Intersection of Tradition and Need of Change in Romanian Child Protection System

The reconstruction of the child protection system in the post-communist period so as to meet professional standards while responding to the needs of children is an enormous task. In order to understand the features of the current stage of the development of the Romanian child protection system and to evaluate its trends towards change, Roth-Szamoskozi analysed data from scientific literature and collected statistics to document the evolution of the child-protection structure. Empirical data collection using qualitative methods (content analysis of documents and interviews with staff) were designed to reflect the degree to which child welfare laws correspond to internationally accepted regulations and to analyse the attitudes of those working in the field at different decision-making levels. An experiment with a group of 12 students showed that there have been basic changes in the legal framework of Romanian child welfare. Students could see that the required principles exist in the new Romanian child protection law, but also identified areas which are still inadequately represented. 61 staff members working in child welfare agencies (both state and non-governmental) were also interviewed, using a systematic, circular interview. Using the criteria of competence and the existence of specific social goals, professionalism in solving social problems and respect for social-work values, the 30 non-governmental organisations were divided into three categories. The first (7 organisations) are active in the area, know the law and are fairly professional, the second (5) are motivated in their work with specific problems, but with no great competence. The 18 organisations in the third group have no competence in the social field and in issues concerning children and do only charitable work. The state agencies are still dominated by routine, but there were many staff members who were developing reform and strategic roles and were actively directing the system towards change. Many staff members in both governmental and non-governmental organisations were directing the system towards a stress on intervention in the interests of the child in the context of its family. Roth-Szamoskozi found that staff members felt the need of a more accurate evaluation system which would enable them to show their results more clearly.

The Influence of the Social and Cultural Environment on a Child's Playing in the First Three Years of Life

The research focused on children's behaviour in playing with objects both independently and in interaction with adults. It was based on studies of 40 Slovene children in 4 age groups (6,12,18 and 24 months) and of 23 Croatian children in 2 age groups (18 and 24 months). All the children were sampled proportionally by their gender and the educational level of their parents (middle and higher). Several coding check lists with satisfactory internal consistency were constructed during the study and used to analyse the video-recorded playing sessions with each child. The basic conclusion reached was that even in early childhood playing behaviour differs significantly between the infants from the two Central European countries. The difference lies not so much in the structure or the content of the playing actions, but in the way in which the infants deal playfully with the objects. This difference appears regardless of the type of object the infants are playing with and even regardless of the playing condition. It can best be described as the difference between the first significant discriminant function activity versus passivity. The Slovene infants were found to be on the active pole and the Croatians on the passive one. Social and gender differences were much less significant than cultural ones in determining the structure, the content and the way of playing. Significant age differences appeared in all three aspects, which was consistent with general trends in infants' psychological development. The group define the Slovene interactive playing style as object oriented, while the Croatian one was largely communicated oriented. Within the experimenter-infant dyads, children of both cultures played at a developmentally more advanced level than they did with their mothers, showing that the mothers were not as successful at reaching the ZPD as were the trained experimenters. In addition, the children of mothers who attributed more cognitive benefit to play played on a more advanced level than those whose mothers attributed more emotional benefit to play. The quality of the object the children were playing with was also significantly related to the structure, content and partly the way of dealing with the objects. Highly-structured objects stimulated complex play and low-structured ones stimulated simple play, regardless of playing conditions. The group concluded that both culture and the quality of the available object have an important impact on young children's play. Through the playing interaction, the infants internalise culturally specific patterns of behaviour and culturally specific meanings. These internalisations become apparent very early in their lives, even in non-social situations. On the other hand, the objects themselves have an impact on the level of infants' play. When they do not provide sufficient perceptive and functional support for a representational action, the infants' play will lag behind their actual developmental capacities.

Securities: Its Conception and Protection of Interests of its Holders

Theoretical studies of the problems of the securities markets in the Russian Federation incline to one or other of the two traditional approaches. The first consists of comparing the definition of "valuable paper" set forth in the current legislation of the Russian Federation, with the theoretical model of "Wertpapiere" elaborated by German scholars more than 90 years ago. The problem with this approach is, in Mr. Pentsov's opinion, that any new features of the definition of "security" that do not coincide with the theoretical model of "Wertpapiere" (such as valuable papers existing in non-material, electronic form) are claimed to be incorrect and removed from the current legislation of the Russian Federation. The second approach works on the basis of the differentiation between the Common Law concept of "security" and the Civil Law concept of "valuable paper". Mr. Pentsov's research, presented in an article written in English, uses both methodological tools and involves, firstly, a historical study of the origin and development of certain legal phenomena (securities) as they evolved in different countries, and secondly, a comparative, synchronic study of equivalent legal phenomena as they exist in different countries today. Employing the first method, Mr. Pentsov divided the historical development of the conception of "valuable paper" in Russia into five major stages. He found that, despite the existence of a relatively wide circulation of valuable papers, especially in the second half of the 19th century, Russian legislation before 1917 (the first stage) did not have a unified definition of valuable paper. The term was used, in both theoretical studies and legislation, but it covered a broad range of financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, government bonds, promissory notes, bills of exchange, etc. During the second stage, also, the legislation of the USSR did not have a unified definition of "valuable paper". After the end of the "new economic policy" (1922 - 1930) the stock exchanges and the securities markets in the USSR, with a very few exceptions, were abolished. And thus during the third stage (up to 1985), the use of valuable papers in practice was reduced to foreign economic relations (bills of exchange, stocks in enterprises outside the USSR) and to state bonds. Not surprisingly, there was still no unified definition of "valuable paper". After the beginning of Gorbachev's perestroika, a securities market began to re-appear in the USSR. However, the successful development of securities markets in the USSR was retarded by the absence of an appropriate regulatory framework. The first effort to improve the situation was the adoption of the Regulations on Valuable Papers, approved by resolution No. 590 of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, dated June 19, 1990. Section 1 of the Regulation contained the first statutory definition of "valuable paper" in the history of Russia. At the very beginning of the period of transition to a market economy, a number of acts contained different definitions of "valuable paper". This diversity clearly undermined the stability of the Russian securities market and did not achieve the goal of protecting the investor. The lack of unified criteria for the consideration of such non-standard financial instruments as "valuable papers" significantly contributed to the appearance of numerous fraudulent "pyramid" schemes that were outside of the regulatory scheme of Russia legislation. The situation was substantially improved by the adoption of the new Civil Code of the Russian Federation. According to Section 1 of Article 142 of the Civil Code, a valuable paper is a document that confirms, in compliance with an established form and mandatory requisites, certain material rights whose realisation or transfer are possible only in the process of its presentation. Finally, the recent Federal law No. 39 - FZ "On the Valuable Papers Market", dated April 22 1996, has also introduced the term "emission valuable papers". According to Article 2 of this Law, an "emission valuable paper" is any valuable paper, including non-documentary, that simultaneously has the following features: it fixes the composition of material and non-material rights that are subject to confirmation, cession and unconditional realisation in compliance with the form and procedure established by this federal law; it is placed by issues; and it has equal amount and time of realisation of rights within the same issue regardless of when the valuable paper was purchased. Thus the introduction of the conception of "emission valuable paper" became the starting point in the Russian federation's legislation for the differentiation between the legal regimes of "commercial papers" and "investment papers" similar to the Common Law approach. Moving now to the synchronic, comparative method of research, Mr. Pentsov notes that there are currently three major conceptions of "security" and, correspondingly, three approaches to its legal definition: the Common Law concept, the continental law concept, and the concept employed by Japanese Law. Mr. Pentsov proceeds to analyse the differences and similarities of all three, concluding that though the concept of "security" in the Common Law system substantially differs from that of "valuable paper" in the Continental Law system, nevertheless the two concepts are developing in similar directions. He predicts that in the foreseeable future the existing differences between these two concepts will become less and less significant. On the basis of his research, Mr. Pentsov arrived at the conclusion that the concept of "security" (and its equivalents) is not a static one. On the contrary, it is in the process of permanent evolution that reflects the introduction of new financial instruments onto the capital markets. He believes that the scope of the statutory definition of "security" plays an extremely important role in the protection of investors. While passing the Securities Act of 1933, the United States Congress determined that the best way to achieve the goal of protecting investors was to define the term "security" in sufficiently broad and general terms so as to include within the definition the many types of instruments that in the commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of "security' and to cover the countless and various devices used by those who seek to use the money of others on the promise of profits. On the other hand, the very limited scope of the current definition of "emission valuable paper" in the Federal Law of the Russian Federation entitled "On the Valuable Papers Market" does not allow the anti-fraud provisions of this law to be implemented in an efficient way. Consequently, there is no basis for the protection of investors. Mr. Pentsov proposes amendments which he believes would enable the Russian markets to become more efficient and attractive for both foreign and domestic investors.