Ostalo
Round-table "The village in transition" Institute for Social Research of Zagreb, April 19th, 2001
Dušica Seferagić
; Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Milan Župančić
; Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Alija Hodžić
; Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Maja Štambuk
; Institut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Vlado Puljiz
; Studijski centar socijalnog rada Pravnog fakulteta, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Stipe Šuvar
; Odsjek za sociologiju, Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Željko Mataga
; Hrvatski zadružni savez, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Josip Defilippis
; Institut za jadranske kulture i melioraciju krša, Split, Hrvatska
Ivan Magdalenić
; Studijski centar socijalnog rada Pravnog fakulteta, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Antun Petak
; Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Ivan Cifrić
; Odsjek za sociologiju, Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Svetozar Livada
Nataša Lončar Butić
Zrnka Novak
Jasenka Kranjčević
Sažetak
The round-table The village in transition was held on April 19th 2001, organized by the Institute
of Social Research Zagreb. The team members are financed by the Ministry of Science
and Technology of the Republic of Croatia through the project The village in transition:
possibilities of developing rural areas, which is part of a continuous program of
reasearch into Social changes and the development of Croatia. The basis of discussion was
a thematic double issue journal Sociologija sela (Rural Sociology) 1-2 (147-148) / 2000. The
Croatian village in transition, i.e. a collection of articles by the said research team.
Round-table participants were mainly sociologists, but also representatives of other professions:
from sciences, politics, planning and practice. Introductory presentations were given
by Milan Župančić and Alija Hodžić. »Invited participants« were Maja Štambuk, Vlado
Puljiz, Stipe Šuvar, Željko Mataga, Josip Defilippis and Ivan Cifrić. Other speakers were
Ivan Magdalenić, Antun Petak, Dušica Seferagić, Svetozar Livada, Nataša Lončar Butić,
Zrnka Novak and Jasenka Kranjčević.
In the introductory article Village modernization Milan Župančić outlines the essential
modernizing processes of the last fifty years and speaks of the transitional perspectives for
the Croatian village. He analyses the process of deagrarization (rural disintegration), supported
by the socialist politics towards industrialization and urbanization as aims of modernising
the society. Effects on the village are mostly negative: depopulation, exodus,
ruralisation of the village, and its degradation. The strategy of space planning in Croatia
(1997) aims towards a balanced development of a network of settlements and towards
polycentricity, but without adequate implementation mechanisms.
In his article The village as a choice? Alija Hodzic questions whether the village can be a
choice rather than coercion. According to the author the answer can be found in historical
analysis of the development of society and the position of the village in it, beginning from
the Middle Ages. The village and the peasantry begin with the wider society, i.e. the
global community. The traditional, relative autonomy of the village recedes (withdraws)
before a modern society that establishes manifold supremacy over the village. Through the
changes in values and the emphasis on work, diligence, productivity, duty, and by way of
social regulation from above, the village of necessity enters the system and becomes subordinated.
Modernisation in Croatia occures rather late, but also quickly, in a short period of socialism.
The village furnishes resources for the town and society, and it loses its composition.
The recomposition of the village is at the very beginning. A positive aspect of
globalisation is the reduction in tensions and differences between village and town , while
with the increase of communication density, there also grows the possibility for the village
to become a matter of choice. For the present, it is only a possibility.
In her article Why are we where we're at? Maja Štambuk explains, through a hystorical perspective,
the reasons why the Croatian village found itself in the inferior position in relation
to total modernising processes in society and in towns in particular. It all stems from
its position of the »periphery of periphery« (Austro-Hungaiy), when the Monarchy dictated
the manner and pace of village modernization in Croatia, according to its own needs. The
slow and late modernization in its incomplete form thus marked the Croatian village. Until
the 1920's the village is in the stage of composition, which is then followed by processes
of urbanisation, industrialisation, and changes in the social and political organization. The
village is ruralised as a result of government politics relating to the type of development of
society in which the village loses importance. The recomposition stage of the village that
has begun essentially requires rurally oriented politics, which is absent as the author critically
explains. Political and administrative decentralisation has encompassed the whole
area, but is not being implemented, so that the village is burdened with great problems. It
is not able to solve them on its own nor with the assistance of current politics.
Vlado Puljiz in his article The short 20th century into village speaks of several
modernizations of Croatia. In the 20th century the peasantly underwent turbulent changes;
it became politically aware in the period between the two wars, serviced the town and industry
in socialism, but towards the end developed in the direction of enterprise, farming
agriculture (larger holdings), and urbanisation of the village. In the last decade, the village
regressed through the foundering of big socialist enterprises, the rise of inequality and
competition of foreign markets. However, according to V. Puljiz, the village still has some
objective advantages and has chances to develop.
Stipe Šuvar speaks in favour of types of settlement as an instrument of space planning,
and for defining minimal critera for urbanising undeveloped areas.
Željko Mataga analyses agrarian structure in the last decade and maintains that it was well
prepared for transition, since private rural property was retained, there emerged a certain
number of vital rural estates and because cooperatives and enterprises functioned well,
maintaining variety. The processes of transformation destroyed initial advantages and returned
the village to the beginning. Mataga speaks in favour of aims of positive agrarian
politics, emphasizing the importance of economic, social, and ecological components, the
regional approach, integrated multidisciplinary approach and reestablishment of cooperatives.
]osip Defilippis criticizes village research policy in Croatia and proposes the undertaking
of one major scientific research project. He analyses state documents (The Agriculture
Law, The Strategy of Development of Agriculture) and critically views declaratory interest in
the village and also the lack of practical solutions.
Ivan Cifrić in his article The approacbes to village researcb speaks about three themes:
some assumptions for discussing »the village in transition«, the dominant approaches in research,
and certain topics of scientific and social significance. He maintains that it is important
to define the approach, content and metodology of research, to replace paradigm
of growth with that of sustainable development and to study »the ecological complex« and
»rural metabolism«.
Many identical and other topics were discussed after major presentations: business orientation of the population (Ivan Magdalenić), the village youth (Antun Petak), educating the
young »for the village« (I. Magdalenić, A. Petak), the future of the country population in
view of negative changes (Ivan Cifrić), how people live (Svetozar Livada, Alija Hodžić),
the effect of war on the village (I. Cifrić, S. Livada, Zrnka Novak), the influence of globalization
on the village (S. Livada, A. Hodžić), the concept of space decentralisation and settlement
networks (Dušica Seferagić, Nataša Lončar Butić, Milan Župančić, A. Hodzic, Maja
Štambuk, Stipe Šuvar), the significance of diversity for the recomposition of the village
(Vlado Puljiz, A. Hodžic, M. Štambuk), changes clue to transition (all speakers), the relationship
of science, planning and implementation (N. Lončar Butić, Jasenka Kranjčević), a
survey of some European institutions and their declarations, charters, and plans for the European
village (J. Kranjčević).
Although, at first impression, the presentations seemed different and discussions varied,
they had this in common: only a historical approach can explain changes; sharp criticism
of socialist and transition politics regarding the village; negative evaluation of the position
of the village today but also searching for some »Optimistic« indicators of possibilities of
development, suggestions for rurally orie nted politics, its implementation and application.
It is also important not to imitate, but learn from foreign countries and from European
documents about the development of villages. We recomend the conclusions of this
round-table The village in transition to all decision makers!
Ključne riječi
modernisation; rural oriented politics; recomposition; village transition; scientific research
Hrčak ID:
101915
URI
Datum izdavanja:
5.11.2002.
Posjeta: 1.741 *