DOCSLIB.ORG

European University Institute, Florence Digitised © the Author(S)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
European University Institute, Florence Digitised © the Author(S) Repository. Research Institute University WP 321 EUR .02094 European Institute. Cadmus, on European University Institute, Florence University Access EUI Working Paper RSC No. 94/11 European Open Author(s). Available The 2020. © in Library EUI the by produced version Digitised Repository. Research Institute University European Institute. Cadmus, on University Access European Open Author(s). Available The 2020. © in Library EUI the by produced version Digitised Repository. Research Institute University European Institute. Cadmus, EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE, FLORENCE on University BADIA FIESOLANA, SAN DOMENICO (FI) Access European EUI Working Paper RSC No. 94/11 Open ROBERT SCHUMAN CENTRE The Case ofFormer Yugoslavia Privatization inDisintegrating East European States: Author(s). Available MILICA UVALIC The 2020. © in Library EUI the by WP 3c! 1 .0S093c! 4 EUR^:' J <r V <r O ' \ % Ur produced 1*n '1/* ^ o io v version nV Digitised B l BL\0 Repository. Research Institute University European Institute. Cadmus, on University N oo part paperthis fmay be reproduced in any form Access European Open Printed in Italy in September 1994 without permission o author. the f I -I 50016 San Domenico (FI) European University Institute Author(s). Available A ll reserved. rights © MilicaUvalid BadiaFiesolana The 2020. © in Italy Library EUI the by produced version Digitised 1 Repository. Research PRIVATIZATION IN DISINTEGRATING EAST EUROPEAN STATES: THE CASE OF FORMER YUGOSLAVIA1 Institute Milica Uvalic Institute of Economics Faculty of Political Sciences University of Perugia, Via Pascoli 1-06123 Perugia University 1.Introduction European As other Central and East European countries, Institute. Yugoslavia had in 1988-89 declared its intention to Cadmus, on implement far-reaching economic reforms, with the aim of University moving towards a mixed market economy based on private Access property. From mid-1990, however, increasing political European Open conflicts between the governments of the single republics led to the gradual disintegration of the political and Author(s). economic system, and in January 1992, when Slovenia and Available Croatia were officially recognized as independent states, The 2020. © the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ceased to in Library EUI would like to thank my friends and colleagues from all parts the of former Yugoslavia who have generously provided me with their by publications, government documents, statistical sources or other useful material: Polona Bobnar, Srdjan Bogosavljevic, Veljko Bole, Nevenka Cuckovic, Dinko Dubravcic, Vojo Franicevic, Mitja Gaspari, Smiljan Jurin, Drazen Kalodjera, Vlasta Lang, Joze Mencinger, Bosko Mijatovic, Branko Milanovic, Tea Petrin, Pavle Petrovic, Saska Posarac, Anton Rop, produced Vladimir Sahov, Marko Simoneti, Djordje Suvakovic, Marjan Svetlicic, and Sofia Todorova. I also thank all the participants of the AISSEC Conference (Milano, 30 September 1993) for their valuable critical version comments on an earlier version of the paper, in particular Bruno Dallago, Renzo Daviddi, Mario Ferrero, and Luigi Marcolungo. Digitised exist.2 After the break-up of the country, there has been a 2 Repository. marked differentiation in general economic policies, but in the field of privatization the results obtained have not Research been dissimilar. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the present state Institute of privatization in the successor states of former Yugoslavia. After a brief analysis of the crucial problems initially posed by privatization in Yugoslavia and the University solutions chosen by the federal government in its 1989-90 legislation (part 2), the paper discusses the separate European privatization laws adopted by the states created on the Institute. territory of former Yugoslavia (part 3). Available empirical Cadmus, evidence on the changes in the property structure is then on presented - both initially in Yugoslavia, and thereafter in University its successor states (part 4). Finally, some of the main Access consequences of Yugoslav disintegration for the European Open implementation of privatization are briefly discussed (part 5). Author(s). Available The 2020. 2.The federal legislation on privatization © in The specific questions posed during the privatization debate in Yugoslavia were determined directly by the main Library characteristics of its economic system, based on social EUI property and workers' self-management. Under the system of the by 2The following states were created on the territory of former Yugoslavia: Croatia, Slovenia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia produced (Serbia with its two regions Kosovo and Voivodina, and Montenegro), Macedonia (recognized under the name "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"), and Bosnia Herzegovina which, according to the latest version proposals, should be divided into three ethnic parts (Serbian, Muslim and Croat). Digitised "social" property, no one in particular had property rights Repository. over enterprise assets, which officially belonged to the whole society. When social property was first introduced in Research the early 1950s, enterprises were given only the right to use socially-owned assets and to appropriate their product, Institute which were initially subject to a capital tax, which was eliminated in 1971. Self-management gave workers the right to decide on enterprise policies, including those regarding University the distribution of enterprise income between wages and accumulation (although subject to certain limits), as well European as the right to a supplementary income from capital (so- Institute. called rewards for "past labour"). Cadmus, The ambiguous property regime in combination with self­ on University management therefore implied that there was no clear Access distinction between labour and capital remuneration. This European led to the frequently emphasized thesis that in Yugoslavia, Open group property had effectively replaced state property, and that workers had become the real owners of enterprise Author(s). Available assets.^ This interpretation is, however, incorrect; given The 2020. that enterprise property had never been officially © in transferred to any other legal entity, it must have remained effectively (if not officially) in state property. Workers Library were never granted full property rights, as they could not EUI sell the enterprise and appropriate the proceeds, and the the by political authorities had remained responsible for a number of other fundamental issues (see Uvalic, 1992a). produced ^See e.g. Bajt (1968). Many workers in Yugoslavia felt they were version "owners" of their firms, at least for the part of income invested in enterprise assets during the course of years. Digitised Against such an institutional background, the Repository. privatization debate in Yugoslavia brought up a number of specific guestions. In the absence of a concrete holder of Research property rights, who was to be responsible for the sale of social sector firms, and who was to appropriate the Institute proceeds? Who was to take the initiative to privatize enterprises, which officially were no longer in state ownership, but neither the property of the individual firm University nor of its workers? Were primarily workers employed to be offered privileged conditions in acquiring enterprise European assets, given that capital growth over time had been ensured Institute. through workers' investment decisions? But considering that Cadmus, the state and all other citizens had also contributed to on enterprise assets - the state, through the initial transfer University of state capital to enterprises, and later through subsidies Access and other transfers, while citizens, through their savings European Open deposits in bank accounts, which represented an important part of enterprise investment finance - shouldn't they also Author(s). Available have been given a fair share in the privatization of social The 2020. property? The federal government tried to resolve some of © in these controversial issues in the legislation adopted in 1988-1990. Library As a first step in changing the property regime in EUI Yugoslavia, the Enterprise law was adopted at the end of the by 1988,4 which had important implications for both self­ management and privatization. The general orientation of the produced 4See "Enterprise law". Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal version Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) no. 77, 31 December 1988, and amendments to the law in Official Gazette of SFRY no. 40, 7 July 1989. Digitised law was to limit and eventually abolish self-management, by Repository. replacing the collective responsibility of workers by the individual responsibility of managers/directors and capital Research owners. Moreover, the Enterprise law had diversified both ownership types and enterprise legal forms, thus permitting Institute the commercialization of enterprises,5 and had also enabled forms of "self"-privatization.5 University As a second step, at the end of 1989 the federal government adopted a privatization law,7 * which introduced the possibility for firms to sell social capital to domestic European and foreign buyers (both firms and individuals) through Institute. auctions. However, owing primarily to the lack of enthusiasm Cadmus, on the part of workers, no sales under the law had taken on University place (Milanovic, 1990), so the law was amended in August Access 1990.® According to the new 1990 Federal privatization law, European Open 5Besides the already existing types of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Glas Slovenije Voice of Slovenia
    Slovenian Wekly Slovenian Press Agency Slovenian Wekly Slovenian Press Agency Slovenia in EU & NATO Maja Kocijancic / STA EU and Slovenia Wrap up Accession Talks after Nearly Five Years Slovenia wrapped up accession talks with the EU at the right to claim a large share of funds for regional development that Copenhagen summit last week and, after nearly five years, has were yet to be distributed before the final phase of negotiations. opened the door for its full-fledged membership in the Union on “In agriculture, Slovenia won the most of all the candidates,” out- May 1 2004. In the final phase of tough negotiations, the country going Agriculture Minister Franci But noted after the negotiations. managed to agree on fairly favourable financial terms of its mem- The country was somewhat less successful in negotiations on re- bership - it will be a net beneficiary of EU budget funds, receiving gional policy, but managed to secure some EUR 404 million from EUR 250 million in the first three years of membership - plus structural and cohesion funds in the first three years of member- some additional concessions. ship. However, Slovenia was given the right to negotiate its divi- sion into more than one region after 2007. This would improve its Initial Offer for Compensations Rejected chances for acquiring funds for regional development. The negotiating efforts of Slovenia also led to an agree- Slovenian negotiators, with outgoing Prime Minister ment by which the EU would contribute EUR 107 million for the Janez Drnovšek and chief negotiator Janez Potocnik at the head, establishment of the Schengen regime along the future external were satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations.
    [Show full text]
  • Slovenian Democratic Path After European Union Accession
    The Difficult Look Back: Slovenian Democratic Path after European Union Accession MIRO HAČEK Politics in Central Europe (ISSN: 1801-3422) Vol. 15, No. 3 DOI: 10.2478/pce-2019-0023 Abstract: In the third wave of democratic changes in the early 1990s when the Central and Eastern European (CEE) political landscape changed radically and the democrati‑ sation processes started in the eastern part of the continent, Slovenia was one of the most prominent countries with the best prospects for rapid democratic growth. Slove‑ nia somewhat luckily escaped the Yugoslav civil wars and towards the end of the 20th century was already on the path towards a stable and consolidated democracy with the most successful economy in the entire CEE area. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Slovenia had a simple and straight ‑forward political goals, i.e. to join the European union as soon as possible, thus consolidating its place among the most developed countries within the region. After some setbacks, this goal was accomplished in (so far) the biggest enlargement to the Union in May 2004. But what happened after Slovenia managed to successfully achieve its pair of major political goals? In this chapter, we search for an answer to this question and find out why Slovenian voters are increas‑ ingly distrustful not only of political institutions, but why so ‑called new political faces and instant political parties are so successful and why Slovenian democracy has lost a leading place among consolidated democracies in CEE. Keywords: Slovenia; European Union; membership; distrust; democracy. Introduction After declaring its independence from former Yugoslavia in 1991, the Republic of Slovenia expressed its willingness and objective, both in its strategic develop‑ ment documents and at the highest political levels, to become a full member of POLITICS IN CENTRAL EUROPE 15 (2019) 3 419 the European Union (EU).1 As the crucial developmental documents2 indicate, the optimum long ‑term development of the Slovenian economy is inextricably tied to Slovenia’s full membership in the EU.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Economic Agenda for Southeast Europe
    Max Brändle and Michael Weichert (Eds.) A New Economic Agenda for Southeast Europe June 2018 Max Brändle and Michael Weichert (Eds.) A New Economic Agenda for Southeast Europe Zagreb 2018 Contents A New Economic Agenda for Southeast Europe: Policy Recommendations 5 Jens Bastian and Max Brändle Towards A Sustainable Economic Growth and Development in the Western Balkans 13 Milica Uvalić and Vladimir Cvijanović The Experiences of the Visegrad Economies with the FDI Dependent Competition State Model 35 Zoltán Pogátsa A Coherent Growth Policy Agenda for Bulgaria 49 Gancho Todorov Ganchev A Coherent Growth Policy for Croatia 65 Josip Tica A Coherent Growth Policy for Serbia 81 Jurij Bajec Slovenia – Towards a Coherent Growth Policy 91 Milan Martin Cvikl and Anton Rop A Coherent Growth Policy for Macedonia 107 Dragan Tevdovski About the Authors 119 A New Economic Agenda for Southeast Europe Policy Recommendations Jens Bastian and Max Brändle 1. Introduction One important point of the project was that there is no ’one size fits all’-solution for the economic and 1.1 The New Economic Agenda Working Group social challenges of the countries in Southeast Eu- rope, there is not one medicine that is the panacea This volume is based on the work and discussions for all problems of the region. We rather started of a working group that has gathered with the as- from the insight, that the usual medicine of neo-lib- sistance of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Its aim was to eral economic policy measures did not deliver the describe the economic challenges and solutions intended results in the respective countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Cleavages and Government in Slovenia and Montenegro
    Cleavages and Government in Slovenia and Montenegro ALENKA KRAŠOVEC AND NEMANJA BATRIĆEVIĆ Politics in Central Europe (ISSN: 1801-3422) Vol. 16, No. 3 DOI: 10.2478/pce-2020-0027 Abstract: In this article we identify the factors that contribute to the formation and especially the durability/stability of governments in both Slovenia and Montenegro after they formally introduced multiparty systems and following their democratic transi‑ tion, with a focus on the effect of cleavages and party system characteristics generally. Although these two polities share several important similarities (small size, common institutional setting during Yugoslav era, aspirations for membership in international organisations etc.), the nature of governments’ durability/stability in the democratic era entails distinct differences. While Montenegro stands out in post ‑socialist Europe as the only case where the ruling party has not been overthrown, Slovenia has been led by many governments composed of different political parties. While it seems that in neither country are the ideological characteristics of the governments able to explain their duration/stability to any important extent, it is obvious that the cleavage structure in the two countries has varied, as has the importance of particular cleavages. Keywords: cleavage, government, duration, political party, democratisation Introduction In a typical modern representative democracy, the government is a branch of power. Discussions about governments often raise issues involving the forma‑ tion of governments as well as their duration/survival. Government formation lies at the heart of representative politics because it provides the essential connections between ordinary individuals’ preferences and the ambitions of politicians, between elections and party competition, and between legislative POLITICS IN CENTRAL EUROPE 16 (2020) 3 593 politics, policymaking and governance of the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Gutachten Zum Stand Der Politischen Und Wirtschaftlichen
    Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2003 Slovenia Status Index 9.6 Management Index 7.0 (Democracy: 5.0 / Market Economy: 4.6) System of government Parliamentary Population 2.0 Mio. Democracy GDP p. c. ($, PPP) 17,130 Voter turnout 55.5 % Unemployment rate 6.9 % Women in Parliament 12.2 % HDI 0.881 Population growth 0.5 % UN-Education Index 0.94 Largest ethnic community - Gini-Index 28.4 (1998) Figures for 2001 – if not indicated otherwise. a) Annual growth between 1975 and 2001. Sources: UNDP: Human Development Report 2003. 1. Introduction The assessment period (1998–2003) in Slovenia was marked by early parliamentary elections in 2000, as well as presidential and local elections in December 2002. All elections served to confirm support for Janez Drnovšek, who is now president. Since the first free elections in 1990 following Slovenia’s the declaration of independence from Yugoslavia, the Liberal Democratic Party of Slovenia (LDS) party led by Drnovšek has run the government with various coalition partners with only brief interruptions. Then the acting prime minister, Drnovšek first stood for election in the summer of 2002 for the office of president, and was supported by then-President Milan Kučan, who had already served the maximum two terms. As expected, Drnovšek won the runoff election in December 2002, with 56.54 % of the vote, against his opponent, Barbara Brezigar, Slovenia’s chief public prosecutor. The continuity of leadership personnel is an important hallmark of the stability and consolidation in the Slovenian transformation process. Drnovšek is a well- seasoned representative of the post-communist establishment who has proven his integration capabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • National Assembly
    Issued: august 2009. august Issued: Barlič Photo: Barbara Zajc, Marko Jamnik, Blaž Samec, Design: Studio DTS, Print layout: Multigraf d.o.o., d.o.o., Multigraf layout: Print DTS, Studio Design: Samec, Blaž Jamnik, Marko Zajc, Barbara Photo: Barlič WORKING BODIES COMMISSIONS Nina by: Translated Vrabec, Gordana by: Edited Office, Relations Public Assembly, National by: Produced 1 a.m. 1 The National Assembly establishes working bodies to monitor the state of affairs in individual areas, to prepare The National Assembly establishes commissions to examine specific common issues or to examine individual matters. 1 and 10 9, at month the of Saturday second every days: Doors Open Faks: +386 1 478 9874 478 1 +386 Faks: policy decisions in such areas, to formulate positions on particular issues and to discuss draft laws and other acts The National Assembly has the following standing commissions: 9787 478 1 +386 Tel.: of the National Assembly. Assembly National the of tours Guided • The Commission for Public Office and Elections; Chair Dušan Kumer, Phone 01 4789490 [email protected] E-mail: Matters within the same field of work are generally dealt with by only one working body, known as the working body 9857 478 1 +386 Faks: • The Commission for the Rules of Procedure; Chair Anton Anderlič, Phone 01 478 9786 9717 478 1 +386 Tel.: responsible. The President of the National Assembly determines which working body is responsible for a particular javnostmi z odnose za Služba issue. • The Commission for the National Communities; Chair László Göncz, Phone 01 4789668 www.dz-rs.si Internet: • The Commission for Public Finance Control; Chair mag.
    [Show full text]
  • Slovenia – by Sabina Kajnc1
    CFSP WATCH 2004 – Slovenia – by Sabina Kajnc1 Methodological observations The attitudes of the Slovenian Government in this report are extrapolated from the official documents of the Government2 and from the answers received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.3 The attitudes expressed in speeches and interviews by the Slovenian Foreign Minister, Dr. Dimitrij Rupel, as well as those stemming from press releases of the Ministry of foreign affairs have also been included.4 The views of the Parliament derive from the parliamentary Commission for European Affairs (hereafter referred to as the CEA), which were obtained by the means of a Questionnaire. The views of Social Democrats (an opposition party; since the elections in October 2004) are also derived from their answers to the above mentioned Questionnaire. The news and commentaries in the three main daily newspapers, Delo, Dnevnik and Veèer, have been analysed, only to find out that more detailed comments on the issues concerning CFSP/ESDP are absent from political commentaries in the Slovenian media. Public opinion observations from “Eurobarometer” and “Politbarometer” have also been considered in the preparation of this report.5 1. What are the priorities for your government in CFSP in 2004? What are the key issues for your country in 2004 (after EU enlargement, after the Iraq conflict)? The first observation concerning the priorities and key issues of the Slovenian Government in 2004 is that there is a wide consensus among the political elites in Slovenia on them and very little debate in the academic circles, media or a wider public disputing the set priorities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Slovenia
    LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY Linköping, January 2005 Department of Management and Economics MSc International and European Relations Master Thesis Tutor: Prof. Geoffrey D. Gooch Smooth and Non-Violent Democratization: The case of Slovenia Submitted by Emine Pandir Source: WorldAtlas.com Available at: http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/europe/ciamaps/si.htm Emine Pandir Master Thesis Abstract After 1989, along with the collapse of Soviet Union, Central and Eastern European countries the democracy became synonymous with ‘return to Europe’. The post-communist regime was a reaction against its predecessor and that reaction had produced a demand for democratization. Therefore, the process of democratization, which gained momentum at the end of eighties and, the beginning of the nineties, has become an important phenomenon. The most extreme case of transition, certainly, is former Yugoslavia. Due to the war and the collapse of the Federation into several successor states, the legitimacy and viability are still being questioned. The Balkan region, known as the ‘Powder Keg of Europe’ has been commonly considered to be representing a chronic political instability and a lack of socio-economic modernization as well as much poorer prospects for democratization and for acceptance into the European Union (EU) in comparison to the other countries of East and Central Europe. Slovenia however may be seen as the exception that proved the Balkan rule. Besides, the successor states of Yugoslavia, Slovenia has recorded the smoothest, non-violent and the least problematic transition toward liberal democracy. Slovenia maintained the highest level of system stability in the powder keg of Europe. Slovenia is the only Yugoslav successor state, which has peacefully established a functioning democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Star Pupil Playing It Safe in the EU an Inside View of the First Slovenian EU Council Presidency, January-June 2008 European Democracy in Action
    MANJA KLEMENČIČ Manja Klemenčič is Postdoctoral Fellow at the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies at Harvard University. A star pupil playing it safe in the EU An inside view of the first Slovenian EU Council Presidency, January-June 2008 European Democracy in Action A star pupil playing it safe in the EU Manja KLEMENČIČ An inside view of the first Slovenian European Council Presidency, January-June 2008 This paper explores the domestic political background, the organisation, and the political priorities of Slovenia’s EU Council Presidency in the first half of 2008. The paper argues that the EU Presidency serves as a powerful instrument of the further ‘Europeanisation’ of Slovenia in terms of, on the one hand, the adoption of European practices, norms and values, and on the other hand, promoting its political interests to the European level. www.notre-europe.eu e-mail : [email protected] Studies & 61 Research Studies & A Star pupil playing it safe in the EU 61 An inside view of the first Slovenian EU Research Council Presidency, January-June 2008 BY MANJA KLEMENČIČ MANJA KLEMENČIČ MANJA KLEMENČIČ IS POSTDOCTORAL FELLOW AT THE MINDA DE GUNZBURG CENTER FOR EUROPEAN STUDIES AT HARVARD Notre Europe UNIVERSITY. IN HER PHD STUDIES AT THE CENTRE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE SHE INVESTIGATED THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG MEMBER STATES IN EU Notre Europe is an independent think tank devoted to European integration. Under NEGOTIATIONS. MANJA ALSO ACTS the guidance of Jacques Delors, who created Notre Europe in 1996, the association AS AN INDEPENDENT RESEARCHER aims to “think a united Europe.” AND CONSULTANT IN SLOVENIA Our ambition is to contribute to the current public debate by producing analyses WORKING ESPECIALLY ON ISSUES and pertinent policy proposals that strive for a closer union of the peoples of RELATED TO HIGHER EDUCATION.
    [Show full text]
  • Format for Country Reports
    ECRE COUNTRY REPORT 2002: SLOVENIA ECRE COUNTRY REPORT 2002: SLOVENIA ARRIVALS 1. Total number of individual asylum seekers who arrived, with monthly breakdown and percentage variation between years: Table 1: Month 2001 2002 Variation +/-(%) January 188 39 -79.3 February 84 59 -29.8 March 150 35 -76.7 April 153 43 -71.9 May 336 63 -81.3 June 146 19 -87.0 July 107 49 -54.2 August 117 28 -76.1 September 56 35 -37.5 October 36 58 +61.1 November 59 114 +93.2 December 69 96 +39.1 TOTAL 1,501 638 -57.5 Source: UNHCR Ljubljana. Comments: The rapid decrease in the number of asylum seekers could be explained by increased border control and the process of stabilisation in former Yugoslavia. 2. Breakdown according to the country of origin/nationality, with percentage variation: Table 2: Country of origin 2001 2002 Variation +/-(%) Iraq 214 131 -38.8 FRY 205 86 -58.0 Turkey 379 73 -80.7 Algeria 44 67 +52.3 Iran 272 54 -80.1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 21 26 +23.8 Pakistan 12 24 +100.0 Russian Federation 5 23 +360.0 Others 349 154 -55.9 TOTAL 1,501 638 -57.5 Source: UNHCR Ljubljana. 3. Persons arriving under family reunification procedure: Figures unavailable. 4. Refugees arriving as part of a resettlement programme: Figures unavailable. 5. Unaccompanied minors: Figures unavailable 225 ECRE COUNTRY REPORT 2002: SLOVENIA RECOGNITION RATES 6. The statuses accorded as an absolute number and as a percentage of total decisions: Table 3: Status 2001 2002 Number % Number % No status 97 1.0 202 24.9 Convention status 1 0.01 *1 0.1 Humanitarian status 24 0.2 2 0.2 Otherwise closed 9,918 98.8 607 74.8 TOTAL 10,040 100 812 100 Source: UNHCR Ljubljana.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic Consolidation in South Eastern Europe : Slovenia In
    DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION IN SOUTH EASTERN EUROPE- SLOVENIA IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Cameron Paul Broten Bachelor of Arts, University of Saskatchewan, 2002 PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In the Department of Political Science O Cameron Paul Broten 2003 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY November 2003 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Cameron Broten Degree: MA Political Science Title of Project: Democratic Consolidation in South Eastern Europe - Slovenia in Comparative Perspective Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Tsuyoshi Kawasaki Associate Professor T - - 6r. ~eni~ohdn Senior Supervisor Professor 17. %. Aldxahder Moens Supervisor Professor p.Andre Gerolymatos Examiner Professor History Department Simon Fraser University Date Approved: /do I/- 203 3 I PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENCE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis, project or extended essay (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Title of ThesislResearch ProjectlExtended Essay: Democratic Consolidation in South Eastern Europe - Slovenia in Comparative Perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberal Democracy in Slovenia Political Transformation
    10 Liberal Democracy in Slovenia From Seventh Heaven to the Lobby of Hell in Only Two Decades? Alenka Krašovec and Sabrina P. Ramet For the last twenty-five years, some of the most prominent international organizations (Freedom House, Transparency International, the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Amnesty International, and the Human Development Report) have repeatedly characterized Slovenia as a champion among Yugoslav successor states for its development of liberal democracy. Nevertheless, aspects in many areas of Slovene democratic and economic life have changed or worsened in the last several years, while signs of stagnation have also been recorded in other areas. It therefore appears to be an appropriate time to assess Slovenia’s progress in developing a liberal democratic system, focusing in particular on characteristics of the party arena, the costs of transformation of its economic system, problems of corruption, and the young republic’s record in establishing independent media and in protecting ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities. Political Transformation At the end of May 1988, at a time when Slovenia was still part of the Socialist Federated Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), the Military Council of the Ljubljana District of the 1 Yugoslav National Army (JNA) had three Slovenian journalists and one army sergeant arrested and put on trial. The charge brought against them was that they had published secret documents showing that the JNA had been preparing to arrest a number of liberals in Slovenia and put an end to efforts to democratize the republic. The army magnified the offense to Slovenian public opinion by conducting the trial in Serbo- Croatian, even though it was being held in Ljubljana, Slovenia’s capital.
    [Show full text]