Suchergebnisse

Informal patient payments are deeply rooted in Central and Eastern European countries. Despite the socio-political changes in the health care sectors after 1990s and the subsequent health care reforms, informal payments for health care services continue to serve patients` and physicians` interests. These payments also fill gaps in health care funding in this European region. Nevertheless, unofficial payments are not a desirable payment channel. They lack transparency and distort the efficiency and equity in health care provision. Still, the successful elimination of these payments will depend on the public attitude towards these payments. This study aims to compare public attitudes towards informal patient payments and payment experience in six Central and Eastern European: Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Ukraine. The data have been collected in 2010 in nation-wide representative surveys using an identical standardized question- naire administrated via face-to-face interviews. We have collected about 1000 questionnaires in each country. The results show that a major group of respondents in each country expresses a negative attitude towards both informal cash payments and in-kind gifts. 208, 187, and 174 respondents paid informally for out-patient service in Ukraine, Romania, and Hungary respectively. We also analyse the relation between public attitudes and respondents` past experience with informal payments, e.g. whether they have paid informally payment for out-patient service used last year. In Bulgaria and Poland, negative attitude is mostly observed among those who have not paid informally. The existence of positive and indifferent attitudes towards informal pay- ments as reported in our study, indicates a challenge for policy makers in Central and Eastern European countries. The acceptance of government initiatives aimed at the elimination of informal payments will largely depend on the governments` ability to create a social resistance towards these payments.

Тематски Зборник Свакодневна култура у постсоцијалистичком периоду настао је као резултат научне сарадње Етнографског института САНУи Етнографског института и музеја БАН. Велике политичке и друштвене промене током деведесетих година 20.века озбиљно су се одразиле на свакодневну културу балканских земаља. Управо у периоду кризе, две суседне етнолошке установе, бугарска и српска, које више деценија током социјалисатичког периода нису сарађивале, отпочеле су заједнички рад на истраживању свакодневне културе. Зборник показује у ком правацу су се одвијали културни процеси у Србији и Бугарској, које су сличности и разлике међу њима, али и шта се дешава у постсоцијалистичком периоду у појединим сегментима свакодневне култура Словака, Руса и Македонаца. ; The Collection of Papers entitled ―Everyday Culture in post-socialist period is a result of collaboration between the Institute of Ethnography, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and the Institute of Ethnography and Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The enormous political and social changes during the 1990's influenced also everyday culture of the Balkans states. After decades of hinder, and precisely in the period of crisis, two neighboring ethnological institutions, the Bulgarian and Serbian, started to cooperate together in the study of everyday culture.The Collection of Papers demonstrates the directions of the cultural processes in Serbia and Bulgaria, accentuating the differences and similarities among the two states, and also explains the deeds within certain segments of everyday cultures of Slovaks, Russians and Macedonians. ; Зборник радова Етнографског института САНУ 22 / Collection of Papers of the Institute of Ethnography SASA 22

The article attempts to reconstruct some of the political stakes in the conceptual and methodological debates among two groups of literary critics during the 1960ies and the 1970ies in Bulgaria: the structuralists and their opponents, the so-called "Imperssionist critics". This debate seems to be a pertinent context for addressing the emergence of poststructuralism since it was the intellectual ferment, in which Julia Kristeva formed her conceptual background, before later becoming among the first poststructuralist critics of structuralism in France. Before, emigrating, Kristeva was part of the group of the "impressionist critics", who were developing ways of resisting official Marxist doctrine while retaining claims for Marxists legitimacy. They were very critical of the structuralists, who also were attempting to gain legitimacy, though by aligning with Marxism as a materialist science, a stance the "impressionists" viewed as contributing to alienation. ; Статья пытается восстановить поли- тический залог в концептуальных и методологических дискуссиях между двумя группами литературо- ведов в 1960-х и 1970-х годах в Болга- рии – между структуралистами и их противниками, так называемыми «импрессионистскими критика- ми». Эта дискуссия, по-видимому, является важным контекстом воз- никновения постструктурализма, поскольку она представляет собой интеллектуальную среду, в кото- рой Юлия Кристева первоначально сформировала свои идеи, перед тем как впоследствии стала одним из первых критиков структурализма во Франции. До эмиграции Кристева является членом группы импрес- сионистских критиков, которые пытаются разработать стратегии противостояния официальной марк- систской доктрине, не отказываясь от поиска марксистской легитим- ности. Они критикуют структура- листов, которые также стремятся к легитимности, но основываясь на настойчивости марксизма как материалистической науки – пози- ция, в которой «импрессионистские критики» видят фактор, способству- ющий отчуждению.