Groupism in practice

I must apologize in advance for being again narrow-minded and concentrating on issues seemingly of secondary importance, only very superficially connected to the crisis. But the abandonment of the US missile shield project in ECE caused some reactions that are great illustrations of a concept introduced into the nationalism studies recently and not the least can shed light to the thinking of ECE elites or at least a part of them.
The issue is quite simple, the Obama administration announced the abandonment of the plan of a missile shield with a radar station in the Czech Republic and ten missiles in Poland with the aim to intercept IBMs launched from Iran. The plan caused much tension between Russia and the US (and its allies in ECE) because it was perceived as aimed against Russia and - ironically - while the Bush administration never forgot to stress that it is not capable to counterbalance a strategic strike force as large as the Russians have, the Polish and Czech politicians saw in the realization of the project not only a chance to raise their importance in the US system of alliances, but an effective way to deter Russia from aggressive steps against these countries. Not that it would have been really popular, at least in the Czech Republic the plan was widely unpopular.
Anyway, the announcement caused uproar, at least among the elite. Some weeks ago a group of experts, diplomats and politicians, describing themselves as "atlantists" (i.e. personalities with a deep attachment to the idea of a firm alliance between their countries and the US) published a letter supposedly addressed to the Obama administration and warning the consequences of such a possibility, the perceived spread of a feeling among the population that the US surrenders the region to Russia.
Up to this point it is a pretty simple story, one would be justified to ask: what the whole series of events has to do with such unheard concepts as "groupism"? I will spare my readers (however few they are) from a detailed discussion of this concept, invented by Rogers Brubaker. The core of this idea is an observation and critical remark: many categories employed and applied by social scientists implies the very existence of the subjects of their analysis instead of asking for this fact. Social scientists tend to take the existence of such entities as nations, states, societies - all of them as entities acting their uniformly and unanimously on their own behalf - analysing such phenomenons as nations as if they could act as single actors, as their respective elites claim or describe. The idea was a productive one fro the social sciences, but as the reaction to the event mentioned above shows it is far from being universally accepted or applied.
The largest and supposedly best quality newspaper in Hungary (Népszabadság) published a small collection of different articles in order to place the decision of the Obama administration in a broader context. It published an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, a small report on a survey carried out by the German Marshall Foundation (Transatlantic Trends 2009) and some auxiliary information on the reactions in Poland and in the Czech Republic.
The whole story is covered as if such entity as Poland, Hungary or any country in ECe would exist and act as a single person. The results of the Transatlantic Trend survey are reported as a sign that contrary to the Western part of the continent Obama's accession to the presidency would have caused disappointment and disillusionment. The paper cites someone responsible for the research stating that the new administration is less popular because of its less confrontational approach to Russia. Surprisingly the survey results show that the Bush administration was less popular even in Poland where anti-Russian sentiment is really a mobilization force. And the other results signal not less, but more enthusiasm towards Obama, although not as strong as in Western Europe.
But this is not groupism, this is simple professional incapacity. Groupism as a basic concept of those whose thoughts are conveyed by the articles is revealed by such phrases like Poland or the Czech Republic is disappointed because of the abandonment of the plan, Eastern and Western Europe is worried by the dependence from Russian natural gas and oil etc. Even though these issues are usually confined to a very narrow group of the respective societies and the missile shield was - especially in the Czech republic - an unpopular issue, only supported by the elites, as long as those elites express their views as if they would represent the public opinion it is accepted s such. And the disappointment of some people in the elite is interpreted as widespread disappointment, sometimes contradicting the evidence. But as long as elites are seen as identical to their respective societies, groupism will prevail. And we will hear that Romania, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia etc. did something or felt somehow, however crazy such an assumption is.

With "recovery" exceptionalism and self-flagellation returns

As one can hear more and more positive forecasts and predictions - and the summer recess ended as well - the media is filled again with "analysis". Economists and analysts, politicians and gurus are once again on the scene and pre-crisis narratives are once again sold, without discount. Although this time at least their opposite is on the imaginary shelves...

The self-flagellation, so popular among Hungary's "intellectuals" is back directly or indirectly as well. If a politician of the respective country's makes a statement on the inevitable fast recovery and even faster future growth of Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria etc. it is immediately bought by the media and distributed, without any comment, contextualization etc. As if the last half a year would have never happened. Nobody seems to be interested in the respective countries beyond a set of basic data, nobody seems to have learned the lessons of debacles. Moreover, a modest, but very visible flow of articles on Slovakia as the country offering the model to follow appeared again, quite in pre-crisis fashion. The past is bright and the future will also be, as they implemented the right economic model. Doubts are not dismissed, they are rather omitted from the picture. One quarter of growth - even though it means quite serious decline on a year-on-year basis and was driven by state spending certainly not sustainable on the long run - was enough for this conclusion. As if nobody would be willing to consider the limitations of dependency on only one industrial sector, the possible impact of the competition for investment on the level of wages, especially with high unemployment depriving the state from predicted incomes, not to speak of the possibility of a second wave of economic decline.

As summer recedes, public figures resume their work a new waye of stupidity strikes?

Not only I have returned from a long vacation accompanied by a hopefully exceptional silence, but the public figures of Europe and with them the media is filled with a new wave of opinions regarding the crisis, its consequences and effects in the individual countries. As if nothing have happened, and the mood of the economic world wouldn't be impressed by the new leading theme of "recovery" the first appearances were nothing else than sheer stupidity. Moreover, the cacophony and the surprise developments can undermine the very hope for a fast and strong recovery, especially in ECE.

Birth of a dangerous populist

One of the favorite way to conceptualize the present tensions between Slovakia and Hungary is to emphasize the populist politics and the according personality of Robert Fico, the Slovak prime minister. (Ironically, Mr. Fico almost never forget to portray the present Hungarian opposition and quite probable governing party after next spring, and its leader Viktor Orbán as dangerous populist and nationalist.) This line of reasoning has as its starting point the economic problems caused by the crisis and its consequences and as a consequence sees in the nationalist political measures and manoeuvers an attempt to preserve electoral support by way of diverting the public's attention.

Recovery everywhere - why to be scared?

Back from a long summer recess, although the lack of posts recently was not due to my activities (however overburdened I'm am with tasks and responsibilities) rather the lack of impulses and events. One could have seen a rising tide of good news (maybe even the favorite color has changed from green to a more ripened one), a series of countries posting positive growth figures for the second quarter (quarter-on-quarter, in yearly comparison it is rather pathetic) and economic sentiment soaring almost everywhere. As the latter is considered to be a so-called "leading indicator" (i.e. signaling in advance the trends of the respective economy) further economic expansion is expected in the coming month. The change was abrupt, and rather peculiar. While only a half a year ago (almost) everyone forecasted that the world is doomed, now (almost) everyone is prophesizing that our torture is already ended or it will soon end.

Hot Caucasian summers

I must immediately apologize to my readers - to those making efforts for a more vivid discussion and to those reading rather passively either - as the topic of this post will have not much to do with ECE and its crisis. Of course, if one covers Russia's moves at its "near abroad" zone there is always a chance to point out some kind of significance for ECE as well, but I do not want to rely on such cheap methods, especially as Russia's relationship with Georgia is only very loosely connected to the economic crisis. (Last year the conflict happened at the height of rising oil prices, many people envisioning Russia's re-emergence as a world power on the back of this phenomenon.) But the newly arriving disturbing news from the region gives me a chance to reshape and reiterate some ideas of mine, not discussed publicly at that occasion.

Europe's bottleneck

I'm living a honeymoon with my driving license. It is not a month old and I try to practic as much as I can. As I'm no spending my time in the middle of Romania (Sfintu Gheorghe/Spesiszentgyörgy) I could have reexperienced something I have noticed earlier as a passenger. The lack of the necessary infrastucture of traffic. There are no transversal motorways, crosing the country, no suitable fast traffic routes. Some of the main European higways were rebuilt in the last decade, but it is far from being enough. Especially if one takes into account the fact that Romania is situated along one of the most importnat landroutes in the EU. As the Western Balkans is still not a part of the common market the larger part of goods transported from Turkey and the Balkans to the West is crossing the country, having no alternatives. And without the necessary infrastructure the country literally became Europe's bottleneck. Trailers crawling along the two-lane roads with steep curves...

There is no direct relationship with the crisis, at least in a narrow sense. But as Romania's fast growth in the last decade was fuelled not only by a credit bubble and the inflow of financial transfers from the guest workers but the lack of major infrastructural development and investment it reveals a side of the low tax low redistribution approach not emphasized in the good years: without the necessary budget incomes there is no way to finance such works. (To be fair with Romania, it was amongst the most shbby countries at the end of the communist regime, therefore its need of infrastructural development was extraordinarily high, especially compared to the level of its GDP.)

It is not a major finding, nor a great discovery, but maybe could highlight how complex the situation in many ECE countries is. It is not only an issue of one or two percent more growth or 5 or 10 percent lower taxes. Many of those countries needed a thorough reconstruction and not simply a transformation. And once again, a problem of a single member state has far reaching consequenes for the whole of Europe...