Your thoughtful and honest appraisal will be most helpful. We appreciate your input and will try to implement as many of your ideas as possible. Continue comments on the back if necessary.

Each Fellow works with one mentor who is Soros foundations network-affiliated (usually Open Society Institute and Central European University) and one or two ‘external’ mentor(s) who are experts in the field working outside the Soros foundations network. Mentors should: 1) Work with Fellows to devise a brief policy paper in their field(s) of expertise based on a lengthy research paper written over the course of the fellowship year, 2) Maintain contact with Fellows at least once every six weeks or so by telephone, fax or e-mail to discuss the development of projects, 3) If feasible, meet with Fellows at least once during the fellowship year to discuss the project, 4) Facilitate Fellows’ contact with other relevant experts and participation in appropriate meetings (IPF has discretionary funds to support Fellow attendance at relevant events), 5) Complete brief mid-term and final critique forms supplied by IPF to provide the program with feedback regarding the Fellow’s progress.

Your name, position Laszlo Bruszt, Associate Professor, Department of Political Sciences, CEU
 

Name of Fellow you have assisted: Dragan Djuric

1. What, in your opinion, have you and your Fellow/program/project gained from your cooperation thus far?

We have worked together mainly on the general framework for the analysis of the social dialogue at the European level and its contrasting with developments in the SEE countries. The project gained considerably from the fellows’ overview of the situtation in the EU countries and from his analysis of the EU and ILO interventions in the development of the institutionalization of social dialogue in the SEE countries. His case study on the Croatian case, with some further work on it, might be a useful background material for my course on Labor and European Integration.

2. Do certain areas of this Fellow’s work need improvement? Which areas?

The fellow has to make his general overview of the development of trade unionism and industrial relations in the SEE countries more  encompassing and cohesive. Using ILO and EU data, plus materials available from national organizations, he has to provide the reader with data that allows for at least a general level of comparison of the development of industrial relations in these countries (.e.g. data on union density and fragmentation, dominant level of collective bargaining, intensity of industrial conflict /strikes/,  …etc.). Also, the collection of general data on the changes in the economic and social conditions from EBRD, EIU and UNDP materials might serve as a useful background for his analysis on the  role social dialogue ‘plays’ in these countries. It is easy to collect these data and their inclusion might serve as a  useful background for the fellows’ otherwise correct claims on the specificity of the SEE cases.

 The project still needs the analysis of the impact of ongoing programs of co-operation between European social partners and social partners in SEE countries related to the initiative for Social Cohesion of the Stability Pact, a somewhat deeper analysis of the Croatian case and at least one more carefully done case study from among the SEE countries.

3. In your opinion, does your Fellow’s project make a significant contribution to the field?

YES

Although the fellow still has to make considerable effort to make his project more coherent, his work is the first attempt to offer a general framework for the comparision of  SEE countries from key aspects of national level industrial relations.

4. Would the project be important to other countries in the CEE/fSU region?

YES

A well organized and carefully framed overview and analysis of these countries might serve as a useful basis for undertaking similar projects in the FSU countries where such studies are basically absent

5. Could the proposed policy research make an impact on the policy environment in specific countries or regions? (Policy makers, experts and policy research community)

YES

The project might be relevant to external actors, policy makers and experts provided that it can make a strong case for more bottom-up approach to the development of social dialogue in these countries. External help that does not take into account the specific context of the development of industrial relations in these countries and that focuses mainly on macro-level institution building copying EU solutions contributes solely to the build-up of  a façade institutional environment that does not alter relations among social and economic actors. The fellow should invest more in making his otherwise correct point stronger and he should make considerable effort to identify points of interventions where external help might make a difference.
 

6. Is the timetable for the project realistic?

YES

7. Could the project benefit a large number of people?

YES

See comments at 5.

8. Does the Fellow show evidence that he/she can think strategically about the relevant project and/or field?

YES

9. If the Fellow were to re-apply for continued OSI funding for follow-up work associated with the project, would you support continued funding?

YES

Provided that the fellow makes considerable progress in developing his case for more specific, bottom-up type of interventions

10. Are there other appropriate funders that may support the project?

YES

ILO and ETUI

Recommendations for other potential senior contacts for this Fellow:

Bela Greskovits, CEU

Marina Kokanovic, Croatia UATUC/CSSH