Summary of Work Group 3, 2010 Meeting
WG3: Differences and Inequalities
Second Work Group 3 meeting
Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies
Oslo, Norway
7-8 May 2010
Convenor:
May-Len Skilbrei
mls@fafo.no
+47 22088722
Topic: The Welfare Gap
1. Summary of the meeting
When it comes to the analysis of the outer borders of the Schengen space, differences in wealth and social security often come up as one of the most striking divisions and the most obvious social boundaries. While there is a serious discrepancy in wealth, social security and mechanisms of social protection between the members within the Schengen zone, the difference with the countries from the ‘outer space’ is striking. This is particularly true for Northern Europe and especially for the Nordic countries known as a region with high living standards, and long life expectancy and a high level of social protection and social inclusion, though similar differences exist in other parts of the EU region, which also share borders with much less wealthy neighbours. As with any border that can operate as a bridge and a barrier at the same time, the welfare gap can be conceptualized as both an economic and social boundary separating (and protecting?) wealthy Europe from its not so well off neighbours, and also as a driving force, an engine, a constant irritating factor that facilitates and stirs the processes which undermine, blur and exploit this economic and social divide. This is precisely the welfare and security gap that makes people cross political borders either seeking a better life in a new country or pursuing less radical and more short-term plans, such as having a vacation in a safe and presumably happier social environment or making economic profit from smuggling or petty cross-border trade.
The workshop invited papers focusing on different aspects, manifestations and outcomes of the welfare and social security gaps that exist between the neighbours in the eastern periphery of Europe. We aimed to discuss various social phenomena and social processes that originate from a discrepancy in economic and social standards between the EU/Schengen and non-EU/non-Schengen countries. A wide variety of themes were covered, from old and new routes of international migration and transborder work commuting to subversive border economies and ‘official’ projects of cross border cooperation aiming at building a common economic and social transborder space across the welfare gap. While the proposed topic derived from the existence of international borders and different social orders, we were clear about not confining the papers and discussions to a state-to-state framework.
We invited applicants to WG3 2010 to submit an abstract proposing a paper to be presented at the seminar. We stated that the paper could both be an analysis of relevant empirical material and deal with conceptual issues. Participants were also welcome to submit other forms of contributions, such as wiki entries. In choosing participants for WG2 2010 we were interested in ensuring a broad basis for discussion by including people who are doing research in different geographical contexts coming from different disciplines and traditions. The selection was based on submitted abstracts outlining the content and relevance of the proposed paper.
The participants represented anthropology, criminology, philosophy, sociology, social planning, geography, political science and Slavic studies. Some were doing research on internal borders, such as divisions within cities and between groups; others were working on issues of the relationship between countries and regions and between the Schengen area and the ‘outside’.
The participants to the meeting were:
Rozita Dimova, Institute for Eastern European Studies, Free University Berlin (Freie Universität Berlin), Germany
Magdalena Elchinova, Department of Anthropology, New Bulgarian University, Bulgaria,
Carola Häntsch, Department of Philosophy, University of Greifswald, Germany
Damir Josipovic, Institute for Ethnic Studies, Slovenia
Carolin Leutloff-Grandits, Center for South Eastern European History, University of Graz, Austria
Anaïs Marin, Collegium for Advanced Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland
Elena Nikiforova, Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies, Norway,
Petros Petsimeris, Faculty of Geography, University Paris 1-Sorbonne, France
Emanuela Rinaldi, Department of Sociology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Italy
May-Len Skilbrei, Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies, Norway
Vladislav B. Sotirovic, Faculty of Strategic Governing and Politics, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania
Meri Stojanova, NI, Institute and Museum, FYR Macedonia
Joni Virkkunen, Karelian Institute, University of Joensuu, Finland
Katja Franko Aas, Institute of Criminology and Sociology of Law, University of Oslo, Norway
2. The structure of the meeting
13 people were chosen to partake in WG3 2010 in addition to the two members hosting the event. One of the participants was unable to attend after all.
We chose to limit the number of papers to ten in order to make sure that enough time was set aside for discussions. The presenters were asked to prepare for giving a 20 minute presentation of their paper. After that, we had set aside time for comments from an assigned discussant for 10 minutes, and a general discussion for an additional 10-15 minutes. We also instructed the presenters and discussants to build on the previous WG3, the agenda for the network and the other papers as much as possible.
In the afternoon of Day 1, we went on a tour of inner city Oslo where a professional guide showed us areas of interest from a city divided into east and west based on social class and ethnicity, linking the present and the past to social processes and internal and international migration.
3. Summary of the presentations and discussions in the sessions
Presentations Day 1: The framing of neighbouring relations
The two sessions on day one of the event had been given the title ‘The framing of neighbouring relations’. After an introduction made by May-Len Skilbrei on the purpose and structure of the meeting, Anaïs Marin and Joni Virkkunen gave a report from WG3 2009. They particularly brought with them the concepts of ‘localicity’/’localhood’/’autochthony’ to the WG3 2010 and an awareness towards historical perspectives.
Anaïs Marin also gave a presentation of the ‘Wiktionary initiative for a multilingual glossary’ and encouraged the participants to contribute with definitions of central concepts in our work, e.g. ‘borders’, to compile a European comparison on this. Concepts are central to cultural transference from one context to another, so having more accessible knowledge available on the development and history of concepts can be very valuable to our project.
The first paper, presented by Rozita Dimova, dealt with the border areas between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia and how the neighbouring relations and the economic disparities create a breeding ground for different forms of economic exchange, both within traditional industry, within the entertainment industry and other areas of society. In this, certain cultural references have to be avoided not to be interpreted as nationalistic and thus hostile, due to the historical and current conflict over the term ‘Macedonia’.
In Rozita Dimova’s analysis the obvious political-economic difference between Macedonia and Greece remains an “independent variable. But, as she argues, statistics issued by the Eurostat, the World Bank and IMF don’t capture the local dynamics and the role that borders play in challenging or subverting these numbers. The intention of the presented paper was therefore to show that in the two border locales of Gevgelija and Bitola the gaps in sovereignty, wealth and welfare, although framed by state and national semantics, are affected, shaped, and even made visible by what the author has called “border synergies.” The term ‘synergy’ (defined as an interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects) conveys the mutually-entangled space-time factors in the border areas under scrutiny.
The effect of the border synergy in Gevgelija is manifested in the absence of nationalist sentiments in town where the gambling industry oriented almost exclusively towards Greek clients has flourished since the 2002 ban on gambling in Greece. On the contrary, the second case addressed by Rozita, the case of the town of Bitola, demonstrates a rather high degree of nationalism, which is outspoken and visible and operates as a driving ideological force for town’s community. As argued in the paper, the high nationalist sentiments in Bitola represent yet another border synergy effect, which in this case is ignited by the specific history of the town of Florina (Lerin) on the Greek side of the border, historically known as a centre of strong Slavic (Macedonian and Bulgarian) presences and influences.
In her response as a discussant, Carola Häntsch commented on the concept of ‘border synergies’ as a very productive methodological starting point that enables us to question the supremacy of the border and its function as first and foremost a dividing institute. She also pointed out the Immanuel Kant’s concept of the spirit of market and trade, the spirit of economy that allows people to live in peace and not to kill each other. The unifying power of economy is what the case of Gevgelija demonstrates.
One of the issues that emerged in the discussions following the Rozita Dimova’s presentation concerned the issue of nations’ equality. The background for this discussion was the Liisa Malkki’s criticism of the idea of ‘the family of nations’. As she claims, the idea of the family of nations in which all nations share equal premises is a romanticized, depoliticised view which needs to be reconsidered. Nations are actually not equal parts of the family, which becomes almost invisible against the background of the international tendency of celebrating nations’ equality by specially designed means and at special events, such as the Olympic Games, Venice Biennale and others alike. This display of equalness in a way disguises how unequal the nations are. In connection to this, Rozita Dimova has also offered a counterintuitive interpretative extension of the meeting’s topic that is the Welfare gap. When it comes to the case of Macedonia, she argued, the country exercises not only the welfare gap but also the gap of sovereignty. Having to justify the name of Macedonia contested by Greece, it faces the need to prove its sovereignty. It is a basic challenge which is not only symbolic but very real, because in all kinds of international communication –communicating with Greece or asking international bodies for financial support – Macedonia which is called by Greece and international community by the name of FYROM, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, has to constantly deal with conditionality: ‘if you change your name, you will get this’.
One more important question that was raised by Rozita Dimova in the follow-up discussion is the question of historical heritage and how it is being mobilized for the construction of national identity at present – or erased from its construction, as for instance this is happening with the legacy of socialism today. In Macedonia, she pointed out; there is a huge support for archaeology to link contemporary political nationalist discourse with antiquity. The whole legacy of antiquity is coined vis-a-vis the clash with Greece and makes foundation for the ideology which completely erases the sixty years of Yugoslav period, in fact contributing to the larger European tendency to erase memories of socialism, to erase the existence of Yugoslavia, which in a way is very sad.
Border regimes and relationships between nations are often designed in a top-down perspective, while the emergence of border economies show us how fluctual border networks run parallel to these processes, although constantly relating to macro processes, such as nationalism stemming from nation building processes on the both sides. Hierarchies of EU members make European border relations unequal. Grounding upon that, it was suggested that we could better understand the relationship this creates by making use of Hannah Arendt’s concept of pluralities. This first paper and the discussion that followed raised the important issue of the relationship between national and European discourses and policy processes on the one hand, and life on the ground in border areas, on the other.
The second paper dealt with the development of Euroregions. In her paper, Anaïs Marin pointed to how Euroregions are actually already in existence, based on social and practical ties which stretch back in time. These programmes are installed in line and in conflict with these histories. Marin described the construction of four such Euroregions, most of which are socio-economic fault-lines and objects of historical border changes between (recent) EU member countries and their (non-EU) Eastern neighbours. In these peripheries, development gaps and diverging socio-economic models created legal loopholes, economic discrepancies and mental borders. However, local communities are involved in intertwined networks of socio-economic interdependence through family linkages, cross-border tourism and transborder work commuting activities. Among other things, Anaïs Marin’s paper was critical of the existing EU mechanisms aimed at fostering cross border partnerships. Most EU programmes and policy making strategies are very state centric – they operate at the national, not regional, level and, while planning activities in border regions, still address national governments as the first instance on the way to the border. As she argued, Euroregions are already the readymade institutions based on decade long cooperation that could replace states in this function and become the managing authorities for the EU programmes. The possible functions that transborder regions can fulfil 1) identity-providing (many of them bear the name of the river or the region and they make sense for the people) 2) agenda setting – Euroregions should be more mobilised to access the need of the populations 3) transborder can build coalitions – as they work on the network base that transcend boundaries, they therefore can be an umbrella for already existing networks that luck one thing – money, which is plenty in ENPI CBC programmes.
In the discussion, the discussant Vladislav Sotirovic brought in the fact that the previous political gap between east and west has been replaced by an economic gap, which is just as deep as ‘the old’ political one, and in a way even deeper. This argument caused critical response from the audience. For instance, Anaïs Marin posed the question of whether we can really compare the current economic gap with the Cold War political gap, whether this comparison is actually justified, as the grounds and contexts are very different.
What has also been thoroughly discussed is the consequences of the EU enlargement on the character and meanings of borders in the region: having diminished the role of territorial borders within the EU (and yet undoubtedly created new boundaries and new grounds for symbolic division), the EU integration processes have broken up cross border relations that used to exist between the new EU members and those that are now defined as the ‘outside’. This thesis led to a discussion on the temporality of border relations and on the relationship between previous time’s political gap and today’s welfare/economic gap. In relation to the described regionalisation processes that are going on, the question also is whether this decentralise the centralised EU power.
There was also a comment to the Anaïs Marin’s claim that minorities can operate as bridges between states. As Sotirovic noted, in practice, minorities living across the border are more often used by their initial ‘homeland’ states as an instrument for putting the pressure on the state of their current residence. Overall, the relationships of states vis-a-vis exterritorial minorities and their instrumental use for either strengthening or weakening the interstate relationships appears to be a theme that shouldn’t be overlooked, particularly given the growing number of people living beyond their home states.
We also discussed the thesis about the non-democratic character of the border put forward in Anaïs Marin’s paper. Responding to the comment by Sotirovic who mentioned that any kind of organized way of life is non-democratic; Marin gave a good example that tackled several key themes of our discussions throughout the two days of the workshop, namely, mobility across borders, welfare gap and the non-democratic nature of borders. As she noted, imposing 60 euro Schengen visa on Belorussian citizens is totally counterproductive from the democratic point of view, as, among other things, it hampers travelling to a more democratic West, to neighbouring Vilnius, for example, of Belorussian youth and, by so doing, hampers democratisation processed in the country, as the youth is the only hope for changing the Belarus’ path from totalitarian to more democratic.
We also addressed the citizenship policies of states or exterritorial citizenship policies, focussing in particular on different practices of granting citizenship to the residents of other countries and the state’s grounds for doing this. Anaïs Marin mentioned the category and phenomenon of ‘ethnismship’(?) that refers to the practice of granting state citizenship to the people of the same ethnic origin but living in other countries, as for example was the case with Romania’s practice of granting citizenship to Moldovans. Now, half of the 3,5 mln of Moldovan population have Romanian passports, which enables their free travel and work in the Schengen zone. The citizenship question, particularly the question of dual citizenship, is of particular importance for the inhabitants of border regions. For example, Romania granted Moldovans not only with Romanian citizenship, but with the opportunity to have dual citizenship which is necessary for the borderlanders. (Russia, for instance, as well as some other countries of the former USSR, practices dual citizenship with only some selective countries).
The third paper gave further context to how border relations are placed within a complex history. Meri Stojanova described how similarities on both sides of the border might not only increase, but also decrease, because of recent processes. Borders are almost always perceived as a “door” or entrance into some other reality than the one that we are living into, and into somewhere where we can have the opportunities we lack ‘at home’. Mixed feelings about changing border relations are especially strong when we are talking about the countries with almost same historic background, similar politic systems, but different economic development, and also where people consider themselves of the same ethnic group on both sides of the border. Emanuela Rinaldi acted as a discussant and brought in the meaning of the money remitted from one country to another by migrants. The further discussion picked up on this and whether national statistics on the financial situation and welfare really reflect the situation in all areas. The migration from Albania to Macedonia is great; Macedonia today both represents more money, better education and is seen as ‘Western’, and the migration and their remittances, increase these differences across the border. It also creates opportunities for the ones that stay behind, and the state may also offer prerogatives to the ones that stay. In the discussion we also touched upon the danger of mixing our discussions on economic inequalities with a ‘development rhetoric’, describing some areas as ‘left behind’ and ‘underdeveloped’ and ready to be positively changed by ‘more advanced’ neighbours.
Paper four was given by Damir Josipovic on the issue of cross-border solidarity. Josipovic talked us through the timeline in post-way Yugoslavia and the strengthening of autochthonism in the region. Josipovic described how there were different paths of capital transgression in the region, and the histories and contexts of these. At the same time as changes in terms of identities and policies are taking place, the region was also going through socioeconomic and demographic transitions. Through an analysis of the political histories and demographic situations in Europe, Josipovic invited us to a discussion on the relationship between these, showing that birth rates follow an east-west divide, and bringing in a more macro perspective. The discussant, Petros Petsimeris, found it positive that the paper brought in statistics and grander questions of transition, and mentioned some ways in which this challenge our assumptions. In the discussion, it was questioned to what these overarching patterns of demographic development say, and how it hides differences within each country which are just as important.
All in all, the presentations and discussions in Day 1 brought in different cases, concepts and scales.
Presentations Day 2: Social and economic inequalities
The two sessions of 8 May were given the title ‘Social and economic inequalities’
Rozita Dimova summed up the presentations and discussions from Day 1 and pointed to some challenges for Day 2. She pointed to the importance of the politics of representation and of how we deal with the relationship between the very real economic inequalities that exists, and representations of ‘West’ as the best. The danger is that we verify ‘taxonomies of borders’. Elena Nikiforova introduced the programme for Day 2 pointing particularly towards how it points to the relationship between law/common law and habits/traditions.
The fifth paper of the meeting was one by Vladislav Sotirovic. Sotirovic traced the spreading and establishment of the Fair Trade movement in different parts of Europe. The movement has undergone a formalisation since the late 1980’s and gained global character by now. The division here has been rather between ‘South’ and ‘North’ than between ‘East’ and ‘West’. Since the 1990’s EU has related to the claims made by this movement, but the support continue to be fragmented and small. Magdalena Elchinova served as a discussant to the paper. She wanted a further discussion on how these policies are implemented. In the discussion, the difference between the ‘West’ and the ‘East’ in appropriate this movement and its message at the same time as the Fair Trade movement is about decreasing the welfare gap between the ‘North’ and the ‘South’.
Petros Petsimeris presented paper six on the way migration from Eastern Europe impacts the structure the West European cities. Petsimeris pointed to how the European expansion and the increasing complexities of societies have to be seen as part of ‘globalisation’. The paper dealt with how segregation within the city can be measured. Frontiers within the city are material in terms of spatial concentration and immaterial in terms of perception of the local population.
Katja Franko Aas was the discussant of the paper asked what this does to our concept of ‘border’. As detailed statistics gave us information about segregation within the city, this does not mean that there was no room for mobility within the city. Questions were also asked about whether such a statistical analysis only accommodate for ‘old migrant groups’ and not for labour migrants. This lead to a larger discussion on how different country deals with the issue of ‘ethnicity’ in their census. We also discussed pros and cons of developing statistics on the issue of ethnicity.
Paper seven was presented by Carola Häntsch on the relationship between East and West in the Former GDR. From Häntsch’s presentation it became evident how fragile conceptions about ‘West’ and ‘East’ are. From the perspective of Eastern Europe, the former GDR seems to be a part of the West, from the perspective of the West it is some kind of ‘East’. The reality of the reunified Germany is still characterized by a remarkable welfare gap between West and East. A lot of people in ‘East Germany’ depend on the help of the ‘West German’ welfare system; the unemployment rate is as double as high as in ‘West Germany’. Especially woman (with children) are confronted with this situation. Many young and well educated women already left the North Eastern part of Germany in order to find a job in the “West”. Nevertheless poor people are often confronted with the slogan, that their poverty is “only” “relative poverty” compared to poverty outside of Schengen or Europe. Häntsch described the gender implications of this poverty, and how ‘traditional’ gender roles are reinstated due to this. The discussant, Joni Virkkunen, drew our attention to how internal differences are hidden in the development of health indicators, and we went on to discuss how current dissatisfaction influence ideologies and identities. Politically this welfare gap and the identities it produce are taken advantage of politically by radical groups.
Among the questions raised during the discussion was one about different attitudes and reactions to the situations of decreasing social status demonstrated by men and women. Rozita Dimova referred to research findings from other post-socialist environments, which concluded that women are more resilient than men in situations of socio-economic transformations. Another remark was made on transformation of the gender order and a transmission of traditional feminine gender roles from Western to Eastern Germany as a consequence of reunification for women, rather different from the one mentioned above. As was noted by Caroline Leutloff-Grandits, more women choose not to work and be a mother and family keeper, adopting ‘the mother ideology’ which is traditionally strong in Western Germany and Austria, and this is potentially disempowering, as it makes women more dependent on men and the State.
Magdalena Elchinova presented the eighth paper on ‘‘Wealthy’ Britons in the ‘Poor’ Bulgarian Countryside: Taking Advantage of the Welfare Gap, or Losing Social Status?’ Elchinova described how Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union was accompanied by the relatively big flow of British citizens buying houses in rural areas in Bulgaria. These are, in general, individual buyers from the middle-class, who invest in real estate in small and often underdeveloped villages, in contrast to the corporate investors and big developers who prefer to buy in the big Bulgarian cities and in the mountain and seaside resorts. Interestingly enough, making use of the welfare gap between UK and Bulgaria makes the British migrants overcome the welfare gap in the UK. This shows us how an ‘economic migrant’ is not necessarily from the ‘South’ and ‘East’ to the ‘West’, but also vice versa.
In the village she studied there are 410 people, including the registered British people. It is claimed that about 70 houses are bought by English, but only 20 of them are permanently inhabited. It is hard to estimate the number of people, but they met about 20-25 people living in the village at the time of the research. The concise social portrait of the British living in Bulgarian countryside looks as follows: most people are 60- 65 years old, but there are also many of those who are in their 30’s and 40’s, from various professional and social backgrounds. The settlement patterns also vary: some live and work in the UK, but spent vacation in Bulgaria, some plan to move after retirement or have already moved. There is a third type, mostly young people, who have settled permanently and want to develop their small businesses (although are reluctant to speak about which exactly).
The discussant of the paper was Caroline Leutloff-Grandits, and she wanted to discuss the issue of integration with this case in mind. How can we understand the lack of integration that characterise these migrants, so often described as marginalisation in other circumstances? ‘The good life’ is described as somewhere else in UK popular culture, and we see UK ex-pats settling down in many European countries, and it would be interesting to know what decides where they settle.
During the discussion, Rozita raised the conceptual question about symbolic capital of citizenship – we can assume that it is not the same if a British or a Romanian or Turkish citizen buy a house in a Bulgarian village; different citizenship is alike different currency. The thesis about symbolic capital of citizenship and hierarchies constructed between representatives of different nation-states/holders of citizenships found substantiation in one of the facts mentioned in the Magdalena’s paper. As she noted, in the Bulgarian media the British are never referred to as ‘immigrants’, they are called by the term ‘new residents’. This use of the term can have several interpretations, among which we can guess the unbelief of the locals that the British have really moved to presumably poor and less comfortable Bulgaria for good. So, calling the new comers ‘new residents’ suspects a weaker, temporary, attachment of them to the new place in comparison to the nomination of ‘immigrants’. Moreover, in contemporary Europe revisiting its immigration policies, the term ‘immigrant’ has gained a rather negative connotation, in popular consciousness as well as in official discourse being associated with a person moving from a poor to a wealthy country and pretending on public good – which is hardly ascribed to the British by the Bulgarian villagers.
May-Len Skilbrei drew our attention to the structures surrounding and supporting migration. Indeed, in every migration, particularly when the migration route has already been ‘paved’ by many who have done the move and became popular, there is a niche for intermediaries. Among other things, the welfare gap suggesting the better future in another county provides a fruitful ground for intermediaries’ structures and organizations that help people move across borders and give advice on how to establish themselves in a new place. This can be seen as a way of capitalization of the welfare gap. What is often advertised together with a better life is a new identity, a new self.
Paper nine was Caroline Leutloff-Grandits’. She described a case of Croats and Turks and notions and practices of intergenerational transnational care in the context of the Austrian State social security system. This not only transforms ‘traditional’ forms of care in Austria, but also ‘back home’. As a response to feelings of marginalization in Austria and through sending remittances to their families in their country of origin, the meaning and praxis of ‘traditional’ forms of family care is also strengthened. Damir Josipovic was the discussant for this paper, and he started a very interesting discussion on the terms that are used for permanent and temporary forms of migration, as well as problematic involved in using the term ‘ integration’. One of the questions posed is whether divisions made between different groups of migrants are hiding more than it conveys: is there such thing as ‘labour migration’ when labour is only one of many parts of people’s lives and rationales. As researchers our job is to be critical. At the same time we, just as much as others, are in need of categories and terms that are problematic. It is also the case that terms that are problematic within one discipline, is not problematic in another.
The last paper of the seminar was Joni Virkkunen’s. His focus was on gender, materiality and sexuality in Post-Soviet contexts, describing how ‘sponsorship’ or ‘sponsor relationship’ emerge and are naturalized in a situation where the gender system, norms of work and consumption are changing. This manifests itself for example in dating sites on the Internet, where the possibility for having instrumental sexual relations is discussed openly. Be these relationships situated at or across borders or not, be they expressions of free will or not, they are based on different socio-economic differences and inequalities. In Western social sciences (i.e. sociology), this form of people-to-people sponsorship is unrecognizable while in post-Soviet societies that is not only a well-known phenomenon in everyday talk and dating but also a recognized concept in gender studies. Such instrumental relations can be seen as overcoming economic inequalities. The discussant Rozita Dimova pointed to the link between this phenomenon and research on commercial sex, and how the fact that this is highly contested politically, it is difficult to explore the praxis and consequences of such relationships. Several pointed to similar relations throughout the world, but also to how much it varied how openly such relations are established.
The discussions on Day 2 were very diverse and more heated than on Day 1. We discussed not only unequal distributions and conflicts over space, but also the issue of ‘Ostalgia’ and of how ‘the West’ is constituted by ‘the East. We discussed issues of autochthony, in new and old forms, and how relations in border regions and within countries and cities are influenced by assumptions about who belong and who does not.
After the programme of Day 2 was finished, the participants went sightseeing individually and in group, before the participants met up again for dinner.
4. Conclusions
Many of the presenters showed pictures of the region, cities or artefacts, and this was perceived as very positive by the group. Through this, we got a sense of the context, both at present, but also historically. Also other representations were given, such as cartoons, tables, diagrams as well as statistics on different levels.
As people are very happy to share details from their ethnographic work, and the listeners also are particularly fascinated by these details, the discussions in this meeting, as we have experienced in previous meetings, often are not analytically focussed. But as the meetings proceeded, we were able to return to some analytical questions, and we agreed that the concept ‘border asymmetry’ should be explored further, so should the concept of ‘integration’ (both in terms of individuals, groups and regional integration). The relationship between ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ poverty is relevant in understanding borders and inequalities.
Even though we were concerned with not packing in too much in a two-day meeting like this, the programme of WG3 2010 was tight. But my impression is that the participants managed to have a very even concentration and level of engagement. The group was very heterogeneous, and at some points we needed clarifications of the different disciplinary debates to connect. This particularly concerned understandings of statistics as aggregated data, conceptualizations of the welfare state and dualisms.