Search results

Straipsnyje pateikiamas konceptualus pagrindas, kuris naudojamas nagrinejant pokycius Lietuvoje per desimt narystes Europos Sajungoje metu. Teigiama, kad, norint juos ivertinti ir paaiskinti, neuztenka naudotis klasikinemis europeizacijos teorijomis. Todel siuloma i europeizacija zvelgti platesniame vystymosi teoriju kontekste. Tokiam prapletimui naudojama Douglasso C. Northo, Johno Josepho Walliso ir Barry R. Weingasto teorija, kuri apibrezia perejima nuo prigimtines valstybes prie atviros prieigos santvarkos ir sio perejimo salygas Paper presents conceptual framework used to assess Europeanization in Lithuania during the last 10 years across the classical to Europeanization literature dimensions of polity, politics and policy. Author argues that because usually consequences of Europeanization are fragmented and hardly possible to generalize, therefore, it is wise to look at the new EU member states, where this impact was concentrated. Author states that Europeanization theory has to be complemented by additional approaches accounting for a domestic change. Therefore, Europeanization is put into a broader development studies. Theory of development produced by Douglass C. North, John Joseph Wallis and Barry R. Weingast serves as a theoretical framework in the research. This developmental approach puts an emphasis on the role of elites, state capture and broader transformation of the society and thus focuses and complements the current theory of Europeanization. It also provides a framework to analyse the issue of corruption and state capture, which is no longer considered as a deviation, but rather as a norm. Adapted from the source document.

Straipsnyje nagrinejama Lietuvos geroves valstybes raida saliai istojus i Europos Sajunga (ES). Teksta sudaro trys dalys. Teorineje dalyje ivertinamas dvieju ilgalaikiu valstybe strukturuojanciu procesu - pokomunistines transformacijos ir europeizacijos - santykis. Antrojoje dalyje analizuojami viesojo diskurso pokyciai siekiant issiaiskinti, ar ir kiek skirta demesio geroves valstybes pertvarkai Lietuvoje pasiekus pagrindinius euroatlantines integracijos tikslus. Galiausiai, remiantis 'socialiniu investiciju' koncepcija, bus siekiama parodyti, kiek Lietuvos geroves valstybes raida atliepia europines tendencijas. Pagrindine tyrimo isvada yra ta, kad geroves valstybes raida islieka inertiska, nors finansavimo salygos istojus i ES is tiesu gerejo. Be to, palyginti su gretimomis ES salimis naremis, skiriama maziau demesio toms geroves politikoms, kurios galetu duoti didziausia 'investicine graza'. Taip pat labiau orientuojamasi i tretini paslaugu lygmeni. Tokia situacija pirmiausia aiskintina trimis veiksniais: ekonominio saugumo prioriteto islaikymu, partine poliarizacija ir istorine logika, kuria diktuoja jau susikloste galios santykiai The article analyses the development of the Lithuanian welfare state after the country joined the EU. The text consists of three parts. In a theoretical part one evaluates interrelation of two long-term state-structuring processes, i.e. post-communist transformation and Europeanisation. In the second part, the changes of the public discourse are analysed in order to evaluate, if and how much attention is paid for the reforms of the welfare state in Lithuania after the main goals of Euro-Atlantic integration have been reached. Finally, under the concept of 'social investment state', one seeks to evaluate, how much the evolution of Lithuanian welfare state reflects the European trends. The main conclusion of analysis is that the development of welfare state remains inert despite the fact that financial conditions after the access to the EU have indeed improved. Besides, in comparison with the neighbouring EU member states, Lithuania pays less attention to those welfare policies that may bring the biggest 'return on investment'. The system is also more oriented towards the tertiary level. Such situation is firstly to be explained by three factors - the overall strength of economic security as the main political priority, party polarisation and historical logic dictated by the established power relations. Adapted from the source document.

Straipsnyje keliami du tarpusavyje susije klausimai. Pirma, kokia yra Baltijos valstybiu vieta Rusijos saugumo vaizdiniuose. Antra, kaip Balti-jos valstybes susidoroja su neigiamu Rusijos suvokimu. Siame straipsnyje teigiama, kad Rusijos ir triju Baltijos valstybiu abipusio reprezentavimo ir saveikos problemas geriausiai galima suprasti atskleidziant siu valstybiu erdves suvokima, kuris visu pirma formuoja poziuri i artimiausia aplinka, taigi ir savo kaimynus. Sis suvokimas, kylantis ir is istoriniu reprezentaci-ju, pagrindzia ir pateikia issamu, objektyvizuota saves ir 'kito' suvokima. Taigi siekiama parodyti, kaip itemptus ir nepasitikejimo kupinus Rusijos ir triju Baltijos valstybiu santykius veikia susiduriantys ir konfliktuojantys savo vietos tarptautineje politikoje apibudinimai ir is ju kylantys veiksmai. Si ide-ja straipsnyje atskleidziama, pirma, ispletojant teorines prielaidas, kad yra teritorijos, tapatybes ir sienu rysys, ir is to kylancius kaimynystes analizes principus, antra, parodant, kaip Rusija ir trys Baltijos valstybes savo uzsie-nio politika isreiskia, formuluoja ir dar karta itvirtina savo erdvini tapatybini pasaulevaizdi. Isvadose parodoma, kaip skirtingu ir vienas kita neutralizuoti bandanciu pasaulevaizdziu susidurimas formuoja dvisales The article raises two interconnected questions: first, what is the place of three Baltic States in Russia's security image, and second, how Baltic States cope with their own negative perception of Russia. The proposed idea is that the problems of mutual representation and interaction can be understood analysing the conceptualisations of space, which influences the way in which the closest environment, including the neighbours, is approached. This representation, together with historical narratives, formulates and justifies the comprehensive, consistent, and objectivised self and the other. Thus, the goal is to show how the tense relations between Russia and Baltic States, full of mistrust, can be explained as a clash between two conflicting geo-spatial views. This idea is developed, first, by presenting the theoretical assumptions on the relation among territory, identity, and borders and the principles of the neighbourhood analysis, and second, by demonstrating how the spatial representation by Russia and Baltic States is formulated and supported in their spatial identity and foreign policy practices. In the conclusions, the answer is given as to how this clash between the two different and competing understandings is reflected in the bilateral interactions and how these insights allow contributing to the analysis of the foreign policy of the states. Adapted from the source document.