Cartoon time!

Coincidentally, three of Bulgaria’s cartoonists have a family name starting with B - Bozhenov, Alexander 1878-1968; Behar, Marko 1914-73; and Beshkov, Ilia 1901- 1958. I have no information yet about the first two but Wikipedia gave me the sort of information about Beshkov I would like to have about all the entries in the planned book And I was able to buy two old books devoted to Beshkov's life and work in the chaotic antique shop I’ve already mentioned. Indeed I also snapped up a lot of sketches scribbled on the pages of a 1947 journal which look remarkably like Beshkov’s work – not only to me but to Bulgarian cognoscenti I’ve shown them to.
More examples are to be seen on a short link Remarkable old Bulgarian illustrators
Beshkov was born in 1901 in a small town near Pleven. In 1918–1920, he studied law at Sofia University and briefly returned home as a teacher. In 1921, he enrolled in painting at the National Academy of Arts and graduated in 1926. As a student, Beshkov published caricatures in magazines. He was twice arrested due to his leftist political views: once after participating in the uprising following the Bulgarian coup détat of 1923.
He was one of the founders of a famous newspaper "Hornet" in 1940, and published in it without signature or pseudonym. In 1945, he became a lecturer of drawing, illustration and print design at the National Academy of Fine Art; he was elected a tenured professor in 1953 and led the Department of Graphics until his death in 1958.
Beshkov's political caricatures were humanist, democratic, revolutionary and national in nature. The art gallery in Pleven is named in his honour and most of his works are exhibited there. I reproduced another of his cartoons here. And I have in my bathroom what I think is a Behar

The How and the What of Change

I need to return to the paper for the Varna Conference – a final version of which has to be posted on the NISPAcee site in a couple of weeks. I’ve known for some time that there were two separate issues – the first about how procedurally the procurement system might be improved to get a better match of needs and consultants. The second issue is the more profound one of the what – the nature of the knowledge and skill base which a consultant operating in the very specific context of Neighbourhood Countries needs to be effective. The What requires us to face up to the following sorts of questions –
• What were the forces which helped reform the state system of the various EU member countries?
• In the absence of such forces should we actually get involved in institution-building in neighbourhood countries?
• what do we actually know about the results of institution-building (IB) in kleptocratic regimes?
• Does it not simply give a new arrogant and kleptocratic elite a better vocabulary
• Does the “windows of opportunity” theory not suggest a totally different approach to IB?

I’m happy enough for the moment with my comments on the EC’s Backbone Strategy for the reform of TA. They convince me (at any rate) that the strategy is mere bureaucratic tinkering to satisfy the (highly limited) concerns of auditors. The strategy doesn’t even raise the fundamental WHAT questions.
TA based on project management and competitive tendering is fatally flawed – imagining that a series of “products” procured randomly by competitive company bidding can develop the sort of trust, networking and knowledge on which lasting change depends.
In a recent blog I referred to the rigorous analysis of fashions in institution building in Technical Assistance always to be found in the work of Tom Carrothers and Derek Brinkerhoff
His second paper points out the ambiguity of the rhetoric about “rule of law” - which finds support from a variety of ideological and professional positions and therefore leads to confused implementation if not state capture. Good overviews of this are here, here and here

I have also said how little scrutiny there is of the various tools in the consultancy toolkit. The one exception is the “democracy promotion” strand of work where Richard Youngs is particularly prolific. Indeed I discovered today an important book he edited in 2009 which matches the concern I voice in the second part of my draft paper - about the failure of the EU to understand properly the context of neighbourhood countries and to adjust TA accordingly. The book has the marvellous title of “Democracy’s Plight in the European Neighbourhood – Struggling transitions and proliferating dynasties” - with chapters on Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Serbia, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco.
The painting is a Napoleon Alekov which went recently for 350 euros only

A-B Bulgarian painters

I realise that those who alight on this blog may not share my passion for painting – let alone Bulgarian works. I thought of relegating the series I have started on that subject to the lower half of each post – but that would add considerably to the length of what are clearly already too verbose posts. The answer seems to be alternate posts – so, be warned, this is an exclusive painting post. If you're really into painting - particularly Realist - then check out the booklet I published in May 2012

Boris Angelushev (1902-1966) trained and worked in Berlin from the early 1920s for more than a decade (returning to Bulgaria only in 1935) and was clearly influenced by the revolutionary events taking place then - and by the powerful graphics of Kathe Kollwitz of whom I have always been very fond.
A typical agitprop sketch of his headed the recent post about Romanian DNA and more of his work can be seen here. When I was in Sofia in January I was lucky enough to come across a large book which seemed to contain every single one of his works. Even although it’s all in Bulgarian, I considered it a bargain at 22 euros. I actually have a sketchbook I also bought then in the tiny eccentric gallery I blogged about at the time. It's by an unknown artist – my knowledgeable Bulgarian friends agree that it’s quality work from the mid century and I have just realised it could be Angelushev’s since the old sketchbook carries an embossed Romanian-German title –“Album de schite-Skizzenbuch” – and he worked in both Romania and Germany.

I have the sense that Bulgarian painters are more numerous (proportionately) than British. I don’t pretend to know a great deal about British art (more about Scottish – the Glasgow Boys; the Colourists etc) – so Amazon delivered this week a book (A Crisis of Brilliance) about a group of 5 famous English painters of the early 20th century – Dora Carrington, Merk Getler, Paul Nash, Richard Nevinson and Stanley Spencer (I had only heard of the first and last). Certainly I could make a list of no more than 20 UK painters of the last 100 years – whereas my list of Bulgarian painters is almost at the 150 mark. And one of the difficulties about compiling the list is that quite a few Bulgarian painters share a family name – some are related (eg Dobre Dobrev senior and Junior) – but most are not. And this seems to be particularly true of names like Georgiev (3 in my list) and Ivanov (five!) The next two listings share an appropriate name for that part of the world -

Balkanski.
Nenko Balkanski was born in Kazanluk in 1907, lived until he was 70 and is the more prestigious of the two. He graduated from the National Art Gallery in 1930 and then went to study in Germany, France and later Italy He seems to have been a modest man and his portrayals of family life (above) were well regarded by the socialist authorities who used his work on stamps. I saw a superb small portrait of a woman by him in the Konus Gallery in Sofia for about 1,400 euros – brought especially for my edification. A large still life of his is priced at 3,000 euros in this week’s Viktoria Gallery auction.
The Gallery in Kazanluk has some of his art and others who painted there and seems to be well worth a visit. His grandson is also a painter.
Pencho Balkanski was born a year later in the Troyan area, lived until 1985 and came to painting only after he had established himself as a photographer. A 50x40 of his is going for 1,200 euros at the auction.

Book on Bulgarian painters

When I was in Sofia in January 2011 I realised that there was a need for a booklet in English on modern Bulgarian painting. Nothing exists for the visitor - who could spend many pleasant hours (days) traversing the charming centre, visiting galleries, talking with the owners and painters – and, ultimately, buying. I had made a short list of the painters I knew – mainly as a checklist for my visits but which (if consulted surreptitiously) also gave me the air of a cognoscenti and therefore better treatment! My friend Yassen of Konus Gallery was very helpful in suggesting additional painters – what was 2 pages grew quickly to five. And I decided that, as I had the time and the passion, I might as well try to produce such a booklet – on the excellent principle that the best way to learn about a subject is to write a book about it. Of course, discovery is part of the pleasure – and too detailed a book would deny visitors that pleasure – so I don’t have to be ambitious.
It’s not too difficult to get pictures from the net - mainly from the Archives of the Victoria Gallery (which is holding another auction on 31 march – a particularly bumper one it looks) - but what is not so easy is to get some biographical detail.
If I’m lucky the Viktoria Gallery site (or the great Catalogue of the Sofia City Gallery) will give me the date and place of birth and death – and the artists under which the painter in question studies. If I’m very lucky, they will tell me that they spent a few years studying in Munich, Paris or France. But that’s all.
Having worked intensively on the subject in January and produced an outline of the sort of booklet I had in mind. I gave the matter a rest. I have more than a hundred names – and should start the preparation for the month I plan to spend in Sofia shortly. So perhaps a couple of entries a day will encourage my friends in Bulgaria to give me some feedback – and data?
What basically do I need to know? Dates; place of birth; influences; genre; price range, patrimony (how easy to export?)
Let me start with someone who arrived on my list only in January - Abadjiev (Petko) (1903-2004) who was a friend of Bulgaria’s greatest painter of the mid 20th century, Nikola Tanev (whose charming landscape paintings now fetch for about 10,000 euros). You can see a couple of Abadjiev’s paintings on the Viktoria Gallery site (a 25x20 oil can be had for 400 euros at the 31 March auction). So I’m missing quite a lot of info about him.
Alekov, Napoleon is an old favourite of mine (1912-2002). A seascape specialist, there are a fair number of his paintings available on the Viktoria site (a nice shipyard scene 50x40 went recently for only 350 euros). But that’s all I have on him.
The painting at the top of this post is a new artist for me – but very striking - Alexandrov (Zdravko) (1911-1999) This large (80x70) went for only 1,000 euros

UPDATE; On 24 April 2012 I duly lodged a 60 page booklet (and CD Rom with almost 1,000 pictures) with a young design team in Sofia and copies of the booklet are now available - try the Elephant Bookshop.

A year ago I was thinking about post-autistic public administration.
A lot has been recently about capacity development - a lot of it interesting and useful. But the best on the subject has just been issued - and focuses on the practitioner. Very helpful!

Romanian DNA

On the Severin scam (the Romanian MEP and ex-Foreign Minister who (with an Austrian and a Slovene) sold himself to the lobbyists and is the only one of the 3 caught not to have resigned) I have only two comments. First, as I spelled out last year, the Romanian political class is built on such financial transactions and the marvel is that only one Romanian MEP was caught. The second comment is that Romanian politicians never resign! It’s not in the DNA.

Back in mountains – the stuff I’m reading about cultures is in order to understand the difficulties I have here. I can’t stand what I see as aggression – and I pick up so much of it here. And that affects the signals I send – a lot fewer positive ones than normal. A vicious circle ensues. So I face the prospect of leaving the country. A nice flat beckons in Sofia……where I hope to get underway with the book I want to put together about Bulgarian artists. My next post will be about that. Today's sketch has nothing to do with the Severin story - I am limited to one image per post and wanted to give a sense of Boris Angelushov (1902-1966) who was in Berlin in the early 1920s and was clearly influenced by the revolutionary events taking place then and by the powerful graphics of Kathe Kollwitz.
A year ago, I was writing about the soul-lessness of modern work

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is today’s theme! First the sheer level of it on display from Hilary Clinton who simply smirked when a quiet American 60 year old was forcibly ejected from her speech which was (believe it or not) celebrating protest – for the simple reason that he had his protest took the form of turning his back to her while she delivered her speech (the better for her to see the political slogan on his T-shirt!) It takes a high level of stupidity as well as hypocrisy on her part to be unable to appreciate the irony of all this.
Serendipity gave me yesterday a great book in the Anthony Frost English bookshop here in Bucharest – “Watching the English” by Kate Fox. It’s a highly amusing and extensive account by an anthropologist of the essence of Englishness. Her account of the various games and gambits of English introductions, for example, are quite priceless! Steadily, through her identification of the various rules and codes which govern such fields as work, play and sex she builds up a picture of what it is to be English. And “hypocrisy” crops up from time to time. Certainly the open and blunt talk of Americans (and the Dutch) is considered offensive..

Another good comment from the Real World Blog – this time about Adam Smithnot being the devotee of the market we are all led to believe.
Aand a Guardian discussion thread gives a good sense of how the British health service continues to be the subject of “reform” discourse – while still (attacked as it has been by successive governments) managing to show a lot of indices about efficiency!
The picture is Gillray's Mushromm on a dungheap!

Cultural differences

I have quite few websites about the EU on my favourites bar – but don’t often access them since they are either too technical or too predictable. I’ve just looked at the two which are in my “links” on this site and have to wonder why I put them there! Neither gives any real sense of what’s going on in the EU. But I’ve just hit (through the Social Europe site) a blog which seems genuinely informative about a range of EU activities; gives links for further reading; and which resists the temptation of self-indulgent raving to which too many blogs succumb (“yours truly” excepted, of course!)
I mentioned recently “The geography of thought” – the book which reports on the experiments which take the writing of people like de Hofstede and Trompenaars about differences in cultural behaviour a stage further – to suggest that Europeans and Asians literally see the world differently and think differently. By coincidence I read in parallel Lucy Wadham’s The Secret Life of France – which is a delightful dissection of the mental and behavioural DNA of the Parisian bourgeois. She uses the country’s interesting mix of Catholicism and Revolutionary principles to offer an explanation of why the English (I use the term for obvious reasons!) and the French find it so difficult to understand one another – whether in matters relating to infidelity or diversity. Have a look at some of the 77 reviews on the Amazon site to get a sense of her argument.
The differences between Bulgaria and Romania is a fascinating issue for me. The Danube does not just act as a geographical but as a cultural and even physiognomic (?) boundary. Witness the way the voice timbre of women drops and their “sini” (glands) grow in the 2 minutes it takes to cross the great bridge which connects Giurgiu from Russe! Another difference I noticed the other day is that all the plastic Bulgarian pepper pots seem to be recyclable (the tops unscrew to allow you to top up) – whereas the Romanian ones are not! Very significant! I was also interested to read that the Romanians share with the Serbians a feature which I find most annoying – a search for blame and an almost sadistic delight in pointing out apparent contradictions in their interlocuteur’s conversation. A classic example was this week when I told my partner about the crack which had developed in the mountain house toilet. “No”, I replied, “I remember very clearly flushing the toilet after I had turned off the water in January; and not only did I put salt in the toilet water remaining but I remember squeezing the water in the toilet basin with a cloth!” “But”, Came the suspicious query, “Why did you need to add salt if you had squeezed the water out?”! I rest my case!
And let's not talk about the various ways people conduct arguments - with the tentative explorative style fitting very ill with the aggressive debate which seems to characterise what we might call Latin nations???

The politics of reform

I’ve had sadly little feedback on my paper on Chinese Administrative Reform (although I do get an occasional “hit” on my blog from there). But one friend gave me a great two page commentary on it which made, amongst other points, the following interesting comments –
• it’s difficult to absorb in one paper so much stuff both about how the Chinese public services seem to work and the reform efforts of Western European countries in the past few deadaes. Make it two separate papers!
• Although its apparent focus is China, it can be read with benefit by all public admin people (which would perhaps argue for keeping its ambitious focus on both China and the Western experience?)
• It draws (like almost all public admin literature) too much on anglo-saxon experience. What about India, South America, Indonesia for example??

I very much agree with the last point – and have indeed myself complained about the bias of so much of the material. Spanish-speaking academics are in a better position to help us understand interesting developments in the past decade in the various countries of Latin America – and indeed a bit of a search can unearth relevant material in English about that continent’s experience. For example, a recent 200 page book (which can be completely downloaded) on the various global efforts to make countries more democratic contains three chapters on Latin American experience. The book also has a chapter on the recent decentralisation in India; on Indonesia; and Lebanon. And a useful overview by Philippe Schmitter (whose 2004 paper for the Council of Europe on the democratic deficit in European countries I had missed)
But a 2001 paper by Patrick Heller on the politics of decentralisation in Kerala, South Africa and Porto Alegre is much more focussed on these issues. The purpose of Heller’s article is to - The paper rightly emphasises that effective reform of state organisations is political – and comes from external pressure (not from within). For examples, strong local government has historically come from working class pressure but this does not necessarily lead to social change and justice -

especially in an era when globalization has weakened the ability of nation-states to deploy the regulatory and redistributive instruments through which European states evened social opportunities and incomes in the mid 20th century.
Equity-enhancing reforms in both South Africa and Brazil have, for example, been frustrated. And even in Kerala, where working-class mobilization has a longer history and has wielded significant redistributive results, disappointing economic growth, the pressures of liberalization, and the declining service efficiency of the state have all combined to threaten earlier gains in social development.
This leads us to the second problematic of democratization, namely the institutional character of democratic states. Even where formal democracy has been consolidated, the question arises as to just how responsive these democracies are. Developing states have become politically answerable through periodic elections, but have the bureaucratic institutions they inherited from authoritarian or colonial rule become more open to participation by subordinate groups? Have they really changed their modes of governance, the social partners they engage with and the developmental goals they prioritize? Is the reach and robustness of public legality sufficient to guarantee the uniform application of rights of citizenship?
Decentralization in the developing world, especially when driven by international development agencies, has more often than not been associated with the rolling back of the state, the extension of bureaucratic control, and the marketization of social services.
Because such a project is tantamount to fundamentally transforming the exercise of state power, it requires an exceptional, and in most of the developing world improbable, set of political and institutional opportunities.
In South Africa, the Indian state ofKerala, and the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, new political configurations and underlying social conditions have converged to create just such a set of opportunities.
Most visibly, left-of-centre political parties that were born of popular struggles have come to power and inherited significant transformative capacities. The ascendancy of the African National Congress (ANC), the Communist Party of India–Marxist (CPM), and the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) have all been associated with the formulation of clear and cohesive transformative projects in which the democratization of local government was given pride of place. Although the parties in question have captured power at different levels of the state—the national, provincial, and municipal, respectively—they have all enjoyed, and indeed used, their authoritative powers to initiate fundamental reforms in the character of local government.
If a committed political agent is a necessary ingredient for administrative and fiscal devolution, the democratic empowerment of local government is critically dependent on the dynamics and capacities of local actors. Again, the cases examined here are quite exceptional. All three boast a rich and dense tapestry of grassroots democratic organizations—the historical legacy of prolonged mass-based prodemocracy movements—capable of mobilizing constituencies traditionally excluded from policy-making arenas, and dislodging traditional clientalistic networks.

But the building of local democratic governmentrequires not only that a favorable political alignment be maintained but that a delicate andworkable balance between the requirements of institution building and grassroots participation be struck.
Subtle differences in political configurations and relational dynamics can thus produce divergent trajectories.
In the cases of Kerala and Porto Alegre, initial reforms that increased the scope of local participation have been sustained, and have seen a dramatic strengthening of local democratic institutions and planning capacity.
In contrast, in South Africa a negotiated democratic transition that has been rightfully celebrated as one of the most inclusive of its kind, and foundational constitutional and programmatic commitments to building “democratic developmental local government” have given way to concerted political centralization, the expansion of technocratic and managerial authority, and a shift from democratic to market modes of accountability.
If democratic decentralization in Kerala and Porto Alegre has been conceived as a means of resurrecting socially transformative planning in an era of liberalization, local government in South Africa has become the frontline in the marketization of public authority. Given the similarity of favorable preconditions—capable states and democratically mobilized societies—we are confronted with an intriguing divergence in outcomes.

Finally, a nice fable from the Real Economics blog.

explore the conditions under which a distinctly democratic variant of decentralization—defined by an increase in the scope and depth of subordinate group participation in authoritative resource allocation—can be initiated and sustained.
Across the political spectrum, the disenchantment with centralized and bureaucratic states has made the call for decentralization an article of faith. Strengthening and empowering local government has been justified not only on the grounds of making government more efficient but also on the grounds of increasing accountability and participation. But to govern is to exercise power, and there are no a priori reasons why more localized forms of governance are more democratic.
Indeed, the history of colonial rule was largely a history of decentralized authority in which order was secured and revenues extracted through local despots.