Hungarian Studies Newsletter, 1984 (12. évfolyam, 39-42. szám)
1984 / 42. szám
ARTICLES & PAPERS (Continued) cross-cultural settings. Khatena is on the faculty of Mississippi State U., Zetényi is on the faculty of Eötvös L.U. □ Lipkovics, Károly and Marina Pavlova-Silvanskaya. “In Search of a Flexible Economic Mechanism: Hungary’s Experience in Developing Small-Scale Production." World Marxist Review 26 (May 1983): 56-63. Government endorsement of the activation of thousands of household and auxiliary plots saved Hungary from bankruptcy and endowed her with an agricultural system which contained pragmatic elements of both, socialist and capitalist economics, some times referred to as ‘socialist market economy’. Its success in the agricultural sector posed the question of wider application, i.e., in the industrial, building, and service sectors. Here the initiative came from above with suitable ideological support from the very beginning. The official line said that “small-scale production is in no sense a synonym of private production, just as a socialist production need not necessarily be large-scale”, says the author. Smallscale production does not create a special or independent new sector in the economy because it exists within the state and cooperative sectors and in the ‘insignificant’ private sector. According to the legal framework developed by the state for this new activity, it is now possible to open small private enterprises relieving large enterprises from ancillary operations. Presently (1982) there are “5,500 small shops, private cafes and restaurants working under contract. Small enterprises (state, cooperative, and private) account for about 11% of the total employed in industry and building.” □ Pach, Zs. P. “Labour Control on the Hungarian Landlords Demesnes in the 16th and 17th Centuries.” In Large Estates and Small Holdings in Europe in the Middle Ages and Modern Times: National Reports, by Péter Gunst and Tamás Hoffmann, eds., Budapest: Akadémiai, 1982, pp. 157-192. The multilingual volume of 23 papers incorporate the author’s study as the only Hungarian-related English essay presented at the 8th International Economic History Congress. The principal theme of the congress is well stated in the title of the book and of the essay. One other Hungarianrelated study by V. Zimanyi and Gy. Benda appears in French (“Grand Domaineet Petite Exploitation en Hongrie (13e-18e Siécles),” pp. 137-156). According to Pach the evolution of the manorial system should be considered in at least two phases. In the first phase, which began in about 1520, labor or part of it was paid, while in the second phase which characterizes the 17th century most agricultural labor was performed as part of feudal dependency and obi igation. The author investigates the “price revolution” and the accompanying agricultural depression which favored the employment of hired labor, not unlike in 16th century England. Hequotes Marx having said that payment of cash wages favored the well-to-do farmer, who “grew rich at the expense of both, his laborers and his landlord.” The rich farmer may have benefited from such changed conditions, and he could have spent for land, better clothing and lavish food, but he accumulated no capital because the changed socioeconomic conditions no longer stimulated him to do so. □ Szecskö, Tamás. “Communication Research and Policy in Hungary: Partners in Planning.” Journal of Communication 33 (Summer 1983): 96-102. As the title of the paper stipulates, the relationship between communication research and policy decision processes are Conrad C. Reining 1918-1984 Ferenc A. Vali 1905-1984 Hugh Seron-Watson 1916-1984 investigated. About 80% of the research in mass communication and public opinion in Hungary during the past 15 years or so has been carried out by the Mass Communication Research Center (MCRC). Other organizations conducting this kind of research are the Research Department of the Youth Publishing Company, and the Trade Unions’ Theoretical Research Institute. At present, academic institutions are not involved in such research. The evolution of communication research can be followed fairly well through the reports of the MCRC. In the 1970s research centered around the following areas: theory, system, functional problems, communicators, and the audience. The author suggests that the approaches and methods of the 1970s “are no longer sufficient for investigating the communication realities of the 1980s.’’The enrichment and the change in research interests can be seen in the listing of research areas in 1981: culture and communication; cultivation of imagesaround the world; lifestyles and communication; socialization and mass communication; the meaning of ‘public’ and democracy in a socialist society; social inequalities; institutional systems and communication policies; organizations, and roles of communication; and new technologies and the social challenges they represent. In conclusion, he takes issue with those who see a strong dichotomy between ‘basic’ and ‘applied’ research or between ‘is’ and ‘ought.’ “We have no reason to believe that there is any incompatibility between theoretical, practical, and normative efforts.” d Wynar, Lubomyr R. “American Slavic and East European Press: A Brief Survey Report.” Ethnic Forum 4:1-2 (Spring 1984) 122-150. In examining the development of the Slavic and East Central European ethnic press the author sent out 754 questionnaires to 18 different ethnic groups in the U.S. He found that the ethnic press began in 1732 with the publication of Die Philadelphische Zeitung. The first Hungarian publication Magyar száműz'öttek lapja (Bulletin of Hungarian Exiles) appeared in 1853 in New York and was followed seven years later by the first Slavic publication the Czech Slowan Amerykansky (The American Slav) at Racine, Wisconsin. Reference is made to the sponsors of the publications and change in general character from an immigrant to an American ethnic press. The statistical tables list 42 Hungarian presses with a total circulation of 162,000, a decrease from 211,000 in 1975. The decrease occurred in the circulation of Hungarian language papers and bilingual papers, while the English language Hungarian press experienced a substantial increase. These data should be viewed against the background of the Hungarian ethnic group of 1,777,000 (1980 census). The reference notes following the article constitute a useful guide to U.S. ethnic studies. The author is prof, in library science and director of the Center for the Study of Ethnic Publications at Kent State U. □ NO. 42. WINTER 1984-1985. HUNGARIAN STUDIES NEWSLETTER 5
