Though the German Democratic Republic (GDR) collapsed in 1990, after 41 years of existence, the socialist state lives on – in schoolbooks, museums, novels, films and in the memories of those who witnessed the "workers' and peasants' state." With GDR memory being a highly embattled discourse in Germany more generally, we ask how the GDR is constructed in German film. This means more specifically, what stories are being told and what interpretations suggested within the broader GDR memory discourse? To answer these questions, we offer a comparative three-level-analysis of the feature films Balloon (2018) and Sealed Lips (2019). Looking at the film-immanent, the structural and the actor-centered level, we find that East German directors, producers or actors can bring different albeit divergent perspectives on the GDR in film whose construction is currently dominated by West German elites.
Economic Diplomacy is a big challenge in the modern day world and opportunity. It allows states to create and maintain bonds with other countries in order to benefit its economy, which is important in an era of reoccurring financial crisis. However, different strategies are developed by different states and it is interesting to see what objective characteristics of the country influence Economic Diplomacy practices and how it does so. This research takes a look into three different states in an attempt to investigate how different characteristics, such as relative power, size and historical background, affect Economic Diplomacy decisions and priorities. Germany, Poland and Lithuania were selected for the research as they provide an opportunity for the comparative analysis of the most different cases. At first, this paper considers the theoretical aspect of Economic Diplomacy, defining the term and naming most relevant theoretical approaches to it. Then, main contextual differences between the states included in the study are established. These differences in political system, relative power and size, and historical background allow for more in depth comparative analysis, because it is possible to place results into a broader context, revealing which countries proportionally are doing better. Finally, Economic Diplomacy structures, priorities and outcomes are analysed. Neorealism perspective allows for a better view of power struggles within the global arena of political economy that all these states are incorporated into. The research reveals that Economic Diplomacy in Lithuania was the most broadly articulated from this selection of states. There is a special institution and strategies devoted specifically for this practice. However, as so far, outcomes are relatively poor because of historical context – inefficient governance and undeveloped image do not allow simple solutions to be effective. Poland can be singled out as a relative leader in FDI field, since it manages to attract significant FDI flows as well as become an important FDI source country. Germany is a big power, immersing into global power games. While Poland and Lithuania are looking for investments, Germany is housing many international corporations and is focusing its Economic Diplomacy towards more global goals and expansion of export market. All of these results confirm initial assumption that power, size and historical background are important, power remaining the most significant one.
Economic Diplomacy is a big challenge in the modern day world and opportunity. It allows states to create and maintain bonds with other countries in order to benefit its economy, which is important in an era of reoccurring financial crisis. However, different strategies are developed by different states and it is interesting to see what objective characteristics of the country influence Economic Diplomacy practices and how it does so. This research takes a look into three different states in an attempt to investigate how different characteristics, such as relative power, size and historical background, affect Economic Diplomacy decisions and priorities. Germany, Poland and Lithuania were selected for the research as they provide an opportunity for the comparative analysis of the most different cases. At first, this paper considers the theoretical aspect of Economic Diplomacy, defining the term and naming most relevant theoretical approaches to it. Then, main contextual differences between the states included in the study are established. These differences in political system, relative power and size, and historical background allow for more in depth comparative analysis, because it is possible to place results into a broader context, revealing which countries proportionally are doing better. Finally, Economic Diplomacy structures, priorities and outcomes are analysed. Neorealism perspective allows for a better view of power struggles within the global arena of political economy that all these states are incorporated into. The research reveals that Economic Diplomacy in Lithuania was the most broadly articulated from this selection of states. There is a special institution and strategies devoted specifically for this practice. However, as so far, outcomes are relatively poor because of historical context – inefficient governance and undeveloped image do not allow simple solutions to be effective. Poland can be singled out as a relative leader in FDI field, since it manages to attract significant FDI flows as well as become an important FDI source country. Germany is a big power, immersing into global power games. While Poland and Lithuania are looking for investments, Germany is housing many international corporations and is focusing its Economic Diplomacy towards more global goals and expansion of export market. All of these results confirm initial assumption that power, size and historical background are important, power remaining the most significant one.
Economic Diplomacy is a big challenge in the modern day world and opportunity. It allows states to create and maintain bonds with other countries in order to benefit its economy, which is important in an era of reoccurring financial crisis. However, different strategies are developed by different states and it is interesting to see what objective characteristics of the country influence Economic Diplomacy practices and how it does so. This research takes a look into three different states in an attempt to investigate how different characteristics, such as relative power, size and historical background, affect Economic Diplomacy decisions and priorities. Germany, Poland and Lithuania were selected for the research as they provide an opportunity for the comparative analysis of the most different cases. At first, this paper considers the theoretical aspect of Economic Diplomacy, defining the term and naming most relevant theoretical approaches to it. Then, main contextual differences between the states included in the study are established. These differences in political system, relative power and size, and historical background allow for more in depth comparative analysis, because it is possible to place results into a broader context, revealing which countries proportionally are doing better. Finally, Economic Diplomacy structures, priorities and outcomes are analysed. Neorealism perspective allows for a better view of power struggles within the global arena of political economy that all these states are incorporated into. The research reveals that Economic Diplomacy in Lithuania was the most broadly articulated from this selection of states. There is a special institution and strategies devoted specifically for this practice. However, as so far, outcomes are relatively poor because of historical context – inefficient governance and undeveloped image do not allow simple solutions to be effective. Poland can be singled out as a relative leader in FDI field, since it manages to attract significant FDI flows as well as become an important FDI source country. Germany is a big power, immersing into global power games. While Poland and Lithuania are looking for investments, Germany is housing many international corporations and is focusing its Economic Diplomacy towards more global goals and expansion of export market. All of these results confirm initial assumption that power, size and historical background are important, power remaining the most significant one.
In the last 20 years, after ethnic Germans came back to this country and other refugees started flowing to it, the debates about immigration became especially important among politicians. After World War II, people left their home countries and searched refuge in other countries. Germany was one of those countries where refugees sought asylum. Germany received such people because its industry needed labourers. The question of the integration of immigrants became the priority of the state. We can single out five phases of immigration into Germany: (1) Post- War Immigration in 1945 – 1954, (2) Guest Workers' Immigration in 1955 – 1973, (3) Family Reunification in 1974 – 1982, (4) Asylum and Refugee Immigration in 1983 – 1993, and (5) Immigration caused by the development of the European Union and Inflows of Ethnic Germans since 1988 until nowadays.
In the last 20 years, after ethnic Germans came back to this country and other refugees started flowing to it, the debates about immigration became especially important among politicians. After World War II, people left their home countries and searched refuge in other countries. Germany was one of those countries where refugees sought asylum. Germany received such people because its industry needed labourers. The question of the integration of immigrants became the priority of the state. We can single out five phases of immigration into Germany: (1) Post- War Immigration in 1945 – 1954, (2) Guest Workers' Immigration in 1955 – 1973, (3) Family Reunification in 1974 – 1982, (4) Asylum and Refugee Immigration in 1983 – 1993, and (5) Immigration caused by the development of the European Union and Inflows of Ethnic Germans since 1988 until nowadays.
In the last 20 years, after ethnic Germans came back to this country and other refugees started flowing to it, the debates about immigration became especially important among politicians. After World War II, people left their home countries and searched refuge in other countries. Germany was one of those countries where refugees sought asylum. Germany received such people because its industry needed labourers. The question of the integration of immigrants became the priority of the state. We can single out five phases of immigration into Germany: (1) Post- War Immigration in 1945 – 1954, (2) Guest Workers' Immigration in 1955 – 1973, (3) Family Reunification in 1974 – 1982, (4) Asylum and Refugee Immigration in 1983 – 1993, and (5) Immigration caused by the development of the European Union and Inflows of Ethnic Germans since 1988 until nowadays.
Notice from the Public Affairs Officer, U.S. MIsSIOn, Berlill, of the visit to Rome of Walter de Hoog, H. Badekow, N. Kaufmann, and Bruce Herschensohn for the purpose of filming the coronation of the Pope for an American government production. He requests that every courtesy be extended to them. ; Scanned from original text or image using a Canon Expression 100000XL scanner. Optimized in Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro and saved in .pdf format.
This is a multiauthorial review essay of Daniel Ziblatt's Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism (Princeton: Princeton U Press, 2006) that includes a rebuttal by Ziblatt. Maurizio Cotta notes the persuasiveness & convincibility of the factors singled out by Ziblatt in support of the book's central thesis that the unification of Italy & Prussian Germany in the second half of the 19th century, although begun in both countries with similar regional institutions, ended with a centrist government in the former & a federalist regime in the latter. He questions, however, his attempt to project these factors in developing a more comprehensive theory of the emergence of major nation states in Western Europe, pointing out that the generalization that gives a satisfactory account for Germany & Italy becomes a fallacy when extended to Belgium or the Netherlands. Alfio Mastropaolo objects Ziblatt's implicit premise that federalism is superior to a centrist-unitarian governance & the implied conclusion that Italy would have fared better with a federalist government after its unification. He observes that neither Germany was spared from Nazism by federalism & nor Italy from Fascism by centralism. Mastropaolo points out that Ziblatt overlooks the importance of ideological factors, in particular the strong sentiments favoring a unitarian state in pre-1861 Italy. Gianfranco Poggi notes that the book fails to consider some important cultural & ideological theories of federalism that suggest an alternative explanation of the preference for federalism in Germany but not Italy. In his rebuttal, Ziblatt replies to the objections raised by each interviewer, defending the descriptive-explanatory efficacy of the historical-comparative approach adopted in the book & Charles Ragin's (1987) qualitative-comparative analysis applied in the extension of the generalization to other European states. He flatly rejects Mastropaolo's imputation that the book favors federalism as a superior form of government. Ziblatt also provides a rationale to justify the relevance of comparing the unification experience of Italy & Prussian Germany for contemporary political science. Z. Dubiel
