This article deals with empirical research on poverty in Czechoslovakia from the interwar period to the present in terms of three distinct phases. First, between 1918 and 1948, considerable attention was devoted to poverty, but research possibilities modest, so that a complex mapping of the problem was not feasible. Second, during the 1948 to 1989 period, the communist regime allowed "examinations" of poverty for the purpose of depicting pre-war capitalist Czechoslovakia as an impoverished, class-divided society. A similar approach was applied to studies of Western countries during the Cold War period. Research on poverty within the socialist regime was not allowed, even after the rehabilitation of sociology as a social science. Detailed analysis of household surveys was either forbidden or the results were embargoed; only simple cross-tabulations were ever published. Third, after 1989, the opportunities for undertaking research on poverty increased dramatically due to stimulus in both the national and international arenas. Important projects were fielded leading to many studies and published articles. Statistical surveys were used to map poverty primarily in terms of income; while sociological, ethnographic and anthropological approaches were used to examine key groups affected by poverty in Czech society. Within the literature there has been to date no synthesis of the study of the nature and origins of poverty in the Czech Republic., Jiří Večerník., and Obsahuje bibliografii a bibliografické odkazy
The European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) set of surveys are an important source of comparative statistical data. EU-SILC provides data on income, living conditions, poverty and social exclusion, material deprivation: topics of growing interest to scholars in Europe and elsewhere. EU-SILC surveys are fielded in 29 European countries and coordinated by Eurostat. Although the survey is harmonised, the individual level microdata consists of many dissimilarities across participating countries because of different national conditions, methods of data collection and/or data processing. The aim of this article is to discuss the opportunities and limitations of EU-SILC datasets. In addition to discussing the development, methodology and basic pitfalls of EU-SILC, this article focuses on (a) income variables, (b) differences in income among countries and (c) impact of income differentials on data comparability. The main problems of income data may be summarised as follows. 1) Some countries use registers to report income variables while others obtain this information from interviews, and this difference lowers their comparability. 2) The incidence of negative or zero values makes the construction of poverty and inequality measures difficult. 3) There are national differences in the net-to-gross income conversion procedure. This study shows using a four country analysis that the net-to-gross conversion procedure overestimates gross wages in two countries and underestimates it in two others. Notwithstanding these methodological issues, EU-SILC is an important resource for the comparative study of income., Martina Mysíková., and Obsahuje bibliografii a bibliografické odkazy
The article defends the possibility of using evolutionary schemes in historical sciences, as models for interpreting cultural-historical changes. It points out the possibilities for maintaining certain space within master narratives for explaining the theories of partial developmental processes. The demographic data could, then, be used as hypothetical indicators of the processes of cultural-historical change., Jan Horský., and Obsahuje bibliografii
Tato stať se zabývá analýzou veřejného mínění obyvatel neevropských zemí a jejich pohledem na Evropskou unii. Studie přitom není analýzou zahraniční či obchodní politiky těchto zemí, nýbrž vychází z postojů obyvatel těchto zemí. Občané těchto zemí hodnotí EU nejčastěji jako „soft power“ a jako ekonomickou velmoc. Vysoce ceněné jsou nadále také aktivity v oblasti mírových rekonstrukcí bývalých válečných regionů, vytýkáno je jí však, že málo využívá svého ekonomického potenciálu při řešení konfliktů. Shodně jí však také kritizují za protekcionistickou politiku v oblasti dovozu. Politicky ovšem unie nadále zůstává víceméně nevýznamným aktérem mezinárodních vztahů., This article deals with the analysis of public opinion in the non-European countries and with their view about the European Union. The study is not yet an analysis of foreign and trade policies of these countries, but it based on the opini - ons of their inhabitants. The citizens of these countries assessed the EU as “soft power” and as an economic superpower. Highly valued are the activities in the field of peaceful reconstruction of the former war regions, however, it is alleged that it uses few use its economical potential in resolving conflicts. However the Union is criticized for their protectionist policies in the import. Politically remains the union largely unimportant player in international relations., and Lukáš, Novotný.