Conference

Round Table “The Role of Institutions – Experiences and Prospects” and Opening Reception

 In the past forty years we have been witnessing a decline of public institutions in various areas. First, decline of institutions of welfare state. Second, decline of democratic institutions. There has been much talk recently of democratic deficit, particularly at EU level. Many public institutions that provided public (more…)

Institutions in Action: The Nature and the Role of Institutions in the Real World

Political, social, economic, and legal institutions exert a great impact on the lives of individuals as social beings, as well as on those individuals’ own understanding of themselves, their potentialities, and aspirations. In big societies, institutions also offer information regarding what others do or tend to do. Still, in the last thirty years, both in political theory and in practice, the role of institutions has been seriously threatened by an ideological struggle against the welfare state and by a growing emphasis on individual responsibility and an individualist ethos. Once again we find ourselves having to examine the importance of the role of social institutions, their nature as actors, as well as their mutual influences.

Venue:  Faculty for Humanities, University of Rijeka, Campus, Sveučilišna avenija 4, 51000 Rijeka

Organizer:  Center for Advanced Studies–Southeast Europe, University of Rijeka, LabOnt–Department of Philosophy, University of Torino in cooperation with the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade

4th CAS SEE International Conference

PLAYING BY THE RULES

Institutions in Action: The Nature and the Role of Institutions in the Real World

May 26, 2016 / 19:00-21:00

Round Table “The Role of Institutions – Experiences and Prospects”

and Opening Reception

Hotel Jadran (Šetalište XIII divizije 46, 51000, Rijeka)

Welcome Addresses: Predrag Sustar (Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of Croatia), Pero Lucin (Rector, University of Rijeka), Snjezana Prijic Samarzija (Vice rector and director of CAS SEE,University of Rijeka)

Introductory: Nebojsa Zelic (Faculty for Humanities, University of Rijeka)

Participants: Erhard Busek (Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe, Vienna), HE Michèle Boccoz (the French Ambassador to Croatia), Vesna Pusic (Former First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of Croatia), Shalini Randeria (Institute for Human Sciences, Vienna), Wolfgang Merkel (WZB Berlin Social Science Center), Ugo Mattei (IUC College University of Torino, Hastings College of the Law University of California), Luc Lévy (French Institute Zagreb), Vedran Dzihic (CAS SEE, University of Rijeka)

May 27, 2016 / Day 1

Conference Venue: Faculty for Humanities, Sveučilišna avenija 4, 51000 Rijeka, Amphitheaters 230, 106, 107


09.15-10.00 Ceremonial signing: Memorandum of Understanding – CAS SEE / Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia (University of Rijeka, Rectorate, Trg Brace Mazuranica 10


08.30-09.00    Registration (desk in front of the Amphitheater 230, Faculty for Humanities)

09.00-09.30    Introductory: Petar Bojanic (CAS SEE/IFDT), Mario Gioannini (Collegio Carlo Alberto)

09.30-11.15    Plenary Presentations – Amphitheater 230

Chair: Nenad Miscevic (University of Maribor)

RAIMO TUOMELA (University of Helsinki): “Social Institutions, Constitution, and Institutional Status”

FRANCESCO GUALA (University of Milan): “A Functionalist Approach to Institutions”

Chair: Snjezana Prijic-Samarzija

SHEILA SLAUGHTER (IHE University of Georgia): Higher education, Stratification, and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe, the USand Canada

11.15-11.30    Coffee break – Faculty for Humanities (desk in front of the Amphitheater 230)


11.30-13.00    Session I with III Panels:

The Legal Nature And Identity Of Institutions: Luka Burazin (Zagreb Faculty of Law); Tiziana Andina (University of Turin); Ana Dimiskovska (University of Skopje); Boran Bercic (University of Rijeka)

Higher Education Initiative Southeaster Europe: Cas See / Institute Of Higher Education, University Of Georgia: Ed Simpson (IHE University of Georgia); Zoran Sušanj (Faculty for Humanities and Social Sciences, Rijeka); Libby Morris (IHE University of Georgia); Lucia Brajkovic (American Council on Education)

The Role Of Institutions Case Studies: Vedran Obućina (Society for Mediterranean Studies, University of Rijeka); Katerina Shapkova, Pece Nedanovski (Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje); Lina Dokuzović (European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies, Vienna)

13.00-14.30    Lunch – Akvarij at the University Campus, Radmile Matejčić 5, Rijeka


14.30-16.15    Plenary Presentations – Amphitheater 230

Chair: Igor Stiks (Edinburgh College of Art, The University of Edinburgh)

UGO MATTEI (University of Torino, IUC, College University of California, Hastings College of the Law): “New Institutions of the Commons”

AVNER DE SHALIT (University of Tel Aviv): “Bring Back the Parties”


16.15-17.45    Session II with III Panels:

Playing By The Rules: Brian Epstein (Tufts University, via skype); Nenad Miscevic (University of Maribor); Bojan Borstner (University of Maribor); Edoardo Fregonese (Labont|Arch, University of Turin); Mark Losonc (IFDT)

Hospitality Of State Institutions: Dane Taleski (CAS SEE Fellow); Aleksandra Zdeb (Faculty of International and Political Studies, Jagiellonian University in Kraków); Ali Emre Benli (CAS SEE Fellow)

Vladimir Unkovski Korica (CAS SEE Fellow)

Institutionalizing Studies Of Social Engagement 1: Marjan Ivkovic (IFDT); Srdjan Prodanovic (IFDT); Jelena Vasiljevic (IFDT); Aleksandar Matkovic (IFDT);Edward Djordjevic (CELAP)

17.45-18.00    Coffee break – Faculty for Humanities (desk in front of the Amphitheater 230)


19.00-20.30    Round table – Amphitheater 230

 “Institution-building and Institution-Managing – Between Idealist Goals, Structural Constrains and Permanent Fundraising”

Introductory: Vedran Džihić (CAS SEE)

Hedvig Morvai, Shalini Randeria, Erhard Busek, Mario Gioannini, Libby Morris, Haki Abazi

May 28, 2016 / Day 2

Conference Venue: Faculty for Humanities, Sveučilišna avenija 4, 51000 Rijeka, Amphitheaters 230, 232, 206


8.30-10.00      CAS SEE Boards Meeting, Hotel Jadran


10.30-12.15    Plenary Presentations – Amphitheater 230

Chair: Tiziana Andina (LabOnt, University of Torino)

MAURIZIO FERRARIS (LabOnt, University of Torino): “DOCUMEDIALITY: Documentality-Intentionality-Institution”

ROBERT SALAIS (Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan, Paris Centre Marc Bloch): “From Conventions to Institutions. The Contours of a Pragmatic Theory of Institutions”


12.15-13.45    Session III with III Panels:

Panel 1 Amphitheater 230

Caring Ethics And Institutions: Ivan Vukovic (University of Belgrade); Elvio Baccarini (University of Rijeka); Viktor Ivanković, Zlata Božac (Central European University, Budapest); Nebojsa Zelic (University of Rijeka)

Institutionalizing Studies Of Social Engagement 2: Srdjan Prodanovic (IFDT); Adriana Zaharijevic (IFDT); Gazela Pudar Drasko (IFDT); Igor Krtolica (IFDT); Zeljko Radinkovic (IFDT)

Guaranteeing Equality: Edward Djordjevic (CELAP); Igor Cvejic (IFDT) Alfredo Sasso (CAS; SEE Fellow);  Sandra Bradvić (Institute of Art History, University of Bern); Mate Nikola Tokic (CAS SEE Felow)

13.45-15.15    Lunch – Bar FUSION at the University Campus, Slavka Krautzeka 83A/II, Rijeka


15.15-17.00    Plenary Presentations – Amphitheater 230

Chair: Nebojsa Zelic (University of Rijeka)

JONATHAN WOLFF (University College London): “Institutional Change and Agents of Justice”

EMMANUEL PICAVET (University Paris 1 Sorbonne): “Ways of compromise-building in a world of institutions”

Chair: Jonathan Wolff (University College London)

THOMAS SCANLON (Harvard University – via skype): “Individual Morality and the Morality of Institutions”

17.00-17.15    Coffee break – Faculty for Humanities (desk in front of the Amphitheater 230)


17.15-18.45    Session IV with III Panels:

Institutions And Democracy: Igor Stiks (Edinburgh College of Art, The University of Edinburgh); Rastislav Dinić (Faculty of Philosophy, Niš); Cristina Matiuta (Department of Political Science and Communication Sciences, University of Oradea); Radoš Vidaković (University of Vienna, Austria)

Seminar on the philosophy of social institutions with Prof. Raimo Tuomela – Contemporaneity And Philosophy – Philosophy PhD Program, UNIRI: Raimo Tuomela (University of Helsinki); Marko-Luka Zubčić (Faculty for Humanities, University of Rijeka); David Grčki (Faculty for Humanities, University of Rijeka); Renato Stanković (Faculty for Humanities, University of Rijeka); Leonard Pektor (Faculty for Humanities, University of Rijeka); Denis Paušić (Faculty for Humanities, University of Rijeka)

Institution And Borders: Gazela Pudar Drasko; Stefan Aleksić (University of Belgrade); Nuri Ali Tahir (CAS SEE Fellow); Tamara Petrović Trifunović and Dunja Poleti (Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade); Michal Sládeček (Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, Belgrade)

Social and epistemic (in)justice

Plenary Presentation “Social and Epistemic (In)justice” – Professor Snježana Prijić-Samaržija, (Director of CAS SEE, University of Rijeka) at the 4th International Conference of the Group for Social Engagement Studies, Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory in cooperation with Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, The Center for Ethics, Law and Applied Philosophy and Center for Advanced Studies, University in Rijeka Social Justice: New Perspectives, New Horizons, held in Belgrade, May 4-6, 2016.

Snjezana Prijic-Samarzija

“Truly social epistemology has in its core the assumption that socio-political issues are an additional proper concern in epistemology. The concept of knowledge, as well as the procedures of acquiring, retaining and revising our beliefs, is inevitably connected with structures of social power. The main aim of my paper is to investigate the dependence of credibility judgments about other people’s epistemic or rational authority on social identity determined by social power(lessness). I have made a distinction between three types of cases. There are cases of credibility excess and credibility deficit directed toward different social groups, which represent occurrences of epistemic injustice or the epistemically wrong and politically unjust discrimination in ascribing rational authority. There are also cases of credibility excess and credibility deficit based on belonging to a certain social identity that are not cases of epistemic injustice, but instead of epistemically and  politically justified appraisal. However, the most intriguing is the third group in which the excess or deficit of credibility are epistemically justified but politically culpable or politically justified but epistemically culpable. Finally, I have argued in favour of hybrid virtues whose substantial value is in harmonizing socio-political and epistemic aims in a consistent way.”

 

Social Justice in the Regional Perspective: Inequalities in the Western Balkans

Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory organised the Round table ‘Social Justice in the Regional Perspective: Inequalities in the Western Balkans’ as a part of the International Conference ‘Social Justice: New Perspectives, New Horizons’. It aimed to provide the space for discussion on the current trends and socio-political process that contribute to increasing social inequalities in the region. Participants provided their personal perspectives on the different aspects of social inequality and discussed the challenges of social policies and desirable changes in the relation to/opposed to EU integration pathways.

Participants:
Vedran Džihić, Director of CAS SEE and Senior Researcher of the Institute for Political Studies, University in Vienna
Slobodan Cvejić, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade
Mihail Arandarenko, Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade
Ivan Sekulović, Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit, Government of the Republic of Serbia
Mirna Jusić, Social Research Center Analitika, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Gezim Krasniqi, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London


 

CAS-SEE Fellows Panel in Belgrade

CAS-SEE Fellows presented at the “Social Justice: New Perspectives, New Horizons” Conference in Belgrade (May, 4-6 2016).

Chair: Sanja Milutinović Bojanić

Dane Taleski, Dragan Tevdovski, Trajche Panov and Viktor Dimovski

Socially Impoverish and Entrap: A Strategy to Maintain a Hybrid Regime?

Some theories of democratization argue that quality of democracy and social equality are interrelated. The argument is that if the quality of democracy is higher, then inequalities will be lower because  redistribution in a democratic regime is more fair. Another argument is that if inequalities are higher, then this will increase social pressures for regime change. The idea is that people will revolt to improve their situation. The expected causal mechanism at work is that as people’s living condition worsen they will demand more democracy which, among other things, will deliver better redistribution. Why are then hybrid regimes maintained, if inequality is on the rise?

To answer the question we assume a nested research design. We first make a cross-country comparison and then we present an in-dept case study. In the cross-country comparison, we take countries in transition from East Central Europe, Southeastern Europe and Commonwealth of Independent State and Russia. We measure quality of democracy using the Freedom House Nations in Transit Report from 2005 to 2015. To measure inequality we use World Bank Data for GINI coefficients and unemployment rates. The data seems to support the assumption that if the quality of democracy is higher, then inequality is lower. However, we then take a closer look at Macedonia, a case where inequality dramatically increased, but quality of democracy did not improve. In other words, Macedonia is a case where a sharp rise of inequality was accompanied with degradation of democracy.

The country introduced tax cuts which contributed toward the rise of inequality and poverty. At the same time, the government enacted policies to target benefits to different groups in society. However, the policies did not off-set the rise of inequality and poverty, but made the people more dependent on state patronage. We trace policy development and budget spending to show how policies were designed to target small portions of benefits to different groups in society, not to adjust for inequalities, but to make the people more dependent on social benefits. While democracy was deteriorating, the citizens were entrap. The outcome of the elaborate policy design was to gradually increase the serfdom of majority of the population from the elites.

Dragan Tevdovski, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Economics, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje.

Trajche Panov is a Doctoral Candidate at the European University Institute in Florence, and lecturer at the James Madison University.

Dane Taleski, PhD, is a Fellow at Centre for Advanced Studies in Southeast Europe, University of Rijeka, and Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Southeast European Studies, University of Graz.


Ali Emre Benli

Theorizing Justice in Asylum Here and Now: A Social Choice Approach

Mainstream theorizing of justice in asylum provides guidance in addressing actual questions by first theorizing ideal principles that govern a perfectly just refugee regime and then deriving recommendation based on ideal principles. In this presentation, I first point out that mainstream theorizing is insufficient in addressing urgent and important questions such as the current situation of asylum seekers arriving at the borders of the European Union. The difficulty lies with finding an agreement on the superior principles of justice in asylum as well as regimes that may best implement them. Moreover, in the context of such disagreement, it is hard to create the political will required for their implementation. Then, I offer an alternative method based on Amartya Sen’s work on social choice approach to theorizing justice. I argue that we can reach partial agreements regarding the particular question at hand without reaching an overall agreement on the perfectly just refugee regime. The partial agreements point to ways to improve the status quo. In addition they give us sufficient moral reason not only for choosing one alternative course of action over the others, but also for demanding that others do the same.


Vladimir Unkovski-Korica

City Partnerships as Détente from Below? Twinning Bologna and Zagreb

This talk discusses a project, a work in progress, jointly developed by Dr Eloisa Betti and Dr Vladimir Unkovski-Korica, about the twinning of Bologna and Zagreb in the Cold War. Town twinning in the interwar period of the twentieth century developed as a civic notion to promote peace and a common identity in Europe, especially in France and Germany. This paper looks at a similar attempt to create links between Italian and Yugoslav cities, following the Second World War and territorial disputes following it. Nonetheless, it also argues that Cold War questions differentiated twinning from the interwar experiment. The talk therefore interrogates to what extent the links set up between Bologna and Zagreb can be seen as an early form of détente as various actors responded to the logic of a bipolar world. It also asks whether the hope of ‘détente from below’ was in fact utopian in the context of international economic inequalities, and therefore a harbinger of what we now know as globalisation.


Nuri Ali Tahir

Fighting Injustice Through Health Care Reform: How to Understand Social Injustice and Recent Reforms in American Health Care System

Social injustice and its components are being discussed more often today where state authorities are having trouble to provide equal and fair access to the citizens for certain services. In countries where there are political actors that resist to some regulations fighting injustice, the case might lead to political polarization and eventually defend the status-quo in which injustice prevails.  Recently, with its limited accesss and high costs, US health care system became the most important topic in the American public policy. Problematic access to health care services and the lack of universal health insurance resulted with almost 50 million people having unpaid bills to the hospitals. Democrats and Republicans had huge debate regarding the Affordable Health Care Act which is also known as Obama Care. While Democrats defended state subsidy to help poor people, Republicans strictly opposed this policy and government aid to help defray health insurance costs. The sutation becomes even more complex if we include other people such as legal residents and immigrant communities. This paper will focus on the chronic problems of American health care system and its accessibility by the poor people. Democrat and Republican positions will be evaluated based on their view towards equal access to the health care services by the citizens and other immigrant communities.

HOW TO ACT TOGETHER? FROM COLLECTIVE ENGAGEMENT TO PROTEST

3rd International conference of the

Group for Social Engagement Studies, Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory

Center for Advanced Studies in Southeastern Europe (CAS – SEE), University of Rijeka

How to Act together: From Collective Engagement to Protest

Belgrade, November 19-21, 2015

The conference explored the broad issue of action – in its various sociological and philosophical traditions – and the particular question of collective engagement in its contemporary forms of protest assemblies.

The question of action and human agency has been extensively debated in social theories of the 20th century. The pendulum moved many times from perspectives emphasizing social and economic determinants to those embracing human rationality, self-reflexivity and the ability to actively construct social reality. While some of the pioneer studies of action focused predominantly on micro-contexts and behavior of actors in concrete situations, the crucial question that social theory is facing today is how to once again shift the analysis from the level of individual action to the macrostructural one, i.e. the level of the ’behaviour of the social systems’ – a shift which would escape the simple structural determinism of action and offer at least a horizon of the possible synthesis of the two analytical planes. The issues that interest us most in this respect concern the prospects of articulating social critique and reconceptualizing the ’political’ from the perspective of individual and group action.

How does one conceptualize adequately the ’everyday’ action of individuals? What is the actual potential of concrete and engaged, albeit fragmented actions in bringing about general, systemic social change? Can social theory build on the actors’ own accounts of their action as the grounds for the critique of power and domination? Finally, could we say that social theory amounts to no more than a methodologically adequate description of the potential for social critique inherent in everyday social action, or can it be an independent constituent of social engagement that brings about progressive change?

The question of action and agency was given a new impetus with recent waves of popular protests ranging from the so-called Arab spring to Occupy movements to anti-austerity protests. We want to see how these acts of collective engagement could be analyzed and interpreted within different traditions of thinking about action. Reversely, we also want to explore different impacts these new forms of engagement may have on theories of action. In particular, we wishd to incite a debate on contemporary collective protests and theory of performativity, as it is advanced in Judith Butler’s forthcoming book (Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly), where it is revised to include “concerted actions of the body”. What are the ways in which physical bodies can act in politics? How are we (and are we?) transforming and influencing the public and the politics by employing embodied ways of coming together? Finally, is precarity (precarious bodies) becoming a dominant force of protest, as Butler argues, or, on the contrary, is it the very obstacle to systemic change (tantamounting to “reserve army of labour”)?

Judith Butler12232846_1114653378569033_5656336979520064092_o11057470_1114653735235664_8496587898637289661_oAdriana Zaharijević i Judith Butler