DOCSLIB.ORG

5. the Case of Slovenia By: Igor Guardiancich

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
5. the Case of Slovenia By: Igor Guardiancich 5. The case of Slovenia By: Igor Guardiancich List of acronyms DeSUS – Democratic Party of Pensioners of Slovenia DLGV – Civic List of Gregor Virant EMU – Economic and Monetary Union ESS – Economic and Social Council EU – European Union GZS – Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia IER – Institute for Economic Research IMF – International Monetary Fund KNSS Neodvisnost – Confederation of New Trade Unions of Slovenia, Independence Konfederacija ’90 – Confederation of Trade Unions ’90 of Slovenia KSJS – Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovenian Public Sector KSS Pergam – Confederation of Trade Unions of Slovenia, Pergam LDS – Liberal Democracy of Slovenia OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OZS – Chamber of Craft and Small Businesses of Slovenia NSi – New Slovenia PS – Positive Slovenia SD – Social Democrats SDOS – Union of State Organs of Slovenia SDS – Slovenian Democratic Party SLS – Slovenian People’s Party SNS – Slovenian National Party SVIZ – Education, Training and Science Union Zares – For Real – New Politics ZDOPS – Association of Employers for Crafts and of Entrepreneurs of Slovenia ZDS – Association of Employers of Slovenia ZDUS – Union of Associations of Pensioners ZLSD – United List of Social Democrats ZPIZ – Institute for Pension and Disability Insurance ZRSZ – Employment Service of Slovenia ZSSS – Association of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia ZZZS – Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia 95 CHAPTER 5 | THE CASE OF SLOVENIA Introduction1 Until the global financial crisis hit Slovenia in late 2008, the tiny republic was regarded as the post-socialist success story. After breaking away from Yugoslavia in 1990–91, Slovenia embarked on a gradual transition to a market economy and liberal democracy. Under the guidance of Janez Drnovšek’s Liberal Democracy (LDS), Slovenia prepared and fulfilled the conditions for membership of the European Union (it joined the Union in 2004), and of the Economic and Monetary Union (in 2007). Gradualism, bipartisan government, and constructive social dialogue at the national, sectoral and firm levels characterized the period 1992–2004. Nation-wide social pacts and encompassing sectoral collective agreements set firm developmental guidelines for the country’s industrial relations. This started to change in 2004: the Slovenian right-wing/conservative bloc, led by Janez Janša’s SDS, tried to shake up the economy through neoliberal policies and by uprooting the ruling socio-economic elites through the widespread reappointment of cadres. Most of his domestic reform attempts failed due to the consensual nature of Slovenian policy-making, and his imperative style was severely punished at the 2008 elections. As a consequence of stagnation and the drift into economic populism, the next, centre- left coalition government inherited a very unfavourable position with which to successfully deal with the looming economic and financial crisis. The financial crisis hit Slovenia with full force, despite 15 years of sustained growth, low unemployment, and moderate inflation. GDP fell by 8.0 per cent in 2009 and has not recovered since; unemployment almost doubled and most socio-economic indicators fell back to pre-accession levels. Four interrelated weaknesses are to be blamed. First, gradualism and lack of structural reforms went hand in hand, leading to postponements of the necessary restructuring in finance, tertiary education, the judiciary, health care, pensions, family benefits, and the labour market. Second, a wave of insider privatization in the mid-2000s distracted owners from productive investment, as most loans were used for ownership consolidation. Third, the economy entered a low productivity and low-value-added ‘trap’, where Slovenian firms could not compete with either the more productive West or the less expensive East. Fourth, a construction investment boom abruptly ended, leading to the bankruptcy of all major Slovenian construction companies. The crisis has been dealt with by two governments: a centre-left coalition led by Borut Pahor of the Social Democrats (SD), which ruled during 2008–11, and the centre-right coalition under the premiership of Janez Janša, which came to power in 2012. Both governments announced the intention to respect social dialogue and negotiate through the traditional tripartite forums. The first Pahor Government was unprepared, and committed the fundamental mistake of underestimating the severity of the crisis, which meant it did too little and acted too late. On the positive side, the short-term anti-crisis measures successfully prevented unemployment from skyrocketing, while on the negative side, the thorough reform plan that Pahor announced, also as a response to the EU and OECD requests, miserably failed. The most important structural reforms (pensions and the labour market) were defeated through various referendums in 2011, leading to the Government’s demise. The second Janša Government has so far adopted some sensible measures: its ministers drew up a fiscal consolidation plan that was approved with the consent of the social partners, allowing for a credible budget revision. Even though Janša seems to have learned from past mistakes, testified by the Government’s commitment to social dialogue, the road ahead is bumpy. Controversial reforms, such as that of the labour market, lie ahead, and given the critical situation, failure is not an option. The paper proceeds as follows: Part 2 describes the industrial relations that were set up before the economic and financial crisis, in particular, it delineates the actors involved, as well as the main features of 1 I would like to express my gratitude to journalist Mario Belovicˇ, who greatly helped me with collecting the necessary material to write this contribution. 96 RECOVERING FROM THE CRISIS THROUGH SOCIAL DIALOGUE IN THE NEW EU MEMBER STATES : THE CASE OF BULGARIA, THE CZECH REPUBLIC, POLAND AND SLOVENIA collective bargaining; Part 3 is dedicated to the description of the role played by social dialogue during the beginning of the attempted recovery; Section 3.1 analyses the impact of the crisis on the Slovenian economy and its labour market; Section 3.2 and 3.3 present the two sets of anti-crisis measures proposed by the Pahor I Government. Whereas short-term interventions successfully shielded the labour market from total collapse in 2008–09, important structural reforms led to the breakdown of social dialogue in 2010–11. Part 4 is dedicated to the operations of the Janša II government in 2012: the approval of the Public Finance Balance Act, and the negotiations for a new social pact for 2012–16. Part 5 offers some concluding remarks. 1. Industrial relations set up before the economic and financial crisis Among post-socialist countries, Slovenian social partners strengthened their socio-economic role during the transition. Trade unions represent both public and private employees, but their influence has been steadily declining, as union membership dropped from roughly two thirds in the early 1990s to some 29.7 per cent in 2010. Employer associations are prominent as well, and they retain high representativeness. Nevertheless, changes in their institutional structure may in the near future reduce their capacity to negotiate collective agreements. There are also various tripartite forums, of these, the Economic and Social Council (Ekonomsko- socialni svet, ESS) wields disproportionate power with respect to socio-economic legislation, producing yearly or biannual national social pacts. Sectoral and firm-level collective bargaining is thriving, but detailed records at the company level are missing. In other words, Slovenia has had a well-developed social dialogue, which somewhat deteriorated in the aftermath of the global financial crisis (Guardiancich, 2012). 1.1 Who are the actors of Industrial Relations in the country? The Pahor I and Janša II Governments In the period when the global financial crisis hit Slovenia, two distinct government coalitions ruled the country. The Pahor I executive (21 November 2008 – 10 February 2012) was composed of three centre- left parties: the Social Democrats (Socialni demokrati, SD), the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia (Liberalna demokracija Slovenije, LDS), the Party For Real (Zares - nova politika, Zares), and the single-issue Democratic Party of Pensioners of Slovenia (Demokraticˇna stranka upokojencev Slovenije, DeSUS); the Premier was Borut Pahor (SD). The following Janša II executive was instead composed of four centre-right parties: the Slovenian Democratic Party (Slovenska demokratska stranka, SDS), the New Slovenia (Nova Slovenija, NSi), the Civic List of Gregor Virant (Državljanska lista Gregorja Viranta, DLGV), the Slovenian People’s Party (Slovenska ljudska stranka, SLS) and, again, the single-issue DeSUS; on this occasion the premier was Janez Janša (SDS). Borut Pahor’s Social Democrats won the 2008 elections after four years of the Janša I government. As this was the first centre-right coalition that ruled in the country after 12 years of LDS domination, Janša prepared an all-out attack against gradualism, social-democratic policies and leftist oligarchies. He hired the so- called young economists, headed by the Minister for Reforms Jože Damjan who drew an ambitious reform agenda, which envisaged neoliberal reforms, including a flat tax rate and the liberalization of the labour market. However, Janša’s disrespect for social dialogue clashed against Slovenian traditional consensus- making practices. None of the structural reforms
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pension Reforms in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe: Legislation, Implementation and Sustainability
    Department of Political and Social Sciences Pension Reforms in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe: Legislation, Implementation and Sustainability Igor Guardiancich Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Political and Social Sciences of the European University Institute Florence, October 2009 EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE Department of Political and Social Sciences Pension Reforms in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe: Legislation, Implementation and Sustainability Igor Guardiancich Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Political and Social Sciences of the European University Institute Examining Board: Prof. Martin Rhodes, University of Denver/formerly EUI (Supervisor) Prof. Nicholas Barr, London School of Economics Prof. Martin Kohli, European University Institute Prof. Tine Stanovnik, Univerza v Ljubljani © 2009, Igor Guardiancich No part of this thesis may be copied, reproduced or transmitted without prior permission of the author Guardiancich, Igor (2009), Pension Reforms in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe: Legislation, implementation and sustainability European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/1700 Guardiancich, Igor (2009), Pension Reforms in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe: Legislation, implementation and sustainability European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/1700 Acknowledgments No PhD dissertation is a truly individual endeavour and this one is no exception to the rule. Rather it is a collective effort that I managed with the help of a number of people, mostly connected with the EUI community, to whom I owe a huge debt of gratitude. In particular, I would like to thank all my interviewees, my supervisors Prof. Martin Rhodes and Prof. Martin Kohli, as well as Prof. Tine Stanovnik for continuing intellectual support and invaluable input to the thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Slovenia Have Been Remarkable
    Mrak/Rojec/Silva-Jáur lovenia’s achievements over the past several years Slovenia have been remarkable. Thirteen years after Public Disclosure Authorized independence from the former Socialist Federative egui Republic of Yugoslavia, the country is among the most advanced of all the transition economies in Central and Eastern Europe and a leading candidate for accession to the European Union Sin May 2004. Remarkably, however, very little has been published Slovenia documenting this historic transition. Fr om Y In the only book of its kind, the contributors—many of them the architects of Slovenia’s current transformation—analyze the country’s three-fold ugoslavia to the Eur transition from a socialist to a market economy, from a regionally based to a national economy, and from being a part of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia to being an independent state and a member of the European Union (EU). With chapters from Slovenia’s president, a former vice prime minister, Public Disclosure Authorized the current and previous ministers of finance, the minister of European affairs, the current and former governors of the Bank of Slovenia, as well as from leading development scholars in Slovenia and abroad, this unique opean Union collection synthesizes Slovenia’s recent socioeconomic and political history and assesses the challenges ahead. Contributors discuss the Slovenian style of socioeconomic transformation, analyze Slovenia’s quest for EU membership, and place Slovenia’s transition within the context of the broader transition process taking place in Central and Eastern Europe. Of interest to development practitioners and to students and scholars of the region, Slovenia: From Yugoslavia to the European Union is a From Yugoslavia comprehensive and illuminating study of one country’s path to political and economic independence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Slovenia
    “A Short History of Quotas in Slovenia” Sonja Lokar Chair, Gender Task Force of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe A paper presented at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)/CEE Network for Gender Issues Conference The Implementation of Quotas: European Experiences Budapest, Hungary, 22–23 October 2004 The Communist-dominated Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia was formed after the Second World War. Slovenia became the most developed of its six federal republics, gaining independence in the early 1990s. This case study looks at the participation of women in Slovenia before and after the break-up of the Former Yugoslavia, and examines the evolution of quota provisions that have been implemented to secure women’s participation in decision-making. Background Women in Slovenia were granted the universal right to vote for the first time in 1945, along with equality with men. At the beginning of the 1970s, some of Yugoslavia’s strongest Communist women leaders were deeply involved in the preparations for the first United Nations (UN) World Conference on Women in Mexico. They were clever enough to persuade old Communist Party leaders, Josip Broz Tito and his right-hand man Edvard Kardelj, that the introduction of the quota for women—with respect to the decision-making bodies of all political organizations and delegate lists—had implications for Yugoslavia’s international reputation.1 Communist women leaders worked hard to make Socialist Yugoslavia a role model (in terms of the emancipation of
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences
    Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining Vote for Populist Parties: the Impact of the Political Trust, the Economic and the Political Context Danilo Serani De
    Explaining vote for populist parties: the impact of the political trust, the economic and the political context Danilo Serani Department of Political and Social Sciences Universitat Pompeu Fabra [email protected] Abstract Over the last decades, the uneven electoral success of populist parties in Europe sparked the interest of many scholars. Until now, special attention has been devoted only to radical (especially right-wing) populist parties, at the same time as the impact of political trust on the vote for these parties has not been sufficiently addressed. In this paper, I focus on the direct and conditional effects of the trust in the main political actors on the vote for radical and non-radical populist parties. By using data from the European Social Survey (2004- 2014), this paper investigates the association between political trust and the Great Recession, as well as with the ideological convergence of the establishment parties. The results seem to confirm that political (dis)trust has a direct impact on the vote for a populist party, and its effects are accentuated during a crisis and when the establishment parties converge to the center. Key words Political trust, voting behavior, populism, multilevel analysis, economic crisis Paper prepared for the WAPOR Conference, Barcelona, November 24-25th 2016 This is a draft, please do not quote or circulate without author’s permission Introduction Over the last three decades, Europe witnessed the spread of the third wave of populism (Mudde, 2007). Far from being a transitory anomaly of liberal democracies, populist challengers of the establishment parties managed themselves to consolidate their position in the party systems.
    [Show full text]
  • European Election Study 2014 EES 2014 Voter Study First Post-Electoral Study
    European Election Study 2014 EES 2014 Voter Study First Post-Electoral Study Release Notes Sebastian Adrian Popa Hermann Schmitt Sara B Hobolt Eftichia Teperoglou Original release 1 January 2015 MZES, University of Mannheim Acknowledgement of the data Users of the data are kindly asked to acknowledge use of the data by always citing both the data and the accompanying release document. How to cite this data: Schmitt, Hermann; Popa, Sebastian A.; Hobolt, Sara B.; Teperoglou, Eftichia (2015): European Parliament Election Study 2014, Voter Study. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5160 Data file Version 2.0.0, doi:10.4232/1. 12300 and Schmitt H, Hobolt SB and Popa SA (2015) Does personalization increase turnout? Spitzenkandidaten in the 2014 European Parliament elections. European Union Politics, Online first available for download from: http://eup.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/06/03/1465116515584626.full How to cite this document: Sebastian Adrian Popa, Hermann Schmitt, Sara B. Hobolt, and Eftichia Teperoglou (2015) EES 2014 Voter Study Advance Release Notes. Mannheim: MZES, University of Mannheim. Acknowledgement of assistance The 2014 EES voter study was funded by a consortium of private foundations under the leadership of Volkswagen Foundation (the other partners are: Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, Stiftung Mercator, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian). It profited enormously from to synergies that emerged from the co-operation with the post-election survey funded by the European Parliament. Last but certainly not least, it benefited from the generous support of TNS Opinion who did the fieldwork in all the 28 member countries . The study would not have been possible the help of many colleagues, both members of the EES team and country experts form the wider academic community, who spent valuable time on the questionnaire and study preparation, often at very short notice.
    [Show full text]
  • CEE 1992-2001 & Western Europe
    Genuinely New Parties in Eastern Europe Appendix to Sikk, Allan (2005). “How Unstable? Volatility and the Genuinely New Parties in Eastern Europe,” European Journal of Political Research, 44(1): 391-412. The following tables show vote and seat shares for genuinely new parties. Other parties that might be considered new are listed with comments on why they do not qualify as genuinely extra- parliamentary. The comments are normally derived from Rose et al (1998), references are given only to other sources. Bulgaria 1991 votes% seats% 6 BANU Nikola Petkov 3.4 0.0 7 UDF (Centre) 3.2 0.0 8 UDF (Liberal) 2.8 0.0 9 Kingdom of Bulgaria 1.8 0.0 10 Bulgarian Business Bloc 1.3 0.0 11 Bulgarian National Radicals 1.1 0.0 13 Bulgarian Communists 0.7 0.0 Others and independents 6.6 0.0 11.5 0.0 6, 7 and 8 were successors of Union of Democratic forces (2) in 1990. Bulgaria 1994 votes% seats% 3 BANU 6.5 7.5 9 Kingdom of Bulgaria 1.4 0.0 10 Bulgarian Business Bloc 4.7 5.4 11 Bulgarian National Radicals 0.5 0.0 13 Bulgarian Communists 1.5 0.0 Others and independents 5.6 0.0 13.7 5.4 3 was present in parliament until 1991. Bulgaria 1997 votes% seats% 11 Bulgarian National Radicals 0.2 0.0 13 Bulgarian Communists 1.2 0.0 16 Alliance for National Salvation 7.7 7.9 Others and independents 3.5 0.0 4.9 0.0 16 is a merger of Movement for Rights and Freedom (4) and Kingdom of Bulgaria (9).
    [Show full text]
  • Slovenia Country Report BTI 2018
    BTI 2018 Country Report Slovenia This report is part of the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI) 2018. It covers the period from February 1, 2015 to January 31, 2017. The BTI assesses the transformation toward democracy and a market economy as well as the quality of political management in 129 countries. More on the BTI at http://www.bti-project.org. Please cite as follows: Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2018 Country Report — Slovenia. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2018. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Contact Bertelsmann Stiftung Carl-Bertelsmann-Strasse 256 33111 Gütersloh Germany Sabine Donner Phone +49 5241 81 81501 [email protected] Hauke Hartmann Phone +49 5241 81 81389 [email protected] Robert Schwarz Phone +49 5241 81 81402 [email protected] Sabine Steinkamp Phone +49 5241 81 81507 [email protected] BTI 2018 | Slovenia 3 Key Indicators Population M 2.1 HDI 0.890 GDP p.c., PPP $ 32885 Pop. growth1 % p.a. 0.1 HDI rank of 188 25 Gini Index 25.7 Life expectancy years 81.1 UN Education Index 0.915 Poverty3 % 0.0 Urban population % 49.6 Gender inequality2 0.053 Aid per capita $ - Sources (as of October 2017): The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2017 | UNDP, Human Development Report 2016. Footnotes: (1) Average annual growth rate. (2) Gender Inequality Index (GII). (3) Percentage of population living on less than $3.20 a day at 2011 international prices. Executive Summary From January 2015 to January 2017, the political situation in Slovenia began to stabilize, although heated debates occurred and several ministers resigned or were replaced.
    [Show full text]
  • Political History of the Balkans (1989–2018) This Page Intentionally Left Blank POLITICAL HISTORY of the BALKANS (1989–2018) Edited by József Dúró – Zoltán Egeresi
    The Balkan Peninsula has played a crucial role in human history many times. The region framed the 20th century. The end of the Political History of the Balkans Cold War also had a significant effect on the region as it resulted (1989–2018) in bloody wars, economic collapse and complicated political transitions. The 2000s and 2010s opened the way towards EU membership, as many countries received candidate status and launched accession negotiations – however, this process has recently been facing obstacles. Political History This volume provides a general overview of the Post-Cold War history of the Balkans and explores the dynamics behind these tremendous changes ranging from democratic transitions to EU prospects. The authors describe the transitional period, the evolution of the political system and highlight the most important of the Balkans political developments in each country in the region. We recommend this book to those who seek a deeper insight into the recent history of the Balkans and a deeper understanding of its political developments. (1989–2018) POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE BALKANS (1989—2018) POLITICAL HISTORY The work was created in commission of the National University of Public Service under the priority project PACSDOP-2.1.2-CCHOP-15-2016-00001 entitled “Public Service Development Establishing Good Governance”. Zoltán Egeresi (eds.): Egeresi Zoltán — József Dúró József Edited by JÓZSEF DÚRÓ European Social Fund ZOLTÁN EGERESI INVESTING IN YOUR FUTURE Political History of the Balkans (1989–2018) This page intentionally left blank POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE BALKANS (1989–2018) Edited by József Dúró – Zoltán Egeresi Dialóg Campus Budapest, 2020 The work was created in commission of the National University of Public Service under the priority project PACSDOP-2.1.2-CCHOP-15-2016-00001 entitled “Public Service Development Establishing Good Governance”.
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook: Government Composition, 1960-2019
    Codebook: Government Composition, 1960-2019 Codebook: SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPARATIVE POLITICAL DATA SET – GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION 1960-2019 Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann The Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set provides detailed information on party composition, reshuffles, duration, reason for termination and on the type of government for 36 democratic OECD and/or EU-member countries. The data begins in 1959 for the 23 countries formerly included in the CPDS I, respectively, in 1966 for Malta, in 1976 for Cyprus, in 1990 for Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, in 1991 for Poland, in 1992 for Estonia and Lithuania, in 1993 for Latvia and Slovenia and in 2000 for Croatia. In order to obtain information on both the change of ideological composition and the following gap between the new an old cabinet, the supplement contains alternative data for the year 1959. The government variables in the main Comparative Political Data Set are based upon the data presented in this supplement. When using data from this data set, please quote both the data set and, where appropriate, the original source. Please quote this data set as: Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann. 2021. Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set – Government Composition 1960-2019. Zurich: Institute of Political Science, University of Zurich. These (former) assistants have made major contributions to the dataset, without which CPDS would not exist. In chronological and descending order: Angela Odermatt, Virginia Wenger, Fiona Wiedemeier, Christian Isler, Laura Knöpfel, Sarah Engler, David Weisstanner, Panajotis Potolidis, Marlène Gerber, Philipp Leimgruber, Michelle Beyeler, and Sarah Menegal.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the Euromanifestos Dataset 1979/1999 and 2004
    EUROMANIFESTO DOCUMENTATION Daniela Braun, Maike Salzwedel, Christian Stumpf and Andreas M. Wüst This file compiles all relevant information on the Euromanifesto collection, on missing Euromanifestos, on the coding, on additional variables provided by the coders, and the information on all variables included in the Euromanifesto dataset. The latter information also contains macro data for each country, party, and election, like vote shares, seats and parliamentary group membership. For the analytical variables that have been computed and used for analyses, the SPSS syntax is documented as well. The documentation includes information divided into the following five parts: 1. Coded Euromanifestos 1979–2004 2. Euromanifestos Coding Scheme (EMCS) 3. Euromanifesto Coding Instructions 4. Additional Information Provided by Coders 5. Description of the Euromanifestos Dataset Version 31/05/2012 GESIS study no. ZA4457 doi:10.4232/1.4457 1 Coded Euromanifestos 1979–2004 EUROPE (Euro-Parties) Initials Party Name EM-ID Elections Manifestos first-last not available EPP-ED European People’s Party-European Democrats 10600 1979-2004 - PES Party of European Socialists 10300 1979-2004 - ELDR European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party 10400 1979-2004 - EFGP European Federation of Green Parties 10100 1989-2004 - AUSTRIA Initials Party Name EM-ID Elections Manifestos first-last not available SPÖ Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs 42320 1996-2004 - Social Democratic Party of Austria ÖVP Österreichische Volkspartei 42520 1996-2004 - Austrian People’s Party
    [Show full text]