International ethics and globalization

In the inherently anarchic international system the validity of moral principles is weakening. To overcome anarchy global governance is needed. It means efficient international institutions, but also pressures from the global civil society and the self-regulation of business. Multinational firms have the duty of cooperating in governance systems. They also have the duty of reconciling in their activity the two, equally legitimate claims of universalism and cultural relativism; i.e., applying universal moral principles and respecting local moral norms. Finally, multinationals must be guided by the principle of enhanced responsibility. However, although globalizing efforts are important in overcoming international anarchy and coordinating the protection of global commons, strong arguments support the notion that economic globalization does not promote sustainable development. Some form of localization of the economy is certainly needed. The challenge is to find a way towards more global governance with less economic globalization.

Market reform and state paternalism in Hungary: a path-dependent approach

Hungary is one of the worst-hit countries of the current financial crisis in Central and Eastern Europe. The deteriorating economic performance of the country is, however, not a recent phenomenon. A relatively high ratio of redistribution, a high and persistent public deficit and accelerated indebtedness characterised the country not just in the last couple of years but also well before the transformation, which also continued in the postsocialist years. The gradualist success of the country – which dates back to at least 1968 – in the field of liberalisation, marketisation and privatisation was accompanied by a constant overspending in the general government. The paper attempts to explore the reasons behind policymakers’ impotence to reform public finances. By providing a path-dependent explanation, it argues that both communist and postcommunist governments used the general budget as a buffer to compensate losers of economic reforms, especially microeconomic restructuring. The ever-widening circle of net benefiters of welfare provisions paid from the general budget, however, has made it simply unrealistic to implement sizeable fiscal adjustment, putting the country onto a deteriorating path of economic development.

Modifying the yield factor based on more efficient use of fertilizer — The environmental impacts of intensive and extensive agricultural practices

The aim of this article is to draw attention to calculations on the environmental effects of agriculture and to the definition of marginal agricultural yield. When calculating the environmental impacts of agricultural activities, the real environmental load generated by agriculture is not revealed properly through ecological footprint indicators, as the type of agricultural farming (thus the nature of the pollution it creates) is not incorporated in the calculation. It is commonly known that extensive farming uses relatively small amounts of labor and capital. It produces a lower yield per unit of land and thus requires more land than intensive farming practices to produce similar yields, so it has a larger crop and grazing footprint. However, intensive farms, to achieve higher yields, apply fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, etc., and cultivation and harvesting are often mechanized. In this study, the focus is on highlighting the differences in the environmental impacts of extensive and intensive farming practices through a statistical analysis of the factors determining agricultural yield. A marginal function is constructed for the relation between chemical fertilizer use and yield per unit fertilizer input. Furthermore, a proposal is presented for how calculation of the yield factor could possibly be improved. The yield factor used in the calculation of biocapacity is not the marginal yield for a given area, but is calculated from the real and actual yields, and this way biocapacity and the ecological footprint for cropland are equivalent. Calculations for cropland biocapacity do not show the area needed for sustainable production, but rather the actual land area used for agricultural production. The proposal the authors present is a modification of the yield factor and also the changed biocapacity is calculated. The results of statistical analyses reveal the need for a clarification of the methodology for calculating marginal yield, which could clearly contribute to assessing the real environmental impacts of agriculture.

Modifying the yield factor based on more efficient use of fertilizer — The environmental impacts of intensive and extensive agricultural practices

The aim of this article is to draw attention to calculations on the environmental effects of agriculture and to the definition of marginal agricultural yield. When calculating the environmental impacts of agricultural activities, the real environmental load generated by agriculture is not revealed properly through ecological footprint indicators, as the type of agricultural farming (thus the nature of the pollution it creates) is not incorporated in the calculation. It is commonly known that extensive farming uses relatively small amounts of labor and capital. It produces a lower yield per unit of land and thus requires more land than intensive farming practices to produce similar yields, so it has a larger crop and grazing footprint. However, intensive farms, to achieve higher yields, apply fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, etc., and cultivation and harvesting are often mechanized. In this study, the focus is on highlighting the differences in the environmental impacts of extensive and intensive farming practices through a statistical analysis of the factors determining agricultural yield. A marginal function is constructed for the relation between chemical fertilizer use and yield per unit fertilizer input. Furthermore, a proposal is presented for how calculation of the yield factor could possibly be improved. The yield factor used in the calculation of biocapacity is not the marginal yield for a given area, but is calculated from the real and actual yields, and this way biocapacity and the ecological footprint for cropland are equivalent. Calculations for cropland biocapacity do not show the area needed for sustainable production, but rather the actual land area used for agricultural production. The proposal the authors present is a modification of the yield factor and also the changed biocapacity is calculated. The results of statistical analyses reveal the need for a clarification of the methodology for calculating marginal yield, which could clearly contribute to assessing the real environmental impacts of agriculture.

Social change in Central and Eastern Europe: General trends and national patterns

The paper addresses five issue areas. First it describes the plurality of trajectories in central and eastern European transformations, offering a broad typology. Then it addresses the drift between acceptance of democracy and the market, owing to growing inequalities. Third, problems of poverty and exclusion are addressed. Fourth, it is addressed if any known model of redistribution emerged in the post-transition economies. Fifth, consequences of the populist turn in European policies are being analyzed. Influences of the EU practices will be dealt with and some preliminary conclusions drawn. These suggest a strong intertwining between social and economic performance that limit theoretically conceivable – neoliberal, social democratic, postmodern or conservative - policy choices.