| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
141801
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines whether fiscal decentralisation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia between 2005 and 2012 has been achieved at the expense of economic and territorial cohesion. It examines the presence of longstanding socioeconomic disparities and rural under-development, before considering whether fiscal decentralisation has: facilitated a more equitable distribution of public resources; created the optimal conditions for expanding citizens’ access to basic services; and reduced socioeconomic disparities between urban and rural areas. The article argues that unless carefully designed and implemented, fiscal decentralisation reforms can have unintended consequences and may actually exacerbate socioeconomic disparities rather than reduce them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
154829
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this study ‘things military’ refers to political, social, and cultural concerns related to (and derived from) the military and national security policy. The research scope is limited to the disciplines that are believed to have — albeit weak — basis in the country’s academic traditions. We argue that social study of things military is marked by parochialism and ‘intellectual autism’. Macedonia’s main incongruity — being a NATO candidate country and an object of international state-building — inevitably reflects on its academic community’s inability to sustain any critical reflection on things military both internally and internationally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
153548
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Despite the axiom that actions speak louder than words, we care just as much about the latter as we do the former. Apparently, it matters whether we opt for “Burma” or “Myanmar,” “Republic of Macedonia” or “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (FYROM), and even whether a consultative mechanism is called a Strategic Economic Dialogue or a Strategic and Economic Dialogue.2 Similarly, it matters what labels or nomenclature states adopt for each other: rivals, allies, or friends. One specific debate that has attracted a fair amount of attention is the language of strategic partners—what they mean (if anything) and with whom the relations have been forged. Yet, there is no definitive answer about how we should interpret the lexicography of strategic partnerships; a statement that...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|