Shock-shift in an Enlarged Europe

Geography of Socio-economic Change in East-central Europe After 1989

F.W. Carter, W. Maik

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429786389
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Economia politica

First published in 1999, this volume emerged in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and focuses on a geographical analysis of problems associated with socio-economic changes taking place in East-Central Europe. The idea behind these contributions is to provide a confrontation of two viewpoints. The major chapters are written by East European scholars, followed by discussions held with their Western European counterparts. The idea was to provide depth and clarity to the debate on understanding those geographical problems facing the emerging East European states nearly a decade after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Contributors explore areas including the Polish economy, environmental geopolitics in the Czech Republic and the belt of opportunity and instability in Albania, Macedonia and Bulgaria.

1 Introduction

F. W. CARTER and W. MAIK

This book is devoted to a geographical analysis of problems associated with socio-economic changes taking place in East-Central Europe. These problems have resulted from the demise of the Communist order and transition of these countries to a market economy and a democratic system. The idea behind this volume is to provide a confrontation of two viewpoints — the major chapters are written by East European scholars, followed by discussions held with their Western European counterparts. The idea was to provide depth and clarity to the debate on understanding those geographical problems facing the emerging East European states nearly a decade after the fall of the Iron Curtain.

The volume results from contributions made by colleagues at a geographical conference held in Toruń, Poland, in late 1994.¹ A summary of the content of these papers written by East European colleagues highlighted the regional imbalance found in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia through papers by Zbyszko Chojnicki and his colleagues, Martin Hampl and Ján Paulov, with the most vigourous changes found in these countries’ western regions and metropolitan areas. Claudia Popescu discovered that in Romania the more developed industrial regions had witnessed a more vibrant privatization process giving them an enhanced economic status over the rest of the country. Regional growth centres and the significance of southern rural fringe areas were seen as meaningful in both Estonia (A. Marksoo) and Slovenia (Marijan M. Klemenč ić). A tendency towards agglomeration was clearly visible in Estonian towns such as Narva, Pärnu and Tartu, largely resulting from the vulnerability of local rural centres to agricultural privatization and the demise of giant farm organizations formerly linked to extensive rural centres. In Slovenia, programmes aimed at revitalizing underdeveloped zones were being undertaken through infrastructural investment and attempts at rejuvenating social organization.

Input from West European colleagues clearly emphasized the role of the regional dimension. It was apparent to them that regions in Eastern Europe varied immensely. This was evident when considering not only the economic base, but also settlement patterns and overall infrastructure. Moreover, regional differences also resulted from political influence, which wielded considerable power over attempts at restructuring, the creation of small businesses and inducements for foreign direct investment. In turn these factors had contributed to specific regional problems. For example, in Romania (David Turnock), and Estonia (Tim Unwin), it was clear that a process of reversal from the former large state farm to small family farms was beginning to have an impact on the structure of rural areas. There was also a clear demand for an appreciation of the environmental dimension in regional studies (Andrew Tickle). Problems associated with ethnicity were also emphasized. A clarion call for a better understanding of Balkan society, necessary if we are to comprehend the ethnic quarrels that occur in this part of our continent, was made by George Prévélakis. The significance of ethnic minority status was also discussed by André-Louis Sanguin and John Sargent, using Slovenia as an example. A case for modelling the regional geography of transition was made by M. J. Bradshaw, in order to aid attempts at synthesizing the complexity of factors involved in the transition process. In turn, results from such work could provide a core of case-studies for further comparative work on the resulting performance and future potential of particular regional areas. Andrew H. Dawson summarized the differences in approach between advocates of an entirely self-regulating market system and one with significant government intervention.

Inevitably, a book based on conference papers suffers from lacunae relating to the overall theme. Here more could have been stated on theoretical and conceptual issues which are not covered systematically in this work. Moreover, except for the short paper by Andrzej Werwicki, there is little to offer on the significance of the retailing process; chapters on the role of transport and the importance of urban restructuring would also have added to the wider thematic and national/regional coverage of the shock-shift phenomenon. In spite of these shortcomings, it is an accepted fact that shock-shift has been imposed on the emerging countries of Eastern Europe and the civil societies in each state have had to discover ways of trying to come to terms with the new situation. Some are coping better than others with the demands for initiating new systems and institutions in spite of the unavoidable hold-ups caused by political debate and delayed decisions on resource allocation.

During the early 1990s the modernization-dependency model was being proposed by the European Community, and a significant number of other post-Communist societies/establishments, for heralding East-Central Europe’s ‘return to Europe’. If one disregards the intricate considerations of definition, it is understood that the modernization concept refers to a sequence of changes occurring in less-developed or semi-peripheral systems. It is influenced by contact with industrial or post-industrial civilizations which possess suitable technology as well as economic, political and social organization. Social development assumes transition from an industrial to post-industrial/informational phase, where progress has already reached this stage in the advanced civilizations of richer states.

Although we are in general agreement with this development, the following riders may be proposed. First, modernization should proceed at the microscale within local communities as well as at the macroscale of nation, state, or world system. In other words, local development is not an alternative to global processes but complimentary to them. The transformation process in post-Communist countries depends on modernization at the microscale, starting with innovation mechanisms at the local level. Secondly, development processes are very complex and not just influenced by external actions. An imported modernization programme can accelerate economic growth and social progress, but it can also have some serious side effects. For example, it can create inequality within the dynamics of a particular region, leading to the formation of isolated ‘modernity enclaves’; it may also contribute to ecological degradation and produce feelings of social and individual deprivation amongst many groups and communities.

Thirdly, modernization based on imported technology, capital and organizational models usually (though not always) leads to asymmetric interdependence. This has many negative consequences, such as capital or technical dependence and asymmetry of political pressure. It fossilizes the division of labour between centre and periphery/semi-periphery, causing difficulties in the transition of individual countries from peripheral to central locations. Empirical analysis has shown that most countries usually reproduce their own situation rather than improve it.

These negative effects of modernizational development suggest a need for the re-evaluation of this model. Internal development factors should play a decisive part in this process, while external factors can only provide support and help catalyze it. A revision of the model should take change and the development process of a community into account. One may add that local communities and the most creative individuals in them are also subject to changes in this development process. Clearly the principle of rational eclectism is inherent in selectively combining the various assumptions of this development.

At this point it is perhaps important to stress that the post-Communist countries of East-Central Europe have proved of great interest to economic geographers. The legacy of a Soviet-imposed type of ‘real socialism’ appears to have been more fundamental and enduring in the region than was previously believed. Many of the immediate benefits and eventual changes emerging from the demise of the old system have yet to materialize and it is still not clear where they will lead us. Under such circumstances it is perhaps better to think in terms of a transformation from a known past to an unknown future, rather than transition to a guaranteed end-state.² We must also remind ourselves of the oft-forgotten fact that the West has experienced a very long period of brutal and sometimes cruel capitalism, which preceded later organization leading to a fairly successful attempt at establishing some degree of social control over the economy.

Many people in East-Central Europe wish to experience a rapid movement from ‘real socialism’ to a liberal democracy and capitalist market economy. Dahrendorf³ maintained in 1990 that while Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary may reach some form of democratic constitution within six months, it would take a further six years before the benefits of liberal economic reform appeared and a staggering sixty years to obtain the sort of social framework and democratic constitutional order necessary for a market economy to establish itself within a vigorous civil society. Admittedly he later revised the latter period to a mere two generations.

Economic liberalization also has its dangers. According to Weitman,⁴ this could lead to wider social inequalities and a need for state intervention, encouraging the return of state control. He also argued that rapid change could have dire consequences throughout society, leading to a steep increase in social problems, for example, widespread corruption, savage crimes, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, juvenile delinquency, prostitution, suicide, mental illness and so on. Such effects could again lead to demands for state intervention.

In fact, Weitman contests that it is too idealistic to try and attempt to achieve spectacular results rapidly. However desirable in the short term the idea of liberal democracy and belief in a market economy could be, this invites failure and the risk of backlash. The revival of ex-Communists in Lithuania (an excessive example), and some other East European/former Soviet satellite states, combined with right-wing nationalism and a revival of antisemitism, provide us with some warning signs. Václav Klaus’s determination to prove that the Czech Republic was already in a post-transformation phase perhaps proved a little premature. In fact, it was his neo-liberal economic policies that contributed to the Czech-Slovak split.⁵

Perhaps now eight years after the event, one can inquire whether shock therapy has been successful within the period claimed by its advocates. After all it was in Poland, where our initial conference took place, that the land of the first and probably most successful radical post-Communist reforms were created, composed of powerful and carefully balanced macroeconomic measures. It was this stimulating background that saw initial discussions and the eventual commital of thoughts to paper that has led to the appearance of this book.

Notes

1  D. Turnock, ‘Shock-Shift in an Enlarged Europe: Socio-Economic Change in East-Central Europe since 1989’, GeoJournal, vol. 34, no. 4, 1994, pp. 522–3.

2  C. G. A. Bryant and E. Mokrzycki (eds), The New Great Transformation: Change and Continuity in East-Central Europe, London and New York, 1994, p. i.

3  R. Dahrendorf, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, London, 1990.

4  S. Weitman, ‘Thinking the Revolutions of 1989’, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 43, 1992, pp. 1–24.

5  V. Rey (ed.), Transition, fragmentation, recomposition: La Tchécoslovaquie en 1992, Fontenay-St. Cloud, 1994.

2 Transformations and Dilemmas of the Polish Economy

ZBYSZKO CHOJNICKI, TERESA CZYŻ and JERZY J. PARYSEK

The aim of this chapter is to outline the character of the transformation of the Polish economy and the dilemmas it involves. Naturally, this is neither a complete survey of issues, nor a summary of opinions on the matter. We hope, however, that it will contribute to a better understanding of the character of changes taking place in Poland and the state of its economy in the period of transition. The starting point is a discussion of four issues: (1) systemic changes taking place in Poland; (2) ways of restructuring the economy; (3) the state of the economy; and (4) regional differences in the restructuring of the economy.

The Character and Strategy of the Systemic Transformation

The systemic transformation taking place in Poland as well as in other post-Communist countries is an exceptional phenomenon, especially in its economic aspect. It is not a continuation of the course of development pursued hitherto, but a break from it; it proceeds on a new basis. In addition, it takes place under the conditions of a socio-economic crisis generated back in the 1980s which is a serious barrier to the pace and scope of systemic change in Poland (Chojnicki, 1990). Before passing on to this subject, let us present (1) the causes of the breakdown of the Communist system; (2) the strategy of the transformation; and finally (3) its dilemmas.

Causes of the Breakdown

The collapse of the Communist system in Poland in 1989 was preceded and determined by a number of events both on the domestic and international scenes. It is impossible here to weigh and assess them fully; this will be the task for historians.

Among endogenous factors which have brought about a global socioeconomic crisis are the following:

(1) growing societal disquiet with the low standards of living and limited state independence, expressed in successive political upheavals undermining the regime and forcing attempts at reform: 1956 (Poznań), 1970 (the Coast), 1976 (Ursus and Radom), and 1980–81 (the principal national centres);

(2) changes in social consciousness, especially an increasingly critical attitude of the working class towards the supposedly progressive nature of the Communist system and its efficiency, and the formation of opposition organizations such as the Committee for Workers’ Defence (KOR) and Solidarity;

(3) growing inefficiency and shortages in an economy based on central planning and the performance of state-run enterprises; their manifestations were: (a) an antiquated structure of the economy, a falling level of investment and a steady decrease in the value of per capita national property; (b) growing foreign debt; and (c) depleted resources of the natural environment.

Exogenous factors include, of course, the collapse of the military and political power of the former USSR, followed by its destabilization and disintegration as a result of the lost arms race and unsuccessful attempts at reforming that state.

The Scope and Path of Transformation

The systemic transformation has embraced both the main subsystems: political and economic. The radical reforms that have taken place in the world in the latter half of the twentieth century either consisted in the democratization of the political system (Spain in the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Transformations and Dilemmas of the Polish Economy
• 3 Geographical Aspects of Societal Transformation in the Czech Republic
• 4 Some Features and Problems of the Transformation Process in Slovakia
• 5 Recent Changes in the Socio-Economic Structure of Slovenia
• 6 The Resurgence of Submerged Minorities: Hungarians and Italians in Slovenia
• 7 Industrial Restructuring Through Privatization: Evidence from Romania
• 8 Restructuring of Urban and Rural Settlement in Estonia
• 9 The Transformation of Polish Retailing
• 10 The Process of Socio-Economic Change in East-Central Europe after 1989: A View from Western Europe
• 11 Environmental Geopolitics and Shock-Shift Transition in the Czech Republic
• 12 The Prospects for Slovenia: Some Opportunities and Constraints
• 13 Which Transition? Some Thoughts on ‘Some Features and Problems of the Transformation Process in Slovakia’ by Jan Paulov
• 14 Privatization in Romania, with Particular Reference to the Rural Areas
• 15 Albania, Macedonia and Bulgaria: A Belt of Opportunity and Instability
• 16 The Restructuring of Urban and Rural Settlement in Estonia: A Comment
• 17 Regional Change in Russia: New Scales, New Issues, New Actors
• 18 Conclusion