Suchergebnisse

Engl. Zsfassungen

Fiscal consolidation is one of the most commonly used instruments of fiscal policy in order to "recover" the economy of a country. Successful implementation of the fiscal consolidation plan leads to a reduction of the budget deficit and public debt, with expansive effects primarily related to GDP growth. However, the success of fiscal consolidation does not depend only on a good plan or precise strategy. The complexity of fiscal consolidation requires knowledge of the entire macroeconomic system. The aim of this paper is to, based on previous experience, define the conditions which determine successful fiscal consolidation. Also, the paper will emphasize the most common mistakes which prevent consolidation from going in the desired direction. It should be mentioned that there is no unique fiscal policy and that each country has the opportunity to formulate a fiscal consolidation strategy based on its predispositions, expecting to bring the best results. ; Fiskalna konsolidacija predstavlјa jedan od najčešće korišćenih instrumenata fiskalne politike u cilјu "ozdravlјenja" privrednog i ekonomskog ambijenta jedne države. Uspešnim sprovođenjem plana fiskalne konsolidacije postiže se smanjenje budžetskog deficita i javnog duga, uz ekspanzivne efekte, koji se prvenstveno odnose na rast BDP-a. Međutim, za uspeh fiskalne konsolidacije nije dovolјno imati dobar i jasan plan i preciznu strategiju. Kompleksnost fiskalne konsolidacije zahteva poznavanje celokupnog makroekonomskog sistema. Cilј rada jeste da, na osnovu prethodnih iskustava, definiše koji su to preduslovi koji opredelјuju uspešnu fiskalnu konsolidaciju. Isto tako, u radu će biti naglašene najčešće greške zbog kojih konsolidacija ne ide u želјenom pravcu. Treba naglasiti da ne postoji jedinstvena fiskalna politika i da svaka zemlјa ima mogućnost da na osnovu svojih predispozicija formuliše strategiju fiskalne konsolidacije, za koju veruje da će doneti najbolјe rezultate.

The article presents a critical overview of underlying ideas, social context, and original teachings of two "mediating ideologies" (social democracy and conservatism) and two mass "political phenomena" (nationalism and populism). Each of them constitutes a form of more or less effective political compromise, which ought to neutralize constant tensions and clashes between the leading modern ideologies of freedom and equality, i.e. liberalism and communism. However, the clash of ideologies which were prominent in the 19th and 20th centuries has lost much of its intensity today, although the social causes that gave rise to them have remained unchanged: social inequalities, abuse of freedom, and uneven distribution of social power. At the same time, the main social forces and political organizations that had been the symbols and striking forces of freedom and equality in the preceding decades - the political parties of the "left " and "right", including the never clearly defined "political center" - also lost their identity and power. Th e then political mortal enemies look and behave today almost exactly as they did then: in the ideological sense, "everyone wants everything" (allegedly representing/ defending the interests of "all citizens"); in the organizational sense, there is almost no difference between them; whereas the difference in the manner they behave when in power is almost negligible.

Within contemporary geopolitical processes, respect for the rights of national minorities is no longer the discretion of a state, but rather is an indirect or direct international regulation of the minority issue. In the beginning of the 1990s, the political economical crisis and disintegration of the former SFRY opened the national question, that was considered to be permanently and successfully solved, in the most dramatic way, and ethnic conflicts and clashes followed the desintegration of the country. With the formation of a new states on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the existence of numerous and different national minorities ("old" and "new") required a different approach to their protection and integration in complex political circumstances. Thus, the position of the so called new minorities drastically changed since they formed constituent nations in the former SFRY, while after secession they remained separated from their home nations and became national minorities almost overnight. Out of Serbia, in former Yugoslav republics live nearly half a million persons belonging to Serbian nationality as new national minority. The paper discusses the position and rights of the Serbian minority in the post Yugoslav states (Slovenia, Croatia, Northern Macedonia, Montenegro) as well as in some neighboring member states of the European Union (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria). In addition to the analysis of basic demographic indicators (number and spatial distribution) that determine the realization of the rights and freedoms of each minority, the paper examines the issue of protecting the national, cultural and linguistic identity of Serbs, as well as the ways of its preservation and improvement. Although the social and legal status of the Serbian minority is determined by European standards, the analysis points to their undefined status, since they still do not recognize the status of a national minority in some countries, and that they are in practice faced with more or less assimilation. In order to fully realize minority rights and improve the position of the Serb minority, ratified international documents, bilateral agreements, national laws, as well as well-designed policies and assistance from the home state are of great importance.Respecting basic human rights and freedom, as well as national minority protection, represent the basic factors of stability, security and democratic and socio-economic development of every country.

In this paper, we analyse two recent contributions to the Marxist critique of the political economy of art: the article "Artistic Labor and the Production of Value: An Attempt at a Marxist Interpretation" by José María Durán and the book Art and Value: Art's Economic Exceptionalism in Classical, Neoclassical and Marxist Economics by Dave Beech. While Durán emphasizes the emergence of the legal category of intellectual property rights as crucial for value production in art, Beech has reached the contrary conclusion that artistic labour does not produce value and that artistic production is therefore excepted from capitalist commodity production. In our paper, we criticize both conclusions. While agreeing with Beech that artistic labour does not produce value and is thus excepted from the ideology of commodity fetishism, we believe that through the ideology of converted forms it nevertheless becomes part of capitalist commodity production. We would argue that the sector of artistic production, through the converted form of monopoly rent, establishes a production relation with other, competitive, sectors of capitalist economy. This production relation is enabled by the ideology of aesthetic fetishism, supported by the ideology of legal fetishism through the category of intellectual property rights. Contrary to Durán, we thus conclude that intellectual property rights allow for a hidden transfer of surplus value produced by the workers in the competitive sectors of the capitalist economy. ; U tekstu analiziramo dva novija priloga marksističkoj kritici političke ekonomije umetnosti: članak "Umetnički rad i proizvodnja vrednosti: pokušaj marksističke interpretacije" Hozea Marije Durana [José María Durán] i knjigu Umetnost i vrednost: ekonomska izuzetnost umetnosti u klasičnoj, neoklasičnoj i marksističkoj ekonomici Dejva Biča [Dave Beech]. Dok Duran u svojoj analizi daje naglasak zasnivanju pravne kategorije prava na intelektualno vlasništvo kao determinanti proizvodnje vrednosti u umetničkoj proizvodnji, Bič dolazi u svojoj knjizi do suprotnog zaključka da umetnički rad ne proizvodi vrednost i da je time umetnička proizvodnja izuzeta iz kapitalističke robne proizvodnje. U našem tekstu kritikujemo oba zaključka. Sa Bičom se slažemo da umetnički rad ne proizvodi vrednost i da je time izuzet iz ideologije robnog fetišizma, ali smatramo da on putem ideologije preobraženih oblika postaje deo kapitalističke robne proizvodnje. Tvrdimo da sektor umetničke proizvodnje putem preobraženog oblika monopolske rente zasniva proizvodni odnos sa drugim, konkurentskim, sektorima kapitalističke privrede. Ovaj proizvodni odnos je omogućen ideologijom estetskog fetišizma koju podržava ideologija pravnog fetišizma putem kategorije prava na vlasništvo intelektualne svojine. Contra Duranu zaključujemo da pravo na vlasništvo intelektualne svojine omogućava skriveni prenos viška vrednosti koji su proizveli radnici konkurentskog sektora kapitalističke privrede.