The study of welfare states, after the substantiation of the classical typologies of R. Titmuss and G. Esping-Andersen at the end of the last century, is being developed by other authors, one of the original works of which is the modelling of post-communist Central and Eastern European (CEE) states. Despite some similarities in the CEE countries, they also show significant differences in welfare provision, as confirmed by statistical and comparative analysis of the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Romania. The authors of the article argue that it is scientifically difficult to speak of a coherent post-communist welfare state model. Instead, several models of welfare states should be defined in CEE.
The authors in the article reveal the positioning of extreme right political parties in the Western world and Central and Eastern Europe by following such ideological basis as nationalism and welfare chauvinism, practically rejecting immigrants and their willingness to use the benefits and services of the mentioned welfare systems in the presented Western as well as Central and Eastern European countries. The authors maintain their position, applying the secondary data from European Social Survey, International Monetary Fund and OECD data as well as interpretations of the authors from different foreign countries. In the end of the article the authors pose the one of the most interesting scientific and practical questions – why the place of the electorate of the "socially excluded" and having low income voters is moving from the left political parties to the side of the extreme right political parties? The further research is necessary in the following direction. This article is the first article of the theme on social chauvinism in Lithuania.
The authors in the article reveal the positioning of extreme right political parties in the Western world and Central and Eastern Europe by following such ideological basis as nationalism and welfare chauvinism, practically rejecting immigrants and their willingness to use the benefits and services of the mentioned welfare systems in the presented Western as well as Central and Eastern European countries. The authors maintain their position, applying the secondary data from European Social Survey, International Monetary Fund and OECD data as well as interpretations of the authors from different foreign countries. In the end of the article the authors pose the one of the most interesting scientific and practical questions – why the place of the electorate of the "socially excluded" and having low income voters is moving from the left political parties to the side of the extreme right political parties? The further research is necessary in the following direction. This article is the first article of the theme on social chauvinism in Lithuania. ; Straipsnyje atskleidžiama, kaip amžių sandūroje Vakarų pasaulyje, taip pat Vidurio ir Rytų Europoje pozicionavo save dešiniosios ekstremistinės politinės partijos, kurių ideologinį pagrindą sudarė nacionalizmo ir gerovės šovinizmo samplaika, o praktinėje veikloje buvo akivaizdus imigrantų atmetimas arba noras jų neprileisti prie savo šalių gerovės sistemų išmokų ir paslaugų. Autoriai, remdamiesi antriniais socialinių tyrimų, tokių kaipEuropean SocialSurvey, Tarptautinio valiutos fondo ir Ekonominio bendradarbiavimo ir plėtros organizacijos duomenys bei tam tikrų užsienio autorių interpretacijomis, atskleidžia šiuolaikiniam pasauliui ypač aktualų ekstremistinių dešiniųjų partijų stiprėjimą, kai jos nėra nusiteikusios dalytis savo valstybių gerovės sistemų vaisiais su imigrantais iš Rytų ir Pietų šalių. Straipsnio pabaigoje autoriai iškelia vieną iš esminių dabartinio socialinio mokslo ir praktikos klausimų– kodėl "socialiai atskirtųjų" ir gaunančių mažas pajamas elektorato vieta šiuolaikinėje Vakarų visuomenėje slenka nuo kairiųjų partijų į dešiniųjų ekstremistinių partijų pusę? Šiam atsakymui rasti būtini tolesni nuodugnūs tyrimai. Šis straipsnis yra pirmasis gerovės šovinizmo tematikos straipsnis Lietuvoje.
The authors in the article reveal the positioning of extreme right political parties in the Western world and Central and Eastern Europe by following such ideological basis as nationalism and welfare chauvinism, practically rejecting immigrants and their willingness to use the benefits and services of the mentioned welfare systems in the presented Western as well as Central and Eastern European countries. The authors maintain their position, applying the secondary data from European Social Survey, International Monetary Fund and OECD data as well as interpretations of the authors from different foreign countries. In the end of the article the authors pose the one of the most interesting scientific and practical questions – why the place of the electorate of the "socially excluded" and having low income voters is moving from the left political parties to the side of the extreme right political parties? The further research is necessary in the following direction. This article is the first article of the theme on social chauvinism in Lithuania.
The authors in the article reveal the positioning of extreme right political parties in the Western world and Central and Eastern Europe by following such ideological basis as nationalism and welfare chauvinism, practically rejecting immigrants and their willingness to use the benefits and services of the mentioned welfare systems in the presented Western as well as Central and Eastern European countries. The authors maintain their position, applying the secondary data from European Social Survey, International Monetary Fund and OECD data as well as interpretations of the authors from different foreign countries. In the end of the article the authors pose the one of the most interesting scientific and practical questions – why the place of the electorate of the "socially excluded" and having low income voters is moving from the left political parties to the side of the extreme right political parties? The further research is necessary in the following direction. This article is the first article of the theme on social chauvinism in Lithuania.
Although the regional competitiveness is essentially related to its economic activity, there is an increasing consensus that competitiveness is best assessed in the context of regional business environment assets such as human capital, innovative capacity, local infrastructure quality, etc. (Huggins, Izushi, Prokop, Thopson, 2014). Thus, the regional competitiveness is not only economic indicators, it is increasingly based on creativity, knowledge and environmental conditions. Competitiveness is a multidimensional term, so soft variables need to be taken into account in order to understand, assess and strengthen regional activity and development. Therefore the purpose of this article is to determine the role of the social model to the increase of the regional competitiveness (Borozan, 2008).The aim of the article is to determine the role of the social model in increasing the competitiveness of the region. In order to achieve the goal, the following objectives are formulated: to analyze social models by identifying their characteristics; to assess the suitability of selected social models for the increase of regional competitiveness; to analyze and evaluate the regional policy in Lithuania. The main methods used are scientific literature analysis, statistical analysis, expert evaluation, descriptive analytical and comparative analysis. The first typology of welfare states models was presented by English political scientist R.Titmuss, who distinguishes three models – marginal (residual) model, which is found in United States and means that the main function of welfare providers lies with the market and family; industrial achievement performance model in Germany based on the level of industry in a country, where the welfare depends and is closely linked to work and productivity; and the institutional-redistributive model usually applied in Scandinavian countries, in which the provision of welfare depends on needs.Subsequently, Danish sociologist G.Esping-Andersen adjusted the classification of social models develop ed by R.Titmuss by adapting it more to the political science, thus identifying three welfare state regimes (models) - liberal, conservative-corporate and social-democratic (redistributive) (Aidukaitė, 2010).These three models differ in the aspects of the organization of social policy, their dependence on the market conditions, their ideology, priorities, the impact on the country's stratification system, which means the division of society into social strata and the degree of decommodification, defining the person's liberation from the need to work while maintaining the basic standards of life (material life conditions).Some states quite clearly reflect the typology of G. Esping-Andersen. For example, Germany is an example of a conservative-corporate model, Norway or Sweden is a social-democratic model, while a liberal model is typically found in Anglo-Saxon states. However, there are many states with certain characteristics that are inherent different kind of welfare systems (models). Therefore, in different scientific research the place in the typology of some countries differs because researchers tend to emphasize a particular feature or characteristic that determines the assignment of a state to different types.This article proves, that in order to review the diversity of the whole world, three models are not enough. Given that none of these models do not exist in a pure form. Taking this into account, the main attempts to extend or to adjust the essentially considered as traditional typology by E. Esping-Andersen are presented in this article. Most of such attempts are limited to extending the typology by inserting a fourth or several additional types (models), for example, southern model, Latin region model, European Union model, post-communist states model, etc.As mentioned before, there is a large variety of social models in the world, although only three are considered as main models – liberal (in Anglo-Saxon countries), conservative (in Scandinavian countries) and social-democratic (originating from Germany).In order to determine which one of these three models may be the most competitive in the globalized economy Regional Competitiveness Index published by the European Commission has been analyzed. Regional competitiveness is understood as the ability of a region to offer an attractive and sustainable environment for firms and residents to live and work. The Regional Competitiveness Index consists of eleven indicators (pillars), divided into three groups (dimensions): basic dimension, efficiency dimension and innovation dimension. The Global Competitiveness Report, published by the World Economic Forum, was also detailed analyzed.The countries representing different social models were studied: United States and United Kingdom representing the liberal model, Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway) representing the social-democratic model and Germany representing the conservative model. The research has shown that countries with a liberal social model, compared with other models, have achieved better results in assessing their competitiveness.The particular attention is paid to the case of Lithuania – the social model as well as the development of regional policy in Lithuania have been analyzed with special focus on the decision to divide Lithuania into two regions.Having assessed all the circumstances, it is not yet clear whether the solution of division of Lithuania into two regions can be justified. Such decision was made without proper modeling of socio-economic consequences of the corresponding process. The division of Lithuania into two regions would inevitably mean greater concentration of the population in one, in economic and social sense stronger, more business-intensive and more innovative region. Therefore, the chosen decision of the division of the two regions into Lithuania can not be scientifically considered as unquestionable, consequently more detailed research is needed in order to model the consequences of such an administrative division. ; Straipsnyje siekiama nustatyti socialinio modelio įtaką regionų konkurencingumui, pateikiama detali socialinių modelių analizė, išskiriami jiems būdingi bruožai. Identifikuota, kad, nepaisant didelės socialinių modelių įvairovės, pagrindiniais laikytini trys – liberalus, konservatyvus ir socialdemokratinis – modeliai. Siekiant nustatyti, kuris iš minėtų trijų modelių gali būti tinkamiausias regionų konkurencingumui didinti, išanalizuotas Europos Komisijos skelbiamas Europos Sąjungos regionų konkurencingumo indeksas ir Pasaulio ekonomikos forumo sudaroma Pasaulio konkurencingumo ataskaita. Buvo tiriamos skirtingus socialinius modelius turinčios valstybės (valstybes sudarantys regionai): Jungtinės Amerikos Valstijos ir Jungtinė Karalystė. kurioms būdingas liberalus socialinis modelis, Skandinavijos valstybės, kurioms būdingas socialdemokratinis modelis, ir Vokietija, kuriai būdingas konservatyvus socialinis modelis. Atlikus analizę buvo nustatyta, kad konkurencingiausi regionai yra tie, kuriuose taikomas liberalus socialinis modelis. Straipsnyje taip pat analizuojamas Lietuvos atvejis – įvertinama Lietuvos regioninė politika ir sprendimas perskirti Lietuvą į du regionus.
After the collapse of communism, the post-communist countries had to transform their economic and social systems, democratize the political system, etc. The post-communist countries had to demonstrate their ability and potential to create strong social security system (social model), thereby ensuring the welfare for its citizens. The newly created social models had to rely on a certain notion of prosperity, while the state had to take care of the implementation of the welfare regime, formulate the methods and measures that are necessary for the achievement of the welfare state. There are many attempts at understanding, evaluating and describing the social (welfare) models and their development in post-communist states. Case studies and comparative studies of several countries are used most commonly. Some of the researchers attempt to put the postcommunist model into the traditional typology of G. Esping-Andersen's three models – liberal, conservative and social democratic. However, there is a growing consensus, that the postcommunist states have the features of all three models, are unique and therefore form a separate model. Taking this into account, the aim of this paper is formulated – to identify and analyze social model of post-communist states. G. Esping-Andersen's classification of welfare regimes is considered to be the main and most prevalent in the scientific community, however, many countries have different features of all G. Esping-Andersen's types and do not match just one of the models exactly. It is for this reason that the typology of G. Esping-Andersen has received a lot of criticism of its rigor and therefore there are many attempts to correct, adjust or extend this typology, usually by adding one or more models. One of these attempts applies to the search for a post-communist model. The analysis of social models proves that the social policy of post-communist countries does not reflect any type of G. Esping-Andersen's typology and is so mixed and specific that it should be considered as a separate post-communist model. The post-communist countries are characterized by a lower level of economic and social development, high levels of corruption, high migration rates, social inequality, lower levels of social protection, etc. It was determined that the welfare system of the post-communist states was influenced by three factors: the legacy of the past, the influence of the West and political reforms. The legacy of the past is, above all, communist experience, although it has been proven that the origins of the development of social models and welfare of the post-communist countries backs to the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. The influence of the West is mostly connected to the European Union (because states had to meet strict requirements and make social, economic and political changes in order to become the members of EU) and other international organizations (such as World Bank, International Monetary Fund). Political reforms are mainly related to expanding citizens' rights, increasing social protection and social services. The biggest challenge to the creation of social model and a welfare system was the period of transformation, which took place under difficult circumstances, and was accompanied by shocks, upheavals: in the early 1990's the economic recession has begun, the legacy of the socialist model has led to a limitation of financial resources, the state has faced major demographic changes, the socioeconomic structure of society has changed, savings in the social security system increased as well as poverty, unemployment, inequality etc.
After the collapse of communism, the post-communist countries had to transform their economic and social systems, democratize the political system, etc. The post-communist countries had to demonstrate their ability and potential to create strong social security system (social model), thereby ensuring the welfare for its citizens. The newly created social models had to rely on a certain notion of prosperity, while the state had to take care of the implementation of the welfare regime, formulate the methods and measures that are necessary for the achievement of the welfare state. There are many attempts at understanding, evaluating and describing the social (welfare) models and their development in post-communist states. Case studies and comparative studies of several countries are used most commonly. Some of the researchers attempt to put the postcommunist model into the traditional typology of G. Esping-Andersen's three models – liberal, conservative and social democratic. However, there is a growing consensus, that the postcommunist states have the features of all three models, are unique and therefore form a separate model. Taking this into account, the aim of this paper is formulated – to identify and analyze social model of post-communist states. G. Esping-Andersen's classification of welfare regimes is considered to be the main and most prevalent in the scientific community, however, many countries have different features of all G. Esping-Andersen's types and do not match just one of the models exactly. It is for this reason that the typology of G. Esping-Andersen has received a lot of criticism of its rigor and therefore there are many attempts to correct, adjust or extend this typology, usually by adding one or more models. One of these attempts applies to the search for a post-communist model. The analysis of social models proves that the social policy of post-communist countries does not reflect any type of G. Esping-Andersen's typology and is so mixed and specific that it should be considered as a separate post-communist model. The post-communist countries are characterized by a lower level of economic and social development, high levels of corruption, high migration rates, social inequality, lower levels of social protection, etc. It was determined that the welfare system of the post-communist states was influenced by three factors: the legacy of the past, the influence of the West and political reforms. The legacy of the past is, above all, communist experience, although it has been proven that the origins of the development of social models and welfare of the post-communist countries backs to the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. The influence of the West is mostly connected to the European Union (because states had to meet strict requirements and make social, economic and political changes in order to become the members of EU) and other international organizations (such as World Bank, International Monetary Fund). Political reforms are mainly related to expanding citizens' rights, increasing social protection and social services. The biggest challenge to the creation of social model and a welfare system was the period of transformation, which took place under difficult circumstances, and was accompanied by shocks, upheavals: in the early 1990's the economic recession has begun, the legacy of the socialist model has led to a limitation of financial resources, the state has faced major demographic changes, the socioeconomic structure of society has changed, savings in the social security system increased as well as poverty, unemployment, inequality etc.
