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: MÁRIA LADÓ, director general

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?

Mr. Dragan Djuric has already collected a rich material on social dialogue, in general,
and particularly on the current practice of social dialogue in the Southeast European countries.
The draft research paper, that the Fellow has already sent for comments, clearly shows a
considerable progress in research. It serves a good starting point both for an in-depth
discussion when the Fellow visits Hungary in October, as well as for continuing the
investigation on specific aspects.

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

In the final version of the research paper special attention has to be devoted to the precise
definition, and the consistent use of the basic terms. Comparative tables with hard data are
also needed to support some of the arguments.

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

YES, especially because he covers countries that are not frequently subject to research on
social dialogue, and industrial relations, in general.

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

YES, certainly, as it is a comparative endeavour, and provides a balanced picture about the
similarities and differences in the region.

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, especially if the wide circulation of the research finding can be ensured.

6. Is the timetable for the project realistic?

YES

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

YES, as national level social dialogue, by definition, is an issue for the great majority of
employers and workers, and might have an impact on the whole economy.

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

YES, certain signs of strategic thinking can be certainly found in the draft research paper. A
longer, face-to-face discussion on the draft paper, that is scheduled for late October, will
provide more a good opportunity to see (or not) some more evidence in this respect.

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, the progress so far, and the outcome is definitely promising.

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

NO, I am not aware of any.

Recommendations for other potential senior contacts for this Fellow:

We will discuss it when he visits Hungary.