The Modern Urban Cartography of Present-day Bratislava.

Following an extensive survey of sources on urban development and comparative analyses of Bratislava and other major Central European cities and Slovak regional centres, Divinsky completed a detailed study of Bratislava's spatial structure using the most recent approaches of the so-called Belgian school. He also produced an intraurban regionalisation of Bratislava as a multi-structural interactive model, mapped and characterised by the cardinal parameters, processes, trends and inequalities of population and housing in each spatial element of the model. The field survey entailed a seven-month physical investigation of the territory using a "street by street, block by block, house by house and locality by locality" system to ensure that no areas were missed. A second field survey was carried out two years later to check on transformations. An important feature of the research was the concept of the morphological city, which was defined as "a continuously built-up area of all urban functions (i.e. excluding agricultural lands and forests lying outside the city which serve for half-day recreation) made up of spatial-structural units fulfilling certain criteria". The most important criteria was a minimum population density per unit of no less than 650 persons per square kilometre, except in the case of units totally surrounded by units of higher densities, where it could be lower. The morphological city as defined here includes only 36% of the territory of the administrative city, but 95% of the popula tion, giving a much higher population density which better reflects the urban reality of Bratislava.

Private Publishing in Moscow and St. Petersburg: Historical Background, Present Situation and Trends"

This research was a complex study of the economic and socio-cultural aspects of the development of Russian private publishing in the second half of the19th and early 20th centuries, during the periods of 'war communism' and the New Economic Policy of 1917 to 1930, and during the reform of book publishing in 1986-1999. Conclusions about private book publishing in Moscow and St. Petersburg were extrapolated to Russia-wide problems of the development of this field. Svichenskaya sees her main achievement as having identified the economic and legal concepts behind the development of private book publishing over the period in question in the context of state and corporate regulation of publishing. Here the state was the main influence on its development and there was a paradox in the relations between the state authorities and private publishers, in that the latter constantly suffered from repression by the former but at the same time were dependent on state support. The research identified the administrative process of the liquidation of private publishing at the end of the 1920s and showed that its present flourishing is closely linked with the establishment of a preferential mode for the development of this sector. Private publishing now represents around 80% of domestic publishing, in terms both of the number of publishing houses and of the number of volumes published, and so plays the major role in satisfying the demand for books in Russia. Svichenskaya predicts that in the coming years private publishing will see a further concentration of growth and a tendency to monopolies and also the increasing specialisation of the publishing repertoire. She outlines a suggested concept of state management in publishing and ways to optimise this. In the transitional period of adaptation to the market regulation of publishing, these include a continuing degree of state protectionism, the creation of a favourable investment climate, privatisation of the printing companies with the aim of modernising these, and the development of coordinated corporate policies.