Search results

Effectiveness of the administrative system as a whole depends on the quality of its organization. The Organizational structure reflects functional dynamic of the public administration. On the other hand, functional requirements of efficiency and effectiveness of the administrative system determine organizational forms. The scope, character and nature of administrative actions require optimal and coordinated external (macro-organization) and internal (micro-organization) organizational structure, which will allow optimal functioning of an administrative system. Therefore, the organizational structure is not immutable category, because tasks and roles, activities and goals, are changing in the same government system and sometimes even the whole system, so it is necessary to change the administrative organization. Administrative organization is systemic (external and internal) open dynamic structure of state government agencies and other bodies and organizations with public (administrative) powers prescribed in the course of lawful relationships of dynamic interaction, based on the hierarchy or coordination, depending on the nature and objectives of administrative tasks. Current organization of the state administration has not been made according to the principles of modern management. It is a result of the political spoils system, and reflects the need for political control of the administrative departments. It lacks functional analysis and expert approach.

This paper will assess the results of transition in the Yugoslav successor states using objective and subjective criteria. Four objective criteria related to economic growth will be used to compare economic performance in Yugoslavia and its successor states; 1. Speed of recovery after war/change in system, 2. Absolute growth rates, 3. Relative growth rates, 4. Place in world development. This will be supplemented by a survey of public opinion conducted by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.All the four objective criteria show that the Yugoslav economy performed much better than the economies of its successor states. The survey shows that only 20 percent of population are happy with the results of transition in South Eastern European countries, while 64 percent are unhappy and 16 percent are undecided. In the former Yugoslavia much less than 20 percent of population are happy with the changes brought by the transition.

In this paper, we consider the relationship between the entrepreneurial state and the crisis (caused by economic and non-economic reasons and vice versa). Thus, it is about the interactive attitude of the entrepreneurial state in resolving the crisis and the impact of the crisis on the further development of new economic competencies and competencies of the state in the economy. The entrepreneurial state is seen as an entrepreneur and one of the most important economic actors, which accepts long-term investment risks, bearing in mind the broader picture and the common good. The development of new technologies and new technology companies in the United States and other developed countries has been possible, thanks to the investment of the American entrepreneurial state and its agencies. We start from the assumption that the American crisis, in 2008. caused by high debts, the private sector, not the US public debt, which today is enormously high and skyrocketing. At the heart of this consideration is the thesis that the classical economic theory of non-interference of the state in economic life, which stands aside in the recent era of the development of global capitalism, does not hold water. On the contrary, it turns out that government risky investment in the long run is the basis of a modern economy in which the private sector can develop only on the premises of this huge investment in the development of modern new technologies. Most innovation today and research institutes in the United States are due to the investments of the American state. The paper discusses the impact of the crisis on the understanding of the entrepreneurial state and its role in innovation, the role of new technologies and innovations in economic growth, entrepreneurial state and risks, entrepreneurial state and knowledge economy, entrepreneurial state in "pushing" versus "pulling" the green industrial revolution and the cost of investment, innovation, and development of the American entrepreneurial state. ; U ovom radu razmatramo odnos preduzetničke države i krize (izazvane ekonomskim i neekonomskim razlozima i vice versa). Dakle, riječ je o interaktivnom odnosu preduzetničke države u rješavanju krize i uticaju krize na dalji razvoj novih ekonomskih ingerencija i nadležnosti države u ekonomiji. Preduzetnička država se posmatra kao preduzetnik i jedan od važnijih ekonomskih aktera, koji prihvata rizike ulaganja na dugi rok, imajući na umu širu sliku i opšte dobro. Razvoj novih tehnologija i novih tehnoloških kompanija u SAD i drugim razvijenim zemljama bio je moguć zahvaljujući investiranju američke preduzetničke države i njenih agencija. Polazimo od pretpostavke da su američku krizu 2008. godine izazvali visoki dugovi privatnog sektora, a ne javni dug SAD, koji je danas enormno visok i vrtoglavo raste. U osnovi ovog razmatranja stoji teza da klasična ekonomska teorija o nemiješanju države u privredni život, koja stoji po strani u najnovije doba razvoja globalnog kapitalizma, ne drži vodu. Naprotiv, pokazuje se da je državno rizično investiranje na dugi rok u osnovi savremene ekonomije u kome privatni sektor može da se razvija samo na premisama tog golemog ulaganja u razvoj modernih novih tehnologija. Većina inovacija danas i istraživačkih instituta u SAD duguje ulaganjima američke države. U radu razmatramo uticaj krize na shvatanje preduzetničke države i njene uloge u inovacijama, ulogu novih tehnologija i inovacija u privrednom rastu, preduzetničku državu i rizike, preduzetničku državu i ekonomiju znanja, preduzetničku državu u "guranju" nasuprot "podbadanju" zelene industrijske revolucije, koristi i cijene investiranja, inovacije i razvoj američke preduzetničke države.

After the cold war, when the Eastern block collapsed, considerable changes were made in the world security architecture. Althought it seemed like a beginning of more certain and secure era, cold war ending didn't fulfill expectations neither the main actors in the cold war conflict, nor the expectations of the rest of the world. Besides, collapse of one block, didn't stop growth dynamic of new power centers. Tendencies for power are not new and unfamiliar to human. When bypolar system collapsed, other subjects started fighting for the positions. PRC role with her enormous people potential, growing economy and strengthened military is evident. Soviet Union, accordingly Russian Federation, believed that there was no more need for strenghtening the other block, especially when the opposite doesn't exist. But, former partners included the opposite side, and that made more tensions between Russia and United States. Rest of the world didn't get better chance to create own future. On the contrary, especially for the peripheral and semiperipheral countries, new threats appeared that destabilized individual and collective security. Efforts to make human community rational, were always idealism and those efforts were considered utopian, but under the given circumstances, for the international stability, the most accseptable model is model of global triangle - China, Russia, USA. Reason why this three countries is ther specific potention: USA is powerful technological, military and political center, RF is worlds warehouse' and China is the worlds manufacture. In the globalism domination over nationalism era that model could be the optimal 'braking and balance' system in the international relations- political ideal that all liberal schools wanted to acchievestarting Lock, Montesquieu, Rousseau till today.

United States participation in international politics during the period between the two world wars, come not only from the general and often declarative interest in peace, but was also a consequence of extremely rapid expansion of their foreign trade and overseas capital investments. It was a period of intense financial diplomacy, when efforts to maintain the gold standard, to determine the amount of reparations and the manner of payment of war debts, brought confusion not only in relations between victors and vanquished, but also in relations between the United States and its former European allies. Abandonment of the gold standard and the creation of the tripartite agreement between the United States, Britain and France, in the 1936, was a milestone in the development of international monetary cooperation and the role of United States in international economic relations. .

In his main oeuvre from the field of political philosophy ('Basic Traits of the Philosophy of Right'), Hegel wished to reconcile civil society with state. Civil society is for Hegel the way of abstract notion of property concretization. Subjective form of property is evolutioning into objective relationships among title holders. It is in the state where the will is set free from its particular interests and is becoming free in the widest sense of the word. Since civil society is established as per marketing principles, it is subject to inequalities. Since inequalities bear destructive effect on the life in community, civic particularism may be overcome only in institutional way. That institution is the state as the 'seriousness of the spirit', and the essence of civil society. Civil society is a liberal one, and the state is based on liberal principles. For Hegel, contrary to Hobbes and Locke, liberal society is not a social contract among individuals who possessed some natural rights (property), but reciproque and equal agreement among citizens and states which wish to recognize themselves mutually. It is not an own interest, but searching for rational recognition. The same as citizens, states also wish to reconcile themselves mutually, what in the situation in Kosovo and Metohia alike gets the original form.

Crime and violence pose a serious challenge to Mexico. The problem appears to be growing worse, with 2011 on pace to become the most violent year on record. The rising violence in Mexico has resulted in a sharply heightened sense of fear among citizens, who now feel the presence of cartels in their every day lives. The use of extortion and kidnapping by cartels combined with a lack of trust in security forces terrorizes the population and makes them feel like they have no where to turn. Despite this fact, crime rates in Mexico remain lower than in other parts of Latin America. Venezuela, for example, has among the highest homicide rates in the world. Yet the pervasive infiltration of cartels into public life gives Mexicans a heightened sense of the severity of violent crime in their own country. Although accurate statistics are hard to come by, it is quite possible that 60,000 people have died in the last six-plus years as a result of armed conflict between the Mexican cartels and the Mexican government, amongst cartels fighting each other, and as a result of cartels targeting citizens. Mexico has been struggling with drug production and drug transit through its territory from South America to the U.S. for many decades, given the fact that it is the most important transit country for drug production originating from South America. In recent years, the escalating violence in Mexico has led to dramatic deterioration of the security situation. Recent wave of drug-war violence is associated with the beginning of the term of President Felipe Calderón in December 2006. The immediate implications of his assumption of the presidency and his hard-line policy, which he has applied against drug cartels and organized criminal groups across the country, were the deployment of Mexican army to fight cartels and the gradual weakening of the influence of local and state police at the expense of federal troops. This was done in order to combat corruption and collaboration of local law-enforcement institutions with drug trafficking organizations (DTOs). The consequence of such a policy, however, has been increased violence among rival cartels and between them and the federal police and military, resulting in a dramatic increase of the number of victims. The future of US-Mexican counter drug cooperation, as well as of the whole bilateral relation in the area of security, depends on the outcome of US presidential elections. As for Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto takes the office on December 1, 2012 that will mark a comeback of his party PRI after 12 years in opposition. As far as the security strategy of the future Mexican President is concerned, there are no significant changes to be expected. Peña Nieto seems to be aware of the current situation and its consequences as well as of the inevitability of an extremely close and dynamic mutual cooperation with the US.

After the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, the process of concluding treaties between the EU and third countries or international organizations has sustained significant changes. The most important procedural novelty is the establishment of the ordinary procedure that covers almost all agreements the EU concludes with third parties. Under the Lisbon Treaty, this procedure involves a number of stages: negotiations, signing the agreement, and decision to conclude the agreement. For agreements whose subject matter exclusively or predominantly falls into the domain of common foreign and security policy, there are several derogations from the uniform rules of the ordinary procedure. The same provision of the founding treaty regulates the procedures for amending and suspending the agreement in force, as well as the judicial control procedure of those agreements that are yet to be concluded. The ordinary procedure does not cover two subject-specific proceedings pertaining to relatively narrow areas of EU action. More specifically, they refer to the conclusion of agreements in the area of common trade policy and agreements on the exchange rate of the Euro against the currencies of non-member states. The exclusion of trade agreements is probably the result of the differences that still exist in the division of competencies between the Member States and the EU regarding trade in the area of some services. On the other hand, the enactment of a special procedure for agreements on the Euro exchange rate in relation to the national currency rates of third countries stems from the need to ensure the Union's unique position in this field. On the institutional level, the most important actors in the process of concluding EU agreements are the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. The Council has retained the central role in all types of treaty procedures, and it decides on essential issues related to the course and outcome of the process. The Commission has retained the major role in initiating and negotiating the agreements, but it is no longer the exclusive initiator and negotiator in the agreement process. Namely, depending on the subject of the treaty, new entrants in that role are the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament has strengthened its position in the procedure for concluding EU agreements and can, therefore, be considered the largest 'net' winner of the Lisbon Treaty reform. This is partly due to its new role in the course of negotiations, which implies the right to be immediately and fully informed about all stages of the proceedings, but to a much greater extent it refers to the powers that this body has in the final stage preceding the conclusion of the agreement. Finally, the EU Court of Justice has an important role in this process; its task is to control the compliance of the EU agreements with the founding treaties prior to their conclusion.

Autor se bavi odnosima Sjedinjenih Država i Venezuele zaključno sa aktuelnom‎ predsedničkom krizom ne bi li odgovorio na pitanje kako i zašto je Venezuela‎ postala problem za spoljnu politiku SAD koji zahteva pojačanu pažnju‎ i radikalne mere. Analiza ovih odnosa u toku 20. veka pokazuje da su oni zasnovani‎ na naftnoj međuzavisnosti dveju država. Kada je krajem veka višedecenijsko‎ loše upravljanje naftnim bogatstvom u Venezueli izazvalo društvenu‎ i ekonomsku krizu koja je dovela na vlast Huga Cháveza, spremnog da koristi‎ prihode od nafte protiv interesa regionalne hegemonije SAD, ove su Venezuelu‎ označile kao problem. Američki establišment je prema tom problemu nastupio‎ oportunistički – naftna međuzavisnost je sprečavala da sukob eskalira‎ sve dok aktuelna ekonomsko-politička kriza u Venezueli nakon Chávezove‎ smrti nije dala Washingtonu priliku za konačni obračun sa režimom, po cenu‎ privremenog prekida u trgovini naftom. Godinu i po dana od izbijanja predsednička‎ kriza u Venezueli još nije razrešena, jer se čavistički režim održao, a‎ SAD odustale od vojne intervencije, pa autor nastoji da ukaže na perspektive‎ problema i mogućnosti njegovog prevazilaženja nakon što tekuća pandemija‎ korona virusa bude obuzdana.‎ ; The author deals with the United States and Venezuela relations up to the‎ current presidential crisis, in order to answer how and why Venezuela became‎ a problem for U.S. foreign policy which requires increased attention‎ and radical measures. The analysis of these relations during the 20th century‎ shows that they were based on oil interdependence of the two states.‎ When a decades-long mismanagement of oil riches in Venezuela at the end‎ of the century caused a social and economic crisis that brought to power‎ Hugo Chávez, who was ready to use oil revenues against U.S. regional hegemonic‎ interests, it marked Venezuela as a problem. American establishment‎ treated the problem with opportunism – oil interdependence prevented‎ the conflict from escalating until the current economic and political crisis in‎ Venezuela after the death of Chávez gave Washington an opportunity for the‎ final clash with the regime at the price of a temporary break in the oil trade.‎ A year and a half after the presidential crisis in Venezuela erupted, it has not‎ been resolved yet, for the chavista regime remained in place, while the U.S. gave up on military intervention. The author points to the perspectives of the‎ problem and the possibilities of its overcoming once the current coronavirus‎ pandemic gets contained.‎