Marginalization of the Youth – a Current Societal Development?

The last two years a discussion on reforming the public sector has emerged. At its very heart we find important concepts like ‘quality reform’, ‘democracy’, and ‘development’. Recently I have presented an example of the ‘quality reform’ in SocMag, and this leads me to prolong that discussion on central themes on welfare state and democracy. Much energy is invested in arguing about management of the public sector: Do we need more competition from private companies? Do we need more control? Are more contracts concerning outcome needed? Can we be sure about the accountability needed from politicians? How much documentation, effectiveness measurement, bureaucracy, and evidence-based policy and practice are we looking for? A number of interesting questions – but strange enough we do not discuss the purpose of ‘keeping a welfare state’. What sort of understanding is lying behind the welfare state, and what kind of democracy are we drawing upon?

Social Development

Numerous models have been formulated to describe development. Generally, these start off with a state of not-yet development or nondevelopment, and then go on to contrast this with a second state: some kind of plan or blueprint for development. As a result, the process of development is equated with a series of completed stages. Like having to climb the rungs of a ladder, one moves up and up in order to become more and more developed. The associated catching-up processes are then frequently described with phase models. ln contrast to such goal-directed perspectives on development with their links to modernization theory, social development pursues an alternative approach focusing on the empowerment and autonomy of actors, and also taking account of the structural obstacles that confront them as they shape their daily lives in the sense of learning to develop their selves. This means that development is always conceived within a twin framework of self- and other-development. Social development represents a holistic approach that is non-static and process-oriented.

Law in a Linguistic Battlefield: The Language of the New State Versus the ‘Language of the Oppressors’ in Ukraine

Article 10 of the 1996 Ukrainian Constitution proclaims that “The state language of Ukraine shall be the Ukrainian language” but continues: “Free development, use, and protection of Russian and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine shall be guaranteed in Ukraine.” Consolidating the position of the state language was at the centre of the "Orange Revolution", but President Yanukovich, elected in February 2010, has committed himself to a defence of the Russian language, as a regional language of Ukraine, and the battle is on to replace the Law on Languages of the Ukrainian SSR of 1989, which is still in force. Ukraine has ratified the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. This article reflects on the relation between language and law, and endeavours to bring clarity to a situation which at times resembles an overheated kettle about to explode.

Development of a process model for the automatic miniload warehouse expansion

This paper provides an insight to the development of a process model for the essential expansion of the automatic miniload warehouse. The model is based on the literature research and covers four phases of a warehouse expansion: the preparatory phase, the current state analysis, the design phase and the decision making phase. In addition to the literature research, the presented model is based on a reliable data set and can be applicable with a reasonable effort to ensure the informed decision on the warehouse layout. The model is addressed to users who are usually employees of logistics department, and is oriented on the improvement of the daily business organization combined with the warehouse expansion planning.