ECES

CZECH REPUBLIC: TWO DECADES OF SOCIAL CHANGE

ECES – SPRING 2013JAN SLÁDEK, DEPT. OF SOCIOLOGY

Introduction

Overview

Introduction, course requirements A (really) short walk through syllabus Discussion: your points of view/interests Four rendez-vous with czech history

ECES, Jan Sládek, [email protected]

2

Introduction, course requirements

Contact: [email protected], GSM +420 775 999 689 Put ECES into subject Office: Celetna 20, 113 wed

13-14hod Jansladek.eu

Midterm Exam 25 % - 8apr Participation 10 %

Send topic until 11.3. 2013 Presentation 30 % Final Exam 35 % 22may

The seminars consist of discussing short texts or relevant topics (covered in lectures), watching documentaries and presentations of students. Depending on the availability, relevant cultural events (i.e. exhibitions) are included as well.

3


mailto:[email protected]

A (really) short walk through syllabus

Course overview – basic timeline of the development in CR (one week)

Velvet Revolution – the paths of change Central European Countries: united in post-

communism? (+ midterm exam) Changes after 1989 as viewed by the people of

CR Privatisation and restitution: A case of housing

reforms Czech higher education after 1989 Summanry and Final exam (one week)ECES, Jan Sládek, [email protected]

4

Your points of view/interests

Goals in the syllabus: Understand basic concepts of social change Gain insight into specific topics Get information about key changes and available

data describing transformation in CR Your own goals

What would you like to learn here? What would you like to present in the class?


5

The stories of famous „eights“ (more or less)1918, 1938, 1948, 1968

Four rendez-vous with Czech history

6


1918-1939: The „First Republic“ 1914-1918

Negotiations in exile Fall of Austro-Hungarian

Empire 28.10. 1918 – 31.12. 1992

Czechoslovakia, yet various changes

28.9. , 28.10., 1.1. – state days

Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, the first president („The Father“), sociologist, book on suicide

7



1938: The Munich agreement Negotiators – Adolf

Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Benito Mussolini and Édouard Daladier

29-30.9. 1938 – resolution

The fatal dilemma, March 1939 - annexion

The Sudet conflict, the decrets of pres. Beneš

9


1948: The Communists take-over In May 1946 Klement

Gottwald, leader of the communist party, managed to win the elections with astonishing success with 38% of the votes. (KSČ, KSČM)

Czech coup, „Victorious February“

On 25 February 1948, Beneš, fearful of civil war and Soviet intervention, capitulated and appointed a new government under Gottwald's leadership

The normalisation years, stalinism

10


1968: The prague spring / invasion France…May 68,

Czechoslovakian Socialist Republic (CSSR) – Spring: „socialism with human face“

21.8. 1968 Exile, asanation,

temporary stay of Soviet Army

Jan Palach, the Torch no. 1, Jan Zajíc, Zdeněk Adamec (2003)

11


Jan Palach (11.8. 1948 – 16/19.1.1969)

12


CZECH REPUBLIC: TWO DECADES OF SOCIAL CHANGE

ECES – Spring 2013JAN SLÁDEK, DEPT. OF SOCIOLOGY

Discussion: What does totalitarianism mean to you? Authoritarian regimes x

totaliratian Václav Havel: post-totalitarianism Raymond Aron

grants to a party the monopoly of the political activity

The monopolistic party is animated or armed with one ideology = Truth

double monopoly, the monopoly of the means of force and that of the means of persuasion

majority of the economic activities and professional are subjected to the State

politization, an ideological transfiguration of all the possible faults of the individuals

Hannah Arendt: public / state / private

14


Short case study: The process with M. Horáková 25 December 1901 – 27 June

1950 Strong antinazi 1945-48: MP 27 September 1949: Arrested The trial was staged to imitate

„Soviet Great Purges“ of 1930s Radio (not TV), Societ advisors Prosecutors: Ludmila Horáková

Polednová; Josef Urválek 8. June: Sentenced to death,

hanged Movie recordings found in 2005 The verdict was cancelled in

June 1968

15


Charta 77 / Charter 77

Civic initiative 1976-1992, Jan Patočka, V. Havel Document Charter 77 – January 77 Motivation: arrest of The Plastic People of the Universe The document went worldwide (Le Monde) Critisized the failure to implement human rights in CSSR

(despite the legal obligation of the State) Legacy: the dissent / underground; „non-political

policy“….and Anti-charta, StB => The Commitee for the Defense of the Unjustly Persecuted


16

1989: The Velvet Revolution I 17. Nov: The Day of the

students‘ fight for freedom (1939…)

1989: peaceful demonstration suppressed („the dead student rumour“) => mass prostests, general strikes

Outside CSSR: Collapse of Warsav Pact => 28.11. KSČ dismanted single-party state

17


1989: The Velvet Revolution II December 1989 – first

non-communist (largely) government appointed, Havel elected for president

June 1990 – First democratic elections (opposed to communist elections); the Civic Forum

Theatres, cultural movement => government, MPs

The „grey zone“ What about communist?

18


The Velvet Divorce: 1.1. 1993

The entities Czech Republic and Slovakia known from 1969; „two equal nations“

1939: „The First Slovak Republic“, approved by Hitler, „clero-fascism“, reunited after 1945

in a September 1992 poll, only 37% of Slovaks and 36% of Czechs favored dissolution

The inevitable argument?...stereotypes, history, personalities of political leaders

Czech and Slovak histories only converge in the period 1918–1993

Most federal assets were divided in a ratio of 2 to 1


19

Main persons: Václav Havel 5 October 1936, rich family,

„bourgeois history“ => apprenticeship

Playwriter – absurd theatre Letters to Olga (from prison) More popular abroad than

home Very pro-western –

„humanitarian bombing“ (NATO bombing Yugoslavia)

Revolution of „hearts and souls“

20


Main persons: Václav Klaus 19 June 1941 Economist, Civic Democratic

Party (ex), conservative, eurosceptic, Thatcher of CEE

position in the Czechoslovakian State Bank with permission to travel abroad, a rare privilege (1971-1986)

1987 Klaus joined the Prognostics Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences

Minister of Finance, later Prime Minister, now President

21


Main persons: Valtr Komárek

10.8. 1930 Studied in Moscow,

1964-67 counsellor to „Che“

Director of the Prognostics Institute

Social Democrat

22


Main persons: Miloš Zeman

28 September 1944 Leader of Czech

Social Democratic Party, 1998-2002 PM

Now retired, ex from Party

Rival of Klaus

23


Main persons: Václav Bělohradský

17.1. 1944 Philosopher, student of

Jan Patočka Exiled 1969 to Italy –

„double exile“ The debate about Truth

(Havel: „Living in Truth“ x „VB: Truth is a product of systems“

Supported Klaus until 1998

24


Main persons: Vladimír Železný 3 March 1945 Media mogul, politician

(Senate, EP), convicted (tax evasion)

TV NOVA – First private TV, „Call the Director“

E.g. Commentaries on 2000 IMF riots in Prague

Now Libertas.cz

25


The election of 1998


26

The Opposition Agreement

„The agreement on creating a stable political environment in the Czech Republic“, 1998

Divison of power positions in czech politics and economic (boards)

CDP will cannot vote „no-trust“ No negotiations with other parties „Great coalition“ ? … Prague Magistrate Legacy: Impuls 99 and „Thank you, now

leave“ECES, Jan Sládek, [email protected]

27

The crisis in the Czech TV

Problem: The Boards regulation Czech public media being divided according to the current political power => 12.12. New Director => petition

Riots => „double-vision“ from 24.12. 2000 – 9.1. 2001, strike, occupation of TV

Jana Bobošíková (now Suverenita), ex-advisor to Václav Klaus, „Bobovision“

Vladimír Železný – supported Bobošíková in his „Call the Director“


28

Transtitology

Studying a process of regime change, usually meant from authoritarian to democratic

Mainly african, Latin American and CEE countries Criticism:

Euro/US centred Teleology (things are explained not by „because“, but using „in

order to“) Where from…and…where to? Unclear border between academical debate and political

campaign


29

Transtitology: The case of CR

Communism Shortage economy State driven „Nomenklatura“ State owned Totalitarism

Capitalism Consumer society Market driven Meritocracy Private ownership Democracy

From? To?

30


Shortage economy Janos Kornai (Hungary)

frequent, intensive and chronic shortages

occur in all spheres of the economy

shortages are occasionally replaced by situations of surplus

Queueing involves a considerable cost in terms of time spent => waiting lists (i.e. power control)

planners blame the shortages on the fact that consumers demand "wrong things„

? The dark side of consumerism ?

31


Nomenklatura Group of people holding key

positions Granted only by approval of the

Party The list of positions – list of

candidates=> Patron – client

Milovan Djilas: The New Class x Trotskyism (caste)

Lenin‘s criteria: reliability, political attitude, qualifications, and administrative ability

Party Building and Cadre Work Department

32


The shock therapy x gradualism debate

Faster pace People have to sacrifice

for better future Clear goal – installing

market economy in as much areas as possible

Methodological individualism

Slower pace Against „there-is-no-

alternative“ (TINA) argument; path dependency

Goal unclear, reforms rather on institutional level (inst. economics)

Shock Therapy Gradualism

33


CEE COUNTRIES IN TRANSITION

The definiton of CEE Varies accross the texts and

conceptions, i.e. more political than geographical term

Usually Poland, CR, SR, Hungary, Bulgaria parts of former Yugoslavia…and (?) former Eastern Germany, sometimes the Baltic republics

Aka „Eastern bloc“, Iron Curtain Warsaw pact Former „Mitteleuropa“ Different in various statistics Convergenece / divergence

debate

35


CEE: The case of Poland

From 1989: Third polish Republic Peaceful revolutions, Round table, 1989

Sejm: 1/3 Comm; 1/3 Coalition; 1/3 election Communists failed in elections and lost presidency (Jaruzelski)

Workers‘ movement: Solidarity, Gdansk Shipyard strike, 1980, 75 killed /Lech Walesa, president 1990-95/

Gdansk agreement: independent trade union, i.e. civil society Solidarity: 10 milion people nationwide (quarter of population)


36

CEE: The case of Hungary I.

From 1949 – Stalinist Era; Matyas Rakosi; Hungarian working people party

Vehement resistance => hard repression 23.10 – 10.11 1956: Hungarian Uprising

Student demonstration; against Soviet influence 20,000 people, soviet tanks in Budapest Hundreds arrested in aftermath

After 1989: „smooth“ transition, Oct. 1989 „democratic package“, revision of constitution, last congress of Communist Party


37

CEE: The case of Eastern Germany

From 1949 – 1990; DDR Soviet influence / occupation until 1955; Yalta

conference 1945 Weakened by reparations, brain drain 1961: Berlin Wall 1980s: Two German states in one nation 1989: exiles (legal/ilegal), leipzig

demonstrations


38



CEE: The case of Romania

1947-1989: Communism 1950: „independece“ 1958: withdrawal of Soviet troops 1965: Nicolas Caucescu 1968: non-intervention in CSSR Harsh persecution, dictatorship 1987: Brasov Rebellion Dec 1989: fights, 25 NC and

and his wife shot


41

Discussion: Causes and…solutions?

Roma and social exclusion42


Comment on the current situation in the CR

The (un)solidarity of deprived – loss of hope http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfF7zvhlEko http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_H4vlsScI4 „Inadjustables“ One of the arrested – herself unemployed The PM: You have to work harder


43

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfF7zvhlEko

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_H4vlsScI4

The situation of Roma in the Czech Republic

Contents History Facts and figures Institutions in CZ to integrate Roma Problems

Education Unemployment Housing

History Origin of Roma→ India Roma came first to Europe in the Middle Ages Persecution, especially during Nationalsocialism

Concentration camps in CZ for Roma in Lety u Písku and Hodonín)

During communism: The regime tried to assimilate Roma

After communism: Roma were ignored; first losers of the process of transformation Appearance of Roma-ghettos

Since the middle of 1990s: Integration of Roma is strived

Facts and figures I Officially 12.000 Roma are living in CZ

(population census 2001) Estimation of the Coucil of Europe:

~200.000 Roma =2% of total population =the largest minority in CZ Ranking: 6th place within EU-members

concerning the number of Roma (after Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and Greece)

Facts and figures II Most cz Roma live in northwestern Bohemia

and eastern Moravia Roma in CZ are very unpopular (trend of

racism): Only 14% Czechs could imagine to live next to

a Roma without problems Every third Czech doesn´t want to have a

Roma as a neighbour 74% Czechs think that Roma are unfriendly

Institutions in CZ to integrate Roma

Ombudsman

Office of the government

Office of the government for national minorities

Office of the government for Roma-minority affairs

Agency for social inclusion

In Roma localities14 County coordinators for Roma affairs

Roma advisors

Ce ntra l le ve lLo c a l le ve l

Problems Education Unemployment Housing

Education Segregation of Roma in special/practical schools Segregation of Roma in special classes in

mainstream schools Segregation of Roma in seperate schools in Roma-

ghettos

Result: The level of education of Roma is lower 2007: The ECtHR decided, that the segregation of

Roma in special schools is not conform with human rights (case D.H. and others)→ until today the decision has not been implemented by CZ

Unemployment Because of their low education, Roma can

get only bad paid jobs Risk group:

Unemployment rate in CZ: 9% Unemployment rate of Roma in CZ: 70%

(inofficial estimation) Bad paid job→ no motivation More social benefits for Roma

(unemployment money)→ more prejustices within the majority society

Housing One third of Roma are living in Roma-ghettos 400 Roma-ghettos in CZ, this number is increasing 12 Slums

Segregation of Roma from majority society Bad houses and flats Additional charges like energy are very high Diskrimination at renting flats Resignation→ Unemployment and deliquency

Sources Am ne s ty Inte rna tio na l (Hg . ), Renamed Injustice (2010) Am ne s ty Inte rna tio na l (Hg . ), Annual Report 2011 on Czech

Republic (2011) Co unc il o f Euro p e (Hg . ), Report by Thomas Hammarberg (2010) Co unc il o f Euro p e Ro m a a nd Tra ve lle rs Div is io n , Romani

Population in Council of Europe Member States (2010) Euro p e a n Ro m a Rig hts Ce nte r (Hg . ), Stigmata, Segregated

Schooling in Central and Eastern Europe (2004) www.soros.org www.romea.cz http://romove.radio.cz

http://www.soros.org/

http://www.romea.cz/

http://romove.radio.cz/

Roma and social exclusion

Definition: First mentioned, then defined 1989, Social Charter: „in the spirit of solidarity it is

important to combat social exclusion“ Close to „relative deprivation“ / poverty;

predominantly focused on low income as excluding factor (criticism: it is economic, not social) => social exclusion as a failure of system (sociology:

biographical situation vs. social structure)


55


Systematical blocation of groups / individuals from rig hts , o p p o rtunitie s and re s o urc e s

multidimensional process of progressive social rupture, detaching groups and individuals from social relations and „normality“

Linked to marginalisation (Myth of marginality), deprivation from citizenship, some studies point to „poor decision making“

Crime related


56


The „anomy“ concept Nomos = law/norm (Greek); a = prefix; absent Discrepancy, inconstitency between goals and

means Emile Durkheim – „anomic suicide“ (modern

insecurity“ Merton – positive / negative deviations

(adaptation) Innovation, ritualism, revolution, escape strategy


57

Robert King Merton: Individual adaptation

Ways of adaptation Culutral Goals Institutionalized means

Conformity + +Innnovation + -Ritualism - +Escape - -Rebellion +/- +/-


58

Innovation: depends on will to risk, positive / negative devianceRitualism: prefers security („be happy with what you have“), pressure normsEscape: estrangement, „Chaplin‘s tramp“ (loved in movie, not in reality)Rebellion: close to resentiment, i.e. combination of hate, powerlessness, sour grapes;

Soltuions to social exclusion

Integrated approach Social mixing Affordability (mainly housing)

„Housing First“ ? Social work, consulting, financial management


59

PRIVATISATION AND RESTITUTION IN CR

ECES, Jan Sládek, [email protected] 60

Restiution in general

Maily land taken away during the collectivisation processes in country-side

Various forms – reparation „A promise“: new form of ownership will –

1) bring back the old pre-communist values 2) will create new elite 3) will set justice


61

Brief history of ownership changes I

not a process connected only to CEE countries -> Right-to-buy

1918-1938 housing shortage and hygienic standards the land reforms

taking the land away mainly from the foreign nobility and the Church; majority of land remained de facto in the same hands; „the White Mountain revenge“

non-profit housing co-operatives an attempt to tackle the housing shortage by collective

strategy


62

Brief history of ownership changes II

post World War II to 1989 “right to own” a flat or land was replaced by the “right to personal

use” From 1948 to 1955 only state and individual ownership existed in 1959, pre-war forms of co-operatives and enterprise housing

were re-introduced The construction, distribution and maintenance of housing stock

was practically in the hands of the municipalities the state was mainly in charge of planning Local authorities were responsible for managing the “waiting

lists” of people applying for new flats


63

Brief history of ownership changes III

Unlike Hungary or Slovenia, the country has not applied any form of a Right-to-Buy policy

no clear definition of homeownership until the introduction of the 1994

the state has not resolved the problem of rent regulation to date

the municipalities were given the responsibility for residential housing stock, yet without having the possibility to raise rents


64

Privatisation – the case of housing I: Share of housing stock (flats) owned by municipalities

1999 2004 2009

Prague 64 45 27 Brno 93 76 63 Ostrava 76 51 26 50 000+ inhabitants 49 24 15 10 000- 49 999 Inhabitants 69 40 30 2 000- 9 999 inhabitants 64 52 33 Source: Institute for spatial development, 2010


65

• Prague, the capital, is made up of 57 independent municipalities• the transfer to municipalities affected 877,000 dwellings, which

corresponded to 23.5% of the residential housing stock during the reform period

Privatisation – the case of housing III

inequalities in the distribution of housing stock are caused by the following four factors:

the legacy of inequalities in housing tenure existing under socialism differences in housing quality under socialism unequal market valuations of the privatised housing stock partial privatisation, i.e. apartments have been transferred without

the land under buildings and common areas

the housing stock up for privatisation did not belong to lower strata a classical case of the Matthew effect


66

Privatisation as a policyLevel Position CityState Ex-minister Prague Ex-minister Prague High rank civil servant Prague High rank civil servant Prague Former high rank civil servant Prague Academic housing policy consultant Prague Municipal Political function Teplice Civil Servant Kolín Political function Kladno Political function Brno

ServantPrague 17

Citizen groups Member Opava Leader Prague 2ECES, Jan Sládek, [email protected]

67

Privatisation in numbers

: Tenure change in the Czech Republic

1991 2001 2008*

abs. % abs. % %

Living in own family house 1 367 027 36.9 1 371 684 35.8 39

Living in own flat 31 164 0.8 421 654 11 21.6

Rental housing 1 465 231 39.5 1 092 950 28.6 23.2

Cooperative housing 697 829 18.8 548 812 14.3 12.4

Cooperative of tenants - - 103 216 2.7 NA

Others 144 430 3.9 289 362 7.6 3.8

Total 3 705 681 100 3 827 678 100 100

Source: census 1991, census 2001, Czech Statistical Office (cf. Lux 2009a: 109)

* An estimate based on SILC 2008


68


Table 4

Q: "To what extent are you satisfied with the current housing situation in the Czech Republic?"

Very

satisfied Rather

satisfied Rather

dissatisfied Very

dissatisfied Do not know

Overall satisfaction (%) 2.3 41.9 36.7 12.3 6.8

Q: "In your opinion, is the current housing policy socially fair or unfair regarding the following issues?"

Definitely

fair Rather

fair Rather unfair

Definitely unfair

Do not know

Privatisation of housing stock (%) 6.3 41.8 28.0 6.4 17.6

Q: "In your opinion, would the following decisions make housing policy fairer or more unfair?

Definitely

fair Rather

fair Rather unfair

Definitely unfair

Do not know

Finish privatisation (%) 8.2 27.8 27.6 12.8 23.5

Stop privatisation (%) 6.1 20.2 31.9 14.3 27.6

Source: Public Oponion Research Centre, 2005 N=1037


Table 5

Is the privatisation of public housing stock fair or unfair?

Political scale

Total LL L Middle R RR Definitely fair 6.5% 12.9% 16.1% 30.6% 33.9% 100.0%

Adjusted std. res. -1.6 -1.4 -1.0 1.0 2.6 Rather fair 10.3% 18.8% 20.3% 29.6% 21.0% 100.0%

Adjusted std. res. -2.2 -.7 -.5 2.7 .2 Rather unfair 15.8% 23.1% 21.6% 20.1% 19.4% 100.0%

Adjusted std. res. 1.7 1.7 .3 -2.5 -.7 Deinitely unfair 23.4% 18.8% 28.1% 17.2% 12.5% 100.0%

Adjusted std. res. 2.6 -.2 1.4 -1.6 -1.7 Total 12.9% 19.8% 21.0% 25.5% 20.8% 100.0%

Sommers' D = - 0, 125 for "fairness" dependent Source: Public Oponion Research Centre, 2005 N=808


Table 6

Is the voucher privatisation fair or unfair?

Political scale

Total LL L Middle R RR Definitely fair 5.7% 2.9% 5.7% 31.4% 54.3% 100.0%

Adjusted std. res. -1.4 -2.6 -2.1 .9 4.9 Rather fair 4.6% 10.2% 20.3% 29.4% 35.5% 100.0%

Adjusted std. res. -4.4 -4.0 .2 1.6 5.8 Rather unfair 12.9% 20.5% 20.2% 29.1% 17.2% 100.0%

Adjusted std. res. -.7 .3 .2 2.0 -2.1 Deinitely unfair 23.5% 29.4% 20.8% 16.5% 9.8% 100.0%

Adjusted std. res. 5.4 4.6 .5 -3.9 -5.4 Total 13.9% 20.0% 19.8% 25.2% 21.0% 100.0%

Sommers' D = - 0, 299 for "fairness" dependent Source: Public Oponion Research Centre, 2005 N=789

Opinions of the actors I

“It is not like brand new blood would emerge, definitely not, it was rather something like learning by doing.”

“I can say, looking back in time, that I (as well as other people) realise that the slowness of the reforms was a good thing, because the environment – and I don’t just mean the legal framework, I mean people’s perception, their legal consciousness, all these things, including the economics, the development of the banking sector – all these things had to be prepared for the change...It takes decades in foreign countries.”


72

Opinions of the actors II

“There was a dominant interpretation saying that now we (the municipality) will give it (the housing) to you, we will check it off, which means that it no longer belongs to us…”

“Some people said that they have lived here for twenty, thirty years and have a right to acquire it by prescription…”

“there is some kind of delay in people’s thinking, they cannot understand the price of housing and are waiting until someone else will help them”.


73

Opinions of the actors III

One of the respondents stated that there was no time to seek justice. In the words of one state level expert: “After the revolution (...) it was a big change, suddenly

people were willing to sacrifice themselves (...) people would say ‘we are doing it for our children’.”

One of the interviewees reacted: “Housing, on the one hand, of course concerns

everyone…but on the other hand, everyone had a place to live – so why should we change anything? There was no need, no heavy pressure…”


74

THE ‘LARGE’ PRIVATIZATION – AND ITS DISCONTENTS

Privatization – current state

Almost “done” – low number of state-owned/managed companies E.g. – ČEZ (Czech Energetics Industry, 1992 –

National Property Fund; Temelín); ČD (Czech Railways)

Public opinion poll (Nov 2011): according to 75% of respondets voucher privatization „went wrong“

Controversies, police investigation, state losses estimated in billions


76

Transitology: concepts

Transition trajectory from A to B A and B in most cases represent two opposing social systems -

communism and capitalism, or totalitarian non-market society versus an advanced liberal democratic capitalism, past and future

Transformation Non-directional (institutional) social change “The most reliable criterion enabling us to distinguish the

‘transition’ and ‘transformation’ processes in its proper sense is, in our opinion, the acknowledgement of either merely one or more possible alternatives and variants of future development.”


77

Path-dependence Criticism of both conceptions

In the name of ideological battles, different goals and focus of arguments on both sides was ignored and transformed into academic weapons

PD theory – formerly mathematic/probability Key decisions set trajectory, lock-in state

“…the future development of an economic system is affected by the path it has traced in the past…Increasing returns from learning effects and network externalities yield real immediate benefits that can preclude selection in the long run of the most efficient organizational form…Once an economy is locked into a particular trajectory, the cost of shifting strategies outweigh the benefits of alternatives.” (David Stark, 1998)


78

Privatization: The idea and various levels

Small: shops, housing Direct, municipal, new entrepreneurs

Large: state enterprises Some direct (criticism – “by management“), some

remained state (Budvar), voucher Idea:

Socialist „imaginary“ share transformed into capitalist equal opportunity to own => responsibility, restoration of capistalistic middle class


79

Main conceptions of privatization

Direct x voucher Decision – economy or/vs. institutions and law To „individual“ share-holders =>

associations/funds, non-profit, municipalization Almost ¾ of citizens invested through funds Factor - education


80


The voucher privatisation In Poland, Bulgaria, Russia,

Slovenia Not recommended (now) by

World Bank; Joseph Stieglitz – criticism

Voucher were to substitute capital

Designed in Poland, 1988 CSFR: 1800 companies, first

wave 1992, second 1994 Share in companies…or funds Losses monitored from 1998

book of vouchers - potential shares in any state-owned company- De facto 1000 CZK

82


The Viktor Kožený controversy Born 1963, Prague aka the Prague Pirate 1989, Harvard degree 2005-7, Imprisoned, Bahamas, on-going

court in Prague from 2008 Founder of mutual fund (form of investement

privatization fund) called HarvardCapital and Consulting

promised a 1000% rate of return on investment bought shares in a number of companies,

stripped assets and transferred the money abroad - „Tunneling“


83







Privatization: Conclusion

The clash between theory and political decisions

The mixed perception and willingness of people

Ended in huge controversies Theoretically path dependent, yet prone to

short term horizons Analytically different on various levels


90

CHANGES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Education – overview of the first decade

Lack of university education (=> 1998 – rise in the number of universities)

The Bologna process (bc.) Discussion about tuition fees, eigh-years

gymnasiums Before 1989: preference of high-school edu

and apprenticeships (industrializations) „New“ trend of life-long learning


92

Meaning of higher education as a metaphor

Until 1945 „Glorious thirty“

…from now on?

Z publikace Centra pro studium vysokého školství České vysoké školství, 2010

The structure of Czech Universities

Law issued in 1998 – under review State, public and private higher education institutions Boards x Senates – autonomy, deans and chancellors

voted by senates Students have up to 50% in academic senates

Turnout 2012 (FFUK): Academics 54%, students 15% National level reps: Czech Chancellors Conference,

Council of HEIs Public finance: „normativ“ multiplied by subject field

coeficient Tuition fees, registration fee…???





http://strediskovzdelavacipolitiky.info ; „absolventi VŠ“ = podíl z kohorty, dle studie SVP v bude mít v roce 2017 polovina lidí mezi 25-34 VŠ diplom

http://strediskovzdelavacipolitiky.info/

OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education, 2009

CHANGES IN REGIONAL STRUCTURE

Regional changes I

New regional structure from 2000 Regional differences – some historical (Sudets), some

new (deindustrialization) Trends – suburbanisation, agroturism Regions of prosperity x (inner) peripheries

Central Bohemia x Northern Moravia 1991-2001 - - 250,000 in 0-14 category (=> schools) Prague and Brno – 19% - 15% of univesity degrees;

overall 9% (2001)


103

Regional changes II

Work concentrates in bigger cities (metropolitan regions)

Uneven growth of unemployment People claiming affiliation to Church drop from

44% (1991) to 32% (2001), emergence of new churches


104




Changes in CR: Demography Ageing of population

Gender aspect: w bween 60-69 – widows in 30 % -> 70-79 – widows in 60 % ; men 6%. 15% Given lower income -> lower pension

1950-80s: high marriage rate (above 95 %, low age After 1989: 70 % men; 80 % women Decline in youth marriages (15-19y): 0,8 (w; 2001) x 6,7% (w;1990) Higher divorce rate (38% in 1990); higher number of mothers

breadwinners Low birth rate, declining – carrer nad „transaction costs“


108



Perception of economic inequality

Absolute / relativce numbers and rates Factors Perceptions – important for legitimity Egalitarian x meritocratic regime In CR: more or less fatalist view


111



CHANGES IN LIFES-TYLE

ECES, Jan Sládek, [email protected] 114

Changes in household wealth

i.e. income, property, savings in the first decade

Increasing role of education, low education -> lower income

Gender differences in income, even when education equal

People perceived income differences as rising, which should be solved by the govt


115







Life-style changes

Trends: from uniformity to plurality, higher mobility, increasing role of socio-economic factors

More work oriented Cultural activities equal for men and women,

different across education and profession Theory and research – P. Bourideu -

Distinction, habitus, research on photo-autostylisation


122


