2013 - “Work” in Progress? A Cultural and Social Analysis of 'Work' in Romania

Univerzitet u Novom SaduFakultet tehničkih nauka

University of Novi SadFaculty of technical sciences

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE

Deindustrialization: phenomena,

consequences

PROCEEDINGS

Novi Sad, 15.6.2013.

UNIVERSITY OF NOVI SAD, FACULTY OF TECHNICAL SCIENCES Trg Dositeja Obradovića 6, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia

GENERAL CHAIR:Alpar Losonc, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences Novi Sad, Serbia

GRAPHIC DESIGN AND PREPRESSIvan Pintier, Graphic Center GRID, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 6, Novi Sad

PRESS:Graphic Center GRID, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 6, Novi Sad

Tiraž: 30

Project of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development Republic of Serbia. The transformation of social identity in Serbia crisis and its impact on European Integration, 2011-2014. Project Number: 179052

CIP - Каталогизација у публикацији Библиотека Матице српске, Нови Сад

330.341.426(082)

INTERNATIONAL Scientific Conference Deindustrialization: phenomena, con-sequences (2013 ; Novi Sad) Proceedings / International Scientific Conference Deindustrialization: phenomena, consequences, Novi Sad, 15.06.2013. ; [editors Alpar Lošonc, Andrea Ivanišević]. - Novi Sad : Faculty of Technical Sciences, 2013 (Novi Sad : Grid). - 317 str. : ilustr. ; 24 cm

Tiraž 30. Bibliografija uz svaki rad.

ISBN 978-86-7892-562-7

a) Демографија - Зборници COBISS.SR-ID 281914375

General Chair:Alpar Lošonc, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences Novi Sad, Serbia

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE:Alpar Lošonc, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, SerbiaRadoš Radivojević, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, SerbiaImre Lazar, University of Karoli Gaspar, Institute for Society and Communicology, HungaryImre Ungvári Zrínyi, Babes-Bolyai University Cluj, RomaniaŞtefan Maftei, Babes-Bolyai University Cluj, RomaniaGyöngyvér, PÁSZTOR, Babes-Bolyai University Cluj, RomaniaIvan Balog, University of Szeged, HungaryJános I. TÓTH, Department of Philosophy, University of Szeged, HungaryManzo John, University of Calgary, CanadaRichard Frank, School of Business, University of Ottawa, CanadaDonna Harper, Liverpool Hope University, EnglandMarjan Leber, University of Maribor, SloveniaAleksa Milojević, Economic Institute Bijeljina, Bosnia and HerzegovinaIvan Šijaković, University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Economics, Bosnia and HerzegovinaDraško Marinković, University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Sciences, Bosnia and HerzegovinaMilan Popović, University of Podgorica, Faculty of Law, MontenegroDragoljub Đorđević, University of Niš, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Niš, SerbiaBojan Lalić, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, SerbiaAndrea Ivanišević, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, Serbia Biljana Ratković Njegovan, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, SerbiaLeposava Grubić-Nešić, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, SerbiaGordana Vuksanović, University of Novi Sad, Higher School of Professional Business Studies, SerbiaSnežana Stojšin, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Philosophy, Serbia

Slavica Mitrović, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, SerbiaStevan Milisavljević, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, Serbia

Editor:Alpar Lošonc, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, SerbiaAndrea Ivanišević, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, Serbia

Publisher:UNIVERSITY OF NOVI SAD, FACULTY OF TECHNICAL SCIENCES

ORGANIZING COMMITTEEChair:Radoš Radivojević, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, Serbia

Members:Alpar Lošonc, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, SerbiaRadoš Radivojević, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, SerbiaBojan Lalić, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, SerbiaAndrea Ivanišević, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, SerbiaSonja Pejić, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, SerbiaPavlović Ana, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, Serbia

Secretary General:Sonja Pejić, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of technical sciences, Serbia

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE

International Scientific Conference Deindustrialization: phenomena, consequences University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences,

Novi Sad, 15.06.2013.

I

II

Sadržaj

Maftei Ştefan-Sebastian: “Work” in Progress? A Cultural and Social Analysis of “Work” in Romania .......................................................................................................7

Imre Lázár: Ares and Eros: Ecodynamics of Deindustrialization ...............................27

Aleksa Milojević: Globalization, privatization, deindustrialization ............................. 41

Radoš Radivojević, Sonja Pejić: Class transformation and deindustrialization in Serbia ..........................................................................................53

Andrea Ivaniševic, Branislav Marić, Marjan Leber, Ana Frank: Crisis of industrial development in Serbia: effects of our industrial policy ................................................65

Viktor Radun, Radmila Ćurčić : Deindustrialization as complexity ............................77

Leposava Grubić-Nešić, Biljana Ratković Njegovan: Education required for reindustrialization ...........................................................................................................87

Viktor Radun, Radmila Ćurčić: Controversies and developmental implications of deindustrialization in the context of geo-economic restructuring in the global crisis era ................................................................................................................99

Gordana Vuksanović: Mixed households in the process of deindustrialization .......105

Gordana Jevđović: Rethinking macroeconomic policies on the way to reindustrialization in Serbia .........................................................................................117

Snezana Stojsin: On some of the consequences of de-industrialization ...................127

Lalić Bojan, Danijela Gračanin, Slađana Gajić, Miloš Jovanović, Iztok Palčič: Outsourcing influence on Deindustrialisation ...........................................................135

Slavka T. Nikolić, Jelena Stanković, Milica Kostreš, Đorđe Ćelić: Place/city branding and multicultularism: (im)possibility of diversity .....................................145

PHENOMENA, CONSEQUENCES 5

III Sonja Pejić, Radoš Radivojević: Entrepreneurial Potential of the New Elite in the Republic of Serbia ...............................................................................................159

Stevan Milisavljević, Slavica Mitrović, Valentin Konja: Serbian reindustrialization as a chance for better tomorrow - opportunities and threats from customers perspective .....................................................................................................................173

Jovica Marković, Jovana Mutibarić, Željko Sudarić: Implications of deindustrialization on productivity .............................................................................183

Ivana Katic, Leposava Grubic-Nesic, Brankica Skenderija: Intrinsic motivation as a specific element of corporate entrepreneurship .........................................................197

Ivana Katic, Nenad Penezić, Bahrija Umihanić: Development of business competencies for the purpose of reindustrialization ..................................................207

Miodrag Strak, Slavica Nikolić, Radomir Mihajlović: Business process reengineering in the privatization process – a step forward on the edge of the abyss? ...................................................................................................................217

Biserka Košarac: Transition And Deindustrialization On The Example Of Republic Of Srpska And Bosnia And Herzegovina ..............................................229

Milan Mitrović Milan Janković, Snežana Kirin: Importance of corporate restructuring for the processes of deindustrialization and reindustrialization ........239

Milan Brkljač, Jelena Stanković: The role of “word of mouth” communication in service marketing ......................................................................................................253

Ljiljana Popović, Ana Frank, Jovana Simić, Tanja Novaković: Dekarbonizacija razvijenih zemalja kroz „čistu“ deindustrijalizaciju ...................................................265

Jelena Borocki Slavica Mitrovic, Danijela Gracanin, Danijela Lalic, Bojan Lalic: Youth entrepreneurial potential ...................................................................................275

Alpar Lošonc: Deindustrialization, employment, jobless growth ..............................287

Branislav Marić, Mihailo Rovčanin, Andrea Ivanišević: Effects of deindustrialuzation on metal processing industry in Novi Sad ................................297

Ljubica Dudjak: Changes in relation to knowledge as a result of deindustrialization ........................................................................................................307

Viktor Radun, Jelena Marinković, Nenad Marinković: Deindustrialization, development and knowledge economy issues in European Union countries in terms of global economic crisis ...............................................................................317

SectionSection


“Work” in Progress? A Cultural and Social Analysis of “Work” in Romania 1

Maftei Ştefan-SebastianDepartment of PhilosophyBabeş-Bolyai University

M.Kogălniceanu str. 1 400084Cluj-Napoca

RomaniaEmail:[email protected]

AbstractIt is a well-known fact today that work, as an economical rational, social and political attitude survives by being supported by its own ideology. Our study will try to find some answers to some questions addressed by different authors: What is there so peculiar to Romanians and their way of life that makes them so conspicuous in their “work ethics”? What are the potential causes behind their peculiar mindset towards work?

Keywords: work, work ethics, Romania, modernization, cultural analysis

Firstly, the paper will try to focus on the issue of the ‘work’, as it triumphalistically emerges in the form of a full-fledged ‘ideology’, out of the development of modern social relationships and out of the development of the modern system of economic production, starting with the dawn of modernity - an event which has been usually located at the beginning of the XVI-th century - in the countries of Western Europe. Secondly, the study will compare the situation of modern economic advance in Western Europe with the development of modern industry and capitalism in the lands of Eastern Europe, a type of development which builds up into a particular trend, which will affect, in its turn, the perception and, implicitly, the work behavior in Romania from the XIX-th century on. Finally, the study will survey the kinds of relationships between the ideology if work and the economic development in Eastern Europe, with particular focus on Romania.

1 This text is an earlier, revised version of my “That Romanian Work Ethic:” A Cultural and Social Analy-sis of the History of Work in Romania, soon to be published in Philobiblon. Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities. The text has been presented at the International Conference: Deindustrialization. Phenomena Consequences, held at the University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, on 27.05.2013. I thank the organizers of this conference on this occasion.

International Scientific Conference Deindustrialization: phenomena, consequences University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences,

Novi Sad, 15.06.2013.

8 DEINDUSTRIALIZATION:

Homo faber

When taking a quick look at the history of the term itself, one may easily find that there are a few moments in history that indicate a shift in the meaning of the term “work”.2 As Maurice Godelier suggested, only in the XIX-th century did the term work became central to the science of political economy. Also, there are some historical moments that point to sudden economical shifts: the XII-th century, with the advent of domestic manufacture; the XV-th century, with the emergence of an international trade; the 16-th century, with the development of a colonial system and of banking; the XVIII-

th century, with the rise of a modern economic system and the emergence of such terms as “wage”, “worker”, and “capital”. As early as the XII-th century, Godelier suggests, the term “profit”, meaning “someone who has advanced or made progress” appeared in the common language. He also observes that, throughout modern history there has been a shift in the meaning of work: it first referred to a painful activity, then, with the advent of modern industry, it suddenly shifted to a positive meaning that celebrated the dignity of the worker. It is only in the XVIII-th century that work is associated with value (Quesnay, Adam Smith, Ricardo). Ultimately, Marx will associate modern work with the rise of the capitalist society.

Godelier also contends that, even today, societies may differ in their appreciation of the value and nature of work: “among those societies in which the economy is based on production and gift of use values, and those founded on production, sale and purchase of commodities, there are many differences which ought to be precisely studies in order to understand what would correspond, in each case, with how we use ‘work’, ‘to work’, and ‘worker.’”3 He also quotes Marshall Sahlins who wrote about the attitude towards work in tribal economies: “Work is (…) intermittent, sporadic, discontinuous, ceasing for the moment when not required for the moment (…) Nor is tribal labour alienated from man himself, detachable from his social being and transactable as so many units of depersonalized labour-power. A man works, produces, in his capacity as a social person, as a husband and father, brother and lineage mate, member of a clan, a village. ‘Worker’ is not a status in itself, nor ‘labour’ a true category of tribal economics. Said differently, work is organized by relations ‘non-economic’ in the conventional sense (…) Work is an expression of pre-existing kin and community relations, the exercise of these relations. “ 4

The rationalization of work as modern-day work begins with the second half of the XVIII-th century. Of course, there are earlier representations of work which have influenced the revolution in the understanding of work of the XVIII-th century, representations which will be later discussed. Godelier identifies the ideology of the homo faber as being at the core of the XVIII-th century rationalism and materialism. 2 See Godelier, Maurice (1980), “Work and Its Representations: A Research Proposal”, History Workshop

10 (1980),165 ff..3 Godelier, op.cit., 167.4 Sahlins, quoted in: Godelier, op.cit., 1980.


Homo faber reflects the ideology that interprets human being as having essentially the capacity to “transform nature through labour and in doing so to transform his own social being. Historians of ideas have yet to trace the exact origins of this idea that human beings transform nature and their own nature. This idea cannot be found in antiquity.” 5

In contrast with the transformative (external and internal) character of work in modern industrial society (Marx has been one of the key sources of legitimation for this idea of work) the pre-modern view on work (Godelier brings the example of the Maenge people of New Guinea) is not seeing work as something that can be alienated (brought into a commercial circuit), but as something deeply imbedded in interpersonal (family, tribe) relations.6 To the Maenge people, to cultivate something does not mean to “change” or transform nature. It mean keeping the balance between humans and nature, as raising plants, for example, is making an exchange with the gods or with the ancestors 7 In a pre-industrial society, there are still tasks to be done, yet these are achieved without a special timetable for work. The machine or the industrial process does not regulate time as in industrial production. These tasks are achieved without a special work discipline that sets itself with some sort of compulsion through machines, time, wage, profit or other elements of production. Work is not yet the invisible or incomprehensible force imposing in a circuit of social and economic reified relations, as Granter argues.8 If there is a compulsion, that compulsion to work is regulated by the cycles of nature itself. Quoting Sahlins, Edward Granter describes the transition from pre-industrial to industrial economy characterized by work indiscipline in the case of primitive hunters of the Yamana tribe, an episode described by Martin Gusinde in 1931: “(…) the Yamana are not capable of continuous, daily hard labour, much to the chagrin of European farmers and employers for whom they often work. Their work is more a matter of fits and starts, and in these occasional efforts they can develop considerable energy for a certain time. After that, however, they show a desire for an incalculably long rest period during which they lie about doing nothing, without showing great fatigue (…) It is obvious that repeated irregularities of this kind make the European employer despair, but the Indian cannot help it. It is his natural disposition.” 9

As a source of value, “work” is nowadays associated with wealth, profit, scheduled time, labour, production, machines, industry, capital, alienated products, alienated humans, commodification, urbanization and, ultimately, with what we usually mean by “progress.” Even today, the attitude towards “work” still represents the basis of belief in

5 Godelier, op.cit.,168.6 See Edward Granter, Critical Social Theory and the End of Work. Ashgate Publishing. Burlington VT,

2009, p. 12.7 Id.ibid.8 See Granter, op.cit., 11.9 Sahlins, quoted in Granter, op.cit., 14.


an “industrialized”, “modern”, “progressive” society. As a social value, “work” structures and gives meaning to our everyday experience as individuals in a modern society. Even today, “work” is still held in reserve as a special kind of telos or as an end in itself for our everyday existence, publicly as well as privately.10 This is what has been usually named as the modern “ideology of work” (Granter), which legitimizes the economic relationship of modern industrial and even post-industrial societies.

Weber

This type of work is related to what will be known as the Weberian “ideal type” of work, usually situated by the sociology of work within the premises of Max Weber’s sociological architectonics of modern work as a conceptual model of work shaped by the advent of Protestant Christianity in the West. This “ideal type” of work, sketched by Weber in his famous Protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus is based on two features: the idea of a permanent surveyor of work, i.e. God, and the belief in the “unlimitedness of work”, as work for work per se.11 There is, however, a major shift from the way a devout Puritan sees and practices work throughout his daily existence - since he is perceiving work as a vocation, as a calling, therefore as an end in itself, as a moral duty – to the way the Christian ideology of work as a vocation functions in a modern, bureaucratized and rationalized society. The difference, as Weber remarks, is the difference between freedom and constraint: “The Puritan wanted to work in a calling: we are forced to do so”.12 This is a major clue: even if Work is part of an ideology that stresses the virtue of work as a kind of vocation, the modern ideology of work cannot ultimately obscure, Weber contends, the forced character of labor generated by the social networking of modern everyday life.13

Weber is famous for linking the advent of Protestantism, especially Calvinism, with the rise of the modern ideology of work in his Protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (1905). Weber argued that Calvinism was not opposed to the idea of mercantilism or gaining profit from economical activities. The businessman, the rational man of action, finally becomes acceptable to Christianity. In accordance, work becomes not a means to an end, but an end in itself.14 :”Work” has been associated therefrom with the “vocation” and the exercise of asceticism in the everyday world. To the Calvinist Christian, work becomes a mundane calling of the believer. Although Weber’s explanation has been challenged several times by scholars that saw Protestantism only as 10 See Granter, op.cit., 107 ff. about the resurgence and survival of the ideology of work in postindustrial

societies. 11 See Heintz, Monica, Changes in Work Ethic in Postsocialist Romania, (PhD Thesis, Univ. of Cambridge,

UK, 2002), p. 168 ff. 12 Weber, quoted in Heintz, op.cit. 169.13 Id.ibid.14 This presentation of Weber’s ideas follows Granter’s summarizing, in Granter, op.cit., 20 ff.


a contingent element in the ideological structure of capitalism, others have recognized at least the legitimating force of the Protestant doctrine of work. This is due to two reasons:15 first, the Protestant doctrine is a religious doctrine, so that gives a superior legitimation to economic activity. Second, this work ethic has been proven very useful to the capitalist employer, who used it to shape the minds of his employees.

Therefore, at least concerning “work” as representation16, one may fairly say that the minds of the modern working class were influenced by the Protestant (Calvinist) doctrine of “work.” Protestantism contributed extensively to the idea of the dignity of work. Nevertheless, the religious framework was not the only set of ideas and practices that contributed to the image of “work” as developed in the intellectual atmosphere of the 18-th century.

Actually, Protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) is not Weber’s main sociological work. Economy and Society (Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft), written before 1922 and published posthumously in 1922 remains Weber’s main sociological tractatus. Economy and Society describes the tremendous process that brought European civilization to its bourgeois-modernistic state of development. In this context, it becomes clear that the concept “work” is closely linked to economic capitalism, to the rise of the modern state, to the modern doctrine of law, and, not least, to modern bureaucracy.17 When he will refer to work, Weber will also refer to bureaucracy, economic jurisdiction, bureaucratic hierarchy, writing, management, working capacity, working time, work ethic, knowledge of rules, profit and capital. Modernity, as Weber strives to show, is a complex of social, political, judicial and economic factors that work together in a certain manner, largely producing foreseen results.

First, Weber will describe modern “work” as economic activity, but not as any economic activity, but as an activity which is legally guaranteed and legitimized by the state. “Work”, as a modern term, appears in a certain context which is defined by “profit” and the legal use of “money” or currency. Before being an “activity in itself ”, as it is often described by the sociologists of culture, work is economically and judicially a contract, or a “deal” sealed by the state-guaranteed legality. It is also influenced by the “market”, which indicates a calculable relationship between supply and demand, according to rational rules.18 Work is part of an economic “act,” which is not the same thing as every instrumental action. “Economy”, following Weber, is definable either as the act of “satisfying one’s own wants,” or as a technique of profit-making ”by controlling and disposing of scarce goods.”19 Every economic action will influence the shaping of

15 Id.ibid.16 See Godelier, op.cit..17 Weber, Max, Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, eds. Guenther Roth and Claus

Wittich, (Berkeley.University of California Press, 1978).18 Weber, op.cit., 336.19 Weber, op.cit., 340.


economic groups or even of an economic “status.” Throughout his Economy and Society, Weber will closely monitor the development of modern economy as linked to the development of certain social relations. Also, we can deduce from the different kinds of social relationships (household, neighborhood, kin group) different approaches to economic actions. There is therefore a mutual relationship between economic action and social action: a particular economic action will, in turn, develop into an influence upon the shaping of a particular social action; on the other hand, social action itself is sometimes drawn into economic interests which, consequently, will bring about certain economic actions.

Weber will indicate certain orderings20 of “want satisfaction” consistent with the development of certain types of socio-economic arrangements. The first is the oikos, or the collective natural economy which is, particularly, a “group economy”. The main representative of this group economy is the familial economy or the household economy. It involves a certain domestic economic solidarity between its members, which is called “household communism.” This, of course, indicates a certain type of “work” or labor inside the community of the household members, which is mainly not self-interested, paid labor, but voluntary, free labor for the benefit of the entire household. This type of economy is perfect for the self-sufficient agrarian economy. Another type of collective economy is the “neighborhood economy”, which is determined by the mutual economic help between families. Mutual help involves a certain type of labor, called Bittarbeit, or “free labor for the asking”, in case of need. Another type of labor inside the neighborhood economy is the voluntary labor organized in a “co-operative” (genossenschaftlich) action. This kind of labor involves a monopolistic type of economy. Thus, the neighborhood economy becomes the natural economy of the local community. The “kin group economy” is another type of collective-based economy.

The emergence of these types of socio-economic actions is also distinguishable following a historical pattern of development. Weber will show that the household economy and its “demise” is closely connected to a historical pattern of development, where the individual becomes less and less dependent on the economic and social relationships established by the group. This split of the individual from the communitarian authority of the household, kin or community is determined partly by economic, partly by cultural factors: “With the multiplication of life chances and opportunities, the individual becomes less and less content with being bound to rigid and undifferentiated forms of life prescribed by the group. Increasingly he desires to shape his life as an individual and to enjoy the fruits of his own abilities and labor as he himself wishes.”21 The “quantitative growth of means and resources” is accentuated by the development of individual’s abilities and wants. The change in abilities and wants is continuously transformed by the society and by the transformations in culture. Thus, not only culture, but also objective economic growth (determined by factors such as growth in number of people and in life expectancy, due to the general changes in life 20 See Weber, op.cit., 348.21 Weber, op.cit., 375.


conditions) will bring about new economic opportunities, as well as new socio-economic arrangements. As cultural transformation is determined by objective economic growth, economical arrangements of the individual’s life are also generated by these transformations in culture, previously affected by the same economic growth, and so forth, in a continuous cycle: “The function of the household has changed so radically that it is becoming increasingly inopportune for an individual to join a large communistic household. An individual no longer gets protection from the household and kinship groups but rather from political authority, which exercises compulsory jurisdiction. Furthermore, household and occupation become ecologically separated, and the household is no longer a unit of common production but of common consumption. Moreover, the individual receives his entire education increasingly from outside his home and by means which are supplied by various enterprises: schools, bookstores, theaters, concert halls, clubs, meetings etc. He can no longer regard the household as the bearer of those cultural values in whose service he places himself. This decrease in the size of households is not due to a growing “subjectivism,” understood as a stage of social psychological development, but to the objective determinants of growth.”22

It is apparent that capitalism as a modern economic ideology of work, profit and entrepreneurship grew out of the religious spirit of Protestantism, as Weber himself has argued. However, as economic practice, capitalism is tied up with the decline of household communism and the rise in the growing sense of calculation (Rechenhaftigkeit), which developed near the end of the Middle Ages in the Italian cities or in other business-oriented medieval cities of Europe. The capital inherited was the first sign of the new era. Weber ties the decline of the household economy to the economic separation between the individual and the familial economy, with the emergence of the growing jurisdiction of the political authority upon the traditional authority of the family over the individual. On the other hand, he observes a certain detachment of production from consumption, or of individual occupation from the household. As a result, the education is supplied by others than the family itself; the individual detaches himself culturally from his familial community. Weber also remarks that the specific feature of capitalism consists in the contractual and legal regulation of economic arrangements. Private property and bankruptcy were legally established, in relation to the business environment and not to the household. Free labor (free employment) regulated by contract and legitimized by the authority of the state was specific to modern capitalist enterprises. However, there was, obviously, a wide use of unfree labor in early modern capitalism. All the capitalist economic activity is oriented towards the market, which is alien to every type of fraternal or kin relationship. At least in theory, markets are opposed to every kind of domination by authority and monopoly. They are oriented towards that “formal and rational objectivity,” which is so specific to modern capitalist economic relationships and to the modern bureaucratic system.

22 Weber, op.cit., 376.


Thus, Weber identifies, as early as the XVI-th century, a special economic, social and political pattern which is characteristic to the rise of modern capitalism23: the separation of the individual from the household, economically and culturally, the development of a strong political authority of the modern state upon its subjects, the split between the household and business entrepreneurship, the regulation of economic life through contracts which were legitimated by the state’s legal powers; in sum, the rising independence of the individual from its community and a stronger dependence on the legal and political powers of the modern state, as warrant for a rational, impersonal distribution of power to the members of society. Labor, i.e. the work of the individual towards his economical welfare becomes economically rationalized in a bureaucratic manner24, in the form of an economic contract, and socially legitimized, in the form of an individual’s “duty“ or “mission” to the fellow members of the society or to the state itself. In modern bureaucracy, office holding becomes a “vocation” or a “duty,” often considered beyond a simple exchange of services, as in the case of free employment. The bureaucratic loyalty to the office does not legitimize a relationship to a person, but is oriented towards impersonal purposes, towards an impersonal institution.25

A “Work” in Progress?

According to economic historians, Romania does not appear to be fitting the “modern” pattern of economy described above by Weberian sociology. I will not deal here with the history of socio-economic relationships in Romania.26 I will just identify the causes of Romania’s particular status in modern economic history, as explained in Kenneth Jowitt’s general presentation of Romanian modernization.27

In the XIX-th century, Romania’a status as economy and society would have fitted in the nowadays “Third World” category. Following a Weberian approach, Jowitt defines the XIX-th century Romanian society as a “status society”. According to Weber, “status” is different to “class,” since the Marxist term “class” cannot properly define the standing

23 He also distinguishes between “patrimonial” capitalism, which is politically oriented but not “modern”, and “production-oriented modern capitalism,” based on “rational enterprise, the division of labor and fixed capital” (Weber, op.cit., 1091).

24 On bureaucracy, see Weber, op.cit., 956-1005.25 Id.ibid., 959.26 This aspect has been analyzed elsewhere, in my “That Romanian Work Ethic:” A Cultural and Social

Analysis of the History of Work in Romania (forthcoming). For further references, see: Henri H. Stahl, Traditional Romanian village communities. The transition from the communal to the capitalist mode of production in the Danube region, transl. by D. Chirot and H. C. Chirot, Cambridge: CUP, 1980; David Turnock, “The Pattern of Industrialization in Romania”, Annals of the Association of American Geog-raphers, 60.3, sept. 1970, 540-559; William E. Crowther, The Political Economy of Romanian Socialism, Praeger, 1988.

27 Jowitt, Kenneth, “The Sociocultural Bases of National Dependency in Peasant Countries”, in: Jowitt, Kenneth ed. (1978), Social Change in Romania, 1860-1940. A Debate on Development in a European Nation, (Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1978), 1-30.


of a society which is basically off the course of a Western modern society, in terms of the Marxist “class”: the class situation differs from status situation in the sense that the latter is determined by a “social estimation of honor.28 “Distance” and “exclusiveness” are the social characteristics of “status,” which is not defined particularly by economic interests or the interests related to the market. Weber contended that market and pure economic interests do not recognize “personal distinctions”.

There are consequently, as Jowitt argues, several features that define a status society: 1) A “corporate group”, as “a basic unit of social identification and organization,”

a group which is naturally “exclusivistic” 29.2) Relations inside these groups are governed by personal and not impersonal

norms of actions. This is the feature generally resembling Weber’s notion of “patrimonial capitalism”, a notion which permeated Romania’s economic ethos during the XIX-th century and had tremendous influences even upon the economic policies of the Communist regime.30 In the case of economic patrimonialism defined by status, social ties inside the corporate group develop towards a (personalized) economy of “power” based on a personal exchange of “gifts” that will engage as an effective “magical” economy of social control, and not just as a “symbolic basis for trust”, as argued by Jowitt. These are, thus, not modern Western social relationships;

3) The division of labor is rigid and stereotypical, organized by caste, and not permeable by the impersonal forces of the market.

4) The “concrete and discrete –i.e. discontinuous-” qualities of social reality are more important that the “abstract” qualities.

5) In the case where the concrete and discrete dominate the social world as “indivisible units,” the distribution of “resources” or forces (economic, social cultural, political) is scarce, and the social mobility is poor. Each social stratum seems to have its own corresponding, unique, and immobile “essence.” As different from the modern Western societies (particularly for the XIX-th century), the status society is not dominated by the “market” forces of economy. Thus, the economy of a status society is not “free” economy - in liberal terms - but status-biased.31

28 Weber, quoted in: id.ibid.29 Jowitt, op.cit., 5.30 Following a Weberian definition, Ronald H. Linden will define Ceauşescu’s Communist-controlled

statist economic system as part of a “socialist patrimonialism” or as a “modern, patrimonial, bureau-cratic regime”, where the domination of a central government upon a ‘propertyless’ mass secured the “discretionary personal power” of the leader and the “state-determined rationality” of the State. The so-called Romanian “national Marxism-Leninism” influenced the economic policies of Romania be-tween 1965 and 1989. See R.H. Linden, ‘Socialist Patrimonialism and the global economy: the case of Romania’, International Organization, 40.2, Spring, 1986, pp. 347-380.

31 Jowitt, op.cit., 7.


Following Weber’s conclusions, Jowitt argues that in a modern “class society” the central role goes to the individual, and this shapes the “mode of organization and adaptation,” whereas in a “status society” it is not the individual, but the corporate group, as a basis of social action, which institutes the economic and political order of society. A peculiar example for this kind of difference between ground rules of social action which create different approaches to certain aspects that possess a social value is wealth: acquisition of wealth in status societies is a sign of personal prestige, guarded by the capacity to “calculate” and by “economic intelligence”. Yet, the mode of the acquisition of wealth in status societies, its use and the perception of the economic acquisition is very different from the presence of wealth in the class societies: “In status-based societies there is calculation for gain, but not the calculation of individuals based on impersonal, procedural norms. Economic behavior is informed by an heroic-plunder-largesse mentality (emphasis mine). This behavior takes a variety of forms, but it differs in kind from the impersonal-procedural mode of continuous and exact transactions that characterize modern or class societies.”32

Proofs of socio-economic praxis that transgresses the “modern” Weberian framework of economic and social action can be found throughout the XIX-th and XX-th century history of economic relations in Romania. The peasant economy, for example, was functioning on the model of the corporate peasant family household. Abstract economic rules were simply “unintelligible” to this type of economic framework. From its first steps into modernity, Romanian society has subordinated wealth to status. This explains the “conspicuous display of wealth” that anthropologists found as a permanent feature in the rural and urban Romanian economy, up to the end of the XX-th century.33 The Romanian society, up to the second half of the XX-th century, was organized and differentiated by rank, and subordinated wealth, dress and power, including language, to a corporate status.

This feature of economic praxis is also explained, at least partially, by the more or less autocratic style of power by which the Romanian State acted upon economic and financial policies. In the second half of the XIX-th century, the flow of the market economy was regulated by the State’s policies. The economy was tactically dependent on the state, which often intervened with protectionist policies.34

Yet, the situation described above reflects also a strict and categorical division of labor, subordinated to a “status economy,” with different categories (ethnic, occupational, religious) playing a “rigidly assigned role.”35 Thus, playing by the rules of the “discrete and concrete”, not abstract, organization of society, a specific type of labor was more or less imposed on various groups. In the end, the working culture of Romanians adds

32 Jowitt, op.cit., 11.33 Id.ibid. 34 On protectionism, see Montias, John Michael, “Notes on the Romanian Debate on Sheltered Industri-

alization: 1860-1906”, in: Jowitt Kenneth ed. (1978): 53-71. 35 Jowitt, op.cit. 17.


to the country’s peculiarity in treating the division of labor not as a class division, but as a division in status. In fact, worker and employer belonged not only figuratively, but also literally to different worlds, and sometimes, even to different nations.36 Historically, status became a “principle”37 of social and political organization in Romania, which permitted the corporate and personal arrangement of economic relations in Romanian society up to the latest stages of its modernization.

Different “modernization,” different “work”?

Jowitt will observe a typical struggle in economically dependent societies to escape dependency by revolutionary changing the social and economic paradigm. It seems obvious, Jowitt argues, that this paradigm change will not occur by itself: it needs the involvement of an external agent. Romania went through several stages of “modernizations” in its history, including economic modernization. Romania is going through a “modernization” process – in line with the social, political, economic life of the European Union - as we speak. Clearly, there were tremendous social, political and economical upheavals throughout the XX-th century Europe, which clearly brought along with them the emergence of new social classes, redistribution of property, resources and wealth, increased social mobility, forced egalitarianism, urbanization and industrialization, creation and mobilization of a working class, improvement of the standards of living. These changes included a new organization of the division of labor and also a cultural shift with respect to the social value of work and labor.

Nevertheless, sociologists and economic historians keep arguing about the nature of Romania’s “modernization” throughout the XIX-th and XX-th centuries. For example, Jowitt’s text quoted above, written in 1978, already questioned the “novelty” of the Leninist economic strategies of the Romanian Communist Party. A lot of the economic structuring of the 1970’s Romania still carried the “formal resemblance” to some elements of the XIX-th century status society: state-run economy and nationalized resources, protectionism, forced industrialization, collectivism, corporate status economy, lack of individual entrepreneurship, prevalence of the personal in economic relationships, etc. These features were melted into a Stalinist policy of economic development, which had been implemented for the first time in Stalin’s Soviet Union during the interwar period.38

In economic theory, the uniformitarian, evolutionistic model of economic development, so common to the post-war economic theory, has been put under intense scrutiny at the beginning of the 1970’s. New theories appeared which defied the traditional schemes of evolutionary economic development, stressing the peculiarity 36 Jowitt, op.cit. 18.37 Jowitt, op.cit. 29.38 See Jowitt, op.cit. 30. On the dynamics of Socialist and Post-Socialist economics in Romania, see also

Katherine Verdery’s general account in Verdery, K., “Theorizing Socialism: A Prologue to the ‘Transi-tion’”, American Ethnologist, 1991, 18.3: 419-439.


of economic “modernization” in countries which were at the periphery of the Western world. These theories challenged not only the linear developmentalist model, but also the economic doctrines of capitalism that supported these theories of development.39 Some of these alternative theories emphasized the experience of poor countries which, although absorbed into the world capitalist (or Communist) markets, remained “backward” despite their absorption.40 These theories questioned basically the very idea of a developmental process understood as “modernization”, in capitalist as well as traditional Marxist terms.

To Andrew Janos, 41 for example, the two major “revolutions” of the “modernization” process in world economy, the technological revolution in industry and the rise of the economic market, seem to have been developing throughout the Modern Age not as a single, but as a two-stage process: one that is particular to the development of a “successful material civilization” in the West, and another, which is the response of the “rest” of the world to the first development. This argument is suggested also by theorists such as Immanuel Wallerstein.

In this framework, an economy such as Romania’s will be linked to the second stage of the process. Thus, the three major consequences of Western “modernization,” identified by Janos - the restratification of societies, the rise of a new social order, and the changing of people’s attitudes - might not have the same relevance to the countries that were outside the Western system.42 Instead, as he suggests, these countries at the periphery might have been forced to “modernize”, at the same time trying to surpass a twofold barrier of modernization: a moral as well as a material one.

The trouble with legitimizing the modernizing process at the same time with struggling for achieving a “modern” material standard of civilization resulted in moral as well as material breakdowns: the “desperation” of the Romanian elites and their “embarrassment” regarding the difference between expectations and reality in Romania’s overall so-called ‘development,’ the “contemptuousness” of the Westerners towards the mindset and the behavior of its inhabitants,43 the material backwardness in living conditions, the social inequalities, the political incompetence of the state combined with its ineffective autocracy etc., all these consequences encouraged a certain sense of fatalism and resignation towards the never-ending state of “transition” on the path to the elusive “modernization.” 39 See, among others, Immanuel Wallerstein, “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist Sys-

tem”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16.4, sept. 1974, 387-415; Volker Bornschier, “De-pendent Industrialization in the World Economy”, Journal of Conflict Resolution 25.3, sept. 1981, 371-400; Daniel Bell, “The Coming of Post-Industrial Society”, Business and Society Review/Innovation, Spring 1973, issue 5, 5-23.

40 These aspects are discussed in: Chirot, Daniel, “Neoliberal and Social Democratic Theories of Develop-ment”, in: Jowitt Kenneth ed. (1978): 31ff.

41 Janos, Andrew C., “Modernization and Decay in Historical Perspective: The Case of Romania”, in: Jowitt Kenneth ed. (1978): 72ff.

42 Id.ibid.43 Janos, op.cit. 77.


Moreover, these results show that “modernization” in Romania seems to have its own logic of ‘development’. If the particularist argument is right, then, as Janos argues, the overall “modernization” in the peripheric states is parallel to the modernization in the West, yet imitating the trends of Western modernization. The particularist argument, obviously, is stronger than the initial backwardist one: Romania is not on a different stage of modernization than the rest of the now “civilized” Western Europe. Romania could well be on a different track altogether. It may, at first sight, carry the same features as the Western process of modernization. In the long run, it may seem as a long and painful “transition” to Western values and Western standards of living, a transition which seems, ultimately, without an (expected) end. It may well, the argument says, be that these countries endure a wholly different “modernization” than the one withstood by their Western counterparts. Even if, formally, the features of development (political, social, economical etc.) will be shared by the two different strands of modernization, the nature and the end of the “second-hand” modernization could be a different one altogether. This might explain, on one hand, the impatience, desperation and the vexation, on the other, the reluctance and the recalcitrance of Romanian elites regarding the process of “modernization”, i.e. Westernization, beginning with the end of the XIX-th century up to this moment.44

Work and “Work Ethics” in Post-1989 Romania

Despite the official ideology, Communism did not succeed in granting real dignity to workers in Romania. Although the figure of the worker should have been the cornerstone of people’s power in Communism, free labor and the respect for the laborers’ interests were far from reality. The only “proprietor” of work was the State itself, as an administrative entity, and it was the State, not the working individual, that decided the way in which work should exist in a Communist economy. Actually, the real “proprietors” were its representatives with decisional powers in the system. Thus, despite the fact that the regime needed the creation of an urban working class to justify its presence as a political power and that it created that urban working class through a massive and forceful urbanization of an agrarian class that was two times bigger than the urban population at the end of World War II, Communist leaders from the upper echelons of the Party showed their indifference and contempt towards the workers of the Romanian “classless” society. This is evident especially in the case of work strikes, which were silenced in the name of social equality. Labor was ideologized as propaganda of labor, yet the interests of the working class were not really the system’s priority.45

44 The debate on modernization was a high-profile debate in Romania’s intellectual history. Titu Maio-rescu’s theory about the “forms without substance”, for example, is just a positioning inside the debate between Westernists and autochtonists in Romanian intellectual milieus. For further details, see Boia, Lucian, History and myth in Romanian consciousness (CEU Press. Budapest, 2001).

45 These aspects are described in Monica Ciobanu (2009), “Reconstructing the Role of the Working Class in Communist and Postcommunist Romania,” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Sept., 2009), pp. 315-335.


Studies have shown that the alienation of the worker from his labor was experienced also in the Communist factories. The “means of production” were not in the hands of landlords or industrialists anymore, as in the XIX-th century, they were in the hands of “party managerial elites,” who were actually a “ruling class,” with status privileges in the economy, just like in the old status economy.46 Although post-war Romania was a Socialist state, the real system of work still depended on a hierarchy of status.

Monica Ciobanu argues that the first years after the collapse of the Communist system in Romania lead to a “marginalization” of the working class in the official economic policies of the post-Communist elites. Massive unemployment and the collapse of the welfare system have deepened the political and economic alienation of the working class after 1989. Moreover, the workers were regarded with “suspicion and sometimes hostility by the more progressive, liberal, and intellectual sectors of society.”47 This means that the workers were considered “conservative,” “backward” by the liberals, and unfit for the “exercising of democratic rights,” and that they were also targeted by nationalists and populists who speculated their fears and anxieties against the newly established “democratic” order.48

These objective aspects of labor explain the general tendency of Romanians to see labor (or work) in general as lacking the social and individual respect it deserves in a modern society and to tolerate a certain “work ethic,” i.e. certain behaviors that are seen as unethical practices in the West. Especially after the slow disintegration of all ancient forms of collective work in the pre- and post-war period, labor has so been integrated into modern society as an external, painful necessity, as mandatory labor - sometimes poorly paid, as in the case of the peasants – that the majority of workers (industrial workers and peasants), despite the official propaganda of the Communist regime, not only have been alienated from their work as any other modern worker, but also have been considered as socially inferior by the peculiar, status-oriented character of Romanian economy and society. Against all odds, this pattern survived throughout all the Communist decades, up to post-Communism.

Some examples will illustrate the issue of “work ethics” in nowadays Romania. Case studies about the practices of work ethics in Romanian work environments49 in post-1989 Romania have shown that there are differences between their ethical perception and the Western managers’ perception about certain phenomena, especially related to bribery. The different cultural background has been a major explanation for this situation. However, the study has also shown that Western managers that have been exposed for a long time to a working environment different from their home environment might start to adopt new ethical attitudes, which may be considered unethical in their home countries.50

46 Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 319.47 Ciobanu, op. cit., p. 316.48 Id. ibid. 49 Zhan Su & Andre Richelieu (1999), “Western Managers Working in Romania: Perception and Attitude

regarding Business Ethics,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jun., 1999), pp. 133-146.50 Id.ibid., p. 133.


There are, however, several objective economic phenomena identified that may have contributed to a different “business ethic”, besides the cultural background: “the phenomenal bureaucracy; the limited capital market; the confusing property right legislation; the low privatization process; the inflexible labor market; the unproductive badly remunerated work force; the non-existence of a bankruptcy law; the copyright ‘bazaar’; the high taxation on wages; the embryonic banking system; the inadequate infrastructure.”51 These are objective aspects that were particularly salient during the first decade of the post-Communist Romanian economy. They explain work ethic attitudes at some certain point in time.

The biggest difference observed regarding ethical values at the workplace was bribery, seen as “a way of life, essential, accepted and efficient.”52 However, there are more business practices that are differently perceived by Romanians in comparison to Westerners, and these are: “denouncing the colleagues’ activities to superiors,” “borrowing the company’s resources for a personal use,” “employee abuse,” “favoritism or patronage, conflict of interest regarding a project, and postponement on payment of financial obligations,” playing on ambiguity when a situation appeared unfavorable to them,” and bribery.53 During the 1990’s, Western managers in Romania were asked to create a description of what they have seen as specific aspects of Romanian business practice that were not acceptable in their definition of a normal business practice. Some features emerged: “not respecting the contract liabilities or one’s word,” “unfair competition between firms,” “maximizing the profit of the firm against the company’s interests,” “denouncing the colleagues’ activities to their superiors, thus showing that people are not accustomed to collaborate,” “borrowing the company’s resources for a personal use, very frequently,” “laziness or unproductive behavior,” “breaking the law or the regulations,” “using the black market,” “violating intellectual property rights and commercializing counterfeited products,” “offering small favors to an official or a business partner.”

“Laziness and bribery” were considered “substantial problems,” being extensively identified during the interviews that were conducted with Western managers in Romania. However, lack of efficiency in the system was the most probable cause of the unproductive behavior at the workplace, and not the laziness itself. Bribery has been acknowledged by 54% of the respondents, thus showing that foreign companies have accepted the allegedly unethical Romanian “model” of doing business. This is a clear case of workplace values overriding personal ethical values. Interestingly, only 8% of the Western managers thought that bribery “was a problem of consciousness,” while 86% of those interviewed thought it was not.54 This is not to say that they accepted being unethical; it is more that they took bribery to be acceptable as a functional, means-to-

51 Id.ibid., p. 135. 52 Id.ibid., p. 136.53 Id.ibid., p. 139. 54 Id. ibid., p. 143.


end workplace behavior. The authors of the study ask whether this is related to “custom” (local mentality) or “necessity” (interest at stake).55

In our perspective, this is a clear indication that the entire issue of work ethics in modern societies cannot be easily dealt with and that values associated with work behavior have at least a double source: first, an objective one, as it has been shown, that is specific to all societies in which the modern model of labor exists, and which feeds the global ideology of homo oeconomicus, – which, as noticed, is actually a surrogate for the ideal Weberian “work” ideology – an ideology that sometimes puts the economical necessity of production and profit above all other work values; second, a customary, cultural source, which comes from peoples’ inherited attitudes towards work practices that involve ethical decisions.

Bribery is thus a case of Romanian unethical behavior explained by a coincidence between economic interest and local values. It is not just a case of “necessity” or “mentality.” In bribery, these attitudes are inter-dependent: economic necessity is dependent on “custom,” “custom” would not be put into practice without the economic interest.

The authors seek a way out of the deadlock of bribery and other unfair practices. Their answer is that real economic development cannot be achieved without the changing of people’s attitudes towards these practices. The risk of continuing to accept corruption, bribery, inefficiency, unlawfulness will bring the economy into a stagnation or even deeper crisis and will increase inequalities. Ethical consciousness, in the end, “cannot be seen as a luxury option,”56 since its lack could affect our own lives in an irredeemable way.

Conclusion

Both the “cultural” and the “economic” explanation of work behavior are thus valid, and the degree of validity depends on the context of explanation. A common error, as Monica Heintz argues, is to explain “modernization” in Romania appealing to the “anti-modernistic mentality thesis” quoted at length in Romanian cultural milieus generally reluctant to modernization. One must not fall into the trap of, firstly, “blaming the West for the fast pace of changes” and secondly, of “faulting the vicissitudes of history”. These arguments, which were foremost cultural, have been widely used by the autochtonists intellectuals during the XIX-th century.

The debate on modernization in still going on in nowadays Romania, with some intellectuals appealing to the same, although now more nuanced, “mentality” theses. The autochtonistic, “anti-modernistic mentality” approach, is often rebutted, in the same logic of cultural arguments, by appealing to the opposite, very popular, “longing for

55 Id. ibid., p. 144.56 Id. ibid., p. 145.


the West” approach.57 The latter generally argues that “to become Western is to imitate Western culture, laws, politics, languages, life-style and appearances, from cosmetic changes to dress and music”.58

As a sociologist, in her explanation of “work ethics”, Monica Heintz will renounce the macro-cultural “mentality” approach of the Romanian cultural media, focusing on a rather different path: a micro-cultural social and behavioral approach, stressing the “belief in a behaviour which is socially and not ethnically determined, leaving space for changes in values and attitudes, promoting agency, opening the possibility of detaching individual will from national agency”.59 Thus, the common “anti-work” attitudes (superficiality, corruption, no respect for punctuality etc.) can be explained individually, by economical, historical and social factors as well.

These attitudes that do exist, however, “are not caused by a macro-cultural pattern, but by a special complex of factors, each dependent on the historical background, personality, education, motivation, attitude and on the behavior of each individual.”60. She will finally discover a “lack of self-respect in relation to the ego of the individual and of the nation itself ” as the cause for the current status of the “work ethics” in Romania, since “self-respect becomes a social factor by its power on the actions of the individual”. The lack of self-respect “feeds back into the Romanian crisis, perpetuating it through misunderstandings or lack of will to change.” A primarily subjective factor becomes, through social projection, a mass social perception. However, the subjective and social lack of “self-respect” cannot account for the whole picture. It cannot account for the whole complex of economic capitalist or Communist “modernization” which is still at the root of Romanian fact and value of “work”.

The particularist hypothesis about modernization is compelling. However, it is not the only feasible explanation of certain social processes resulting from modernization in nowadays Romania.61

57 Both arguments are discussed by Heintz, op.cit..58 Heintz, op.cit..59 Id.ibid..60 Id.ibid..61 We are obviously aware of the risks involved in this macro-economical and macro-cultural theoretical

approach about the nature of Romanian modernization. It is not thus unfair to argue that “work”, as well as “work ethics” are influenced not only by the general picture of “modernization”, but also by a lot of economic, social and historical micro-variables that shape the particular image of social processes and their representation in the social world. This aspect in debated by Heintz, op.cit. Heintz operates with a difference between the common “cultural” approach and the “sociological” approach, the former being considered inadequate to explaining the status of Romanian “work ethics”.


REFERENCES

1. Bell, Daniel, “The Coming of Post-Industrial Society”, Business and Society Review/Innovation, Spring 1973, issue 5, 5-23.

2. Boia, Lucian, History and myth in Romanian consciousness, CEU Press. Budapest, 2001.

3. Bornschier, Volker, “Dependent Industrialization in the World Economy”, Journal of Conflict Resolution 25.3, sept. 1981, 371-400.

4. Chirot, Daniel, “Neoliberal and Social Democratic Theories of Development”, in: Jowitt Kenneth ed. (1978).

5. Ciobanu, Monica, “Reconstructing the Role of the Working Class in Communist and Postcommunist Romania,” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Sept., 2009), pp. 315-335.

6. Crowther, William E., The Political Economy of Romanian Socialism, Praeger,1988.

7. Godelier, Maurice, “Work and Its Representations: A Research Proposal”, History Workshop 10 (1980), 165 -171.

8. Granter, Edward, Critical Social Theory and the End of Work. Ashgate Publishing. Burlington VT, 2009.

9. Heintz, Monica, Changes in Work Ethic in Postsocialist Romania, (PhD Thesis, Univ. of Cambridge, UK, 2002), p. 168 ff. Online at: http://mentalite.ro/content_docs/exploring_mentality/research_papers/Monica%20Heintz%20-%20Changes%20in%20Work%20Ethic%20in%20Post-socialist%20Roma.pdf (accessed 20.02.2013)

10. Janos, Andrew C., “Modernization and Decay in Historical Perspective: The Case of Romania”, in: Jowitt Kenneth ed. (1978).

11. Jowitt, Kenneth ed., Social Change in Romania, 1860-1940. A Debate on Development in a European Nation, Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1978.

12. Jowitt, Kenneth, “The Sociocultural Bases of National Dependency in Peasant Countries”, in: Jowitt, Kenneth ed. (1978), op.cit., 1-30.

13. Montias, John Michael, “Notes on the Romanian Debate on Sheltered Industrialization: 1860-1906,” in: Jowitt, ed. (1978), 53-71.

14. R.H. Linden, ‘Socialist Patrimonialism and the global economy: the case of Romania’, International Organization, 40.2, Spring, 1986, pp. 347-380


15. Stahl, Henri H., Traditional Romanian village communities. The transition from the communal to the capitalist mode of production in the Danube region, transl. by D. Chirot and H. C. Chirot, Cambridge: CUP, 1980.

16. Turnock, David, “The Pattern of Industrialization in Romania”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 60.3, Sept. 1970, 540-559.

17. Verdery, Katherine, “Theorizing Socialism: A Prologue to the ‘Transition’”, American Ethnologist, 1991, 18.3, 419-439.

18. Wallerstein, Immanuel, “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16.4, Sept. 1974, 387-415;

19. Weber, Max, Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, (eds.) Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Berkeley. University of California Press, 1978.

20. Zhan Su & Andre Richelieu, “Western Managers Working in Romania: Perception and Attitude regarding Business Ethics,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jun., 1999), pp. 133-146.

2013 - “Work” in Progress? A Cultural and Social Analysis of 'Work' in Romania

Documents