištene su demografske, socijalne i ideološke varijable. Privrženost Hrvatskoj najbolje je objašnjena ideološkim varijablama – oni koji ističu svoju nacionalnost, koji su religiozniji, konzervativniji osjećaju veću povezanost s Hrvatskom. S druge strane bliskost Europi više je determinirana socijalnim varijablama, kao na primjer socijalnim statusom i položajem u zanimanju. Ljudi koji imaju viši položaj u društvu i zanimanju, a time i veću moć odlučivanja, osjećaju se bliže Europi, u usporedbi s onima koji se nalaze niže na skali zanimanja. Zanimljivo je da postoje i pozitivne korelacije između privrženosti Europi i Hrvatskoj, kao i da ta dva odnosa ne moraju uvijek isključivati jedan drugoga. Privrženost Europi ne zamjenjuje nacionalnu identifikaciju nego više može biti promatrana kao proces širenja identiteta. Zaključujemo da europska identifikacije nije negacija nego proširenje nacionalnoga identiteta

Podrška režimu u Hrvatskoj - Determinante podrške režimima u prošlosti, sadašnjosti i budućnosti

In this paper we use the case of Croatia to discover the determinants and patterns of support for the previous (communist) and the present political system, as well as expectations about the future. The conceptual and theoretical framework takes into account five dimensions: class, nationality, religiosity, economic well-being and heterogeneity of the region. There is a general pattern of support in Croatia which roughly corresponds to the findings in other post-communist countries. We find a negative evaluation of the previous system, more positive evaluation of the present political system (in the case of Croatia, more neutral) and optimism about the future. Although this pattern holds across all groups, there are many significant differences. The previous regime is judged less harsh among females, professionals, less skilled manual workers, Serbs and less religious people. Satisfaction with the present political systems is mostly expressed among the less educated, farmers, people with lower income, the more religious, groups who identify themselves as “lower class” and those who created some savings in the last year. The more intensive support for the current political system is located on the lower end of the social hierarchy and on the top, managers-owners. We conclude that a new alliances forming between the top and the bottom of social hierarchy, as it was in the previous system (Županov, 19X3.) but this new alliance contains different social groups and it is based on different interests than before.U ovom radu na slučaju Hrvatske pokušali smo otkriti determinante i obrasce podrške prijašnjem (komunističkom) i sadašnjem političkom sustavu kao i očekivanjima za budućnost. Konceptualni i teorijski okvir polazi od pet dimenzija: klase, nacije, religioznosti, ekonomskog blagostanja i heterogenosti regija. Postoji opći obrazac ocjenjivanja sustavu u Hrvatskoj koji uglavnom korespondira s nalazima u ostalim post-komunističkim zemljama. Našli smo negativno vrednovanje prošlog sustava, više pozitivno se ocjenjuje sadašnji politički sustav (u slučaju Hrvatske više neutralno) i optimizam u pogledu budućnosti. Premda se ovaj obrazac očituje kod svih grupa ipak ima mnogo značajnih razlika. Prošli režim se ocjenjuje manje oštro kod žena, profesionalaca, manje kvalificiranih radnika, Srba i manje religioznih ljudi. Zadovoljstvo sa sadašnjim političkim sustavom izražavaju manje obrazovani, seljaci, ljudi s manjim primanjima, više religiozni, grupe koje su sebe identificirale kao “niža klasa” te među onima koji su ostvarili neku uštedu u prošloj godini. Dakle, više intenzivna podrška sadašnjem režimu locirana je medu nižim slojevima hijerarhijske društvene ljestvice i na samom vrhu kod menagera-vlasnika. Zaključili smo da se formirala nova alianca između vrha i nižih slojeva socijalne hijerarhije kao što je postojala i u prijašnjem sustavu (Županov, 19X3), ali nova alianca sadrži druge društvene grupe i bazirana je na različitim interesima nego prije