Search results

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive review of empirical research on performance management (PM) in former communist Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, to evaluate the state of knowledge in this area and suggest possible directions for future research.

An examination of the literature was undertaken to review the empirical studies treating on PM in ex-communist countries from CEE. A total of 96 journal articles, PhD thesis, and conference papers were identified, categorized, and analyzed according to research questions, methodology, and theoretical framework. Contributions are classified by countries, according to progress in transition process (post-transition/transition countries) and membership in the Soviet Union (Soviet/non-Soviet countries). The review examines publications in four languages (English, French, Romanian, and Russian).

The literature review identified various stages of development of PM research and practice in the different groups of CEE countries.

In post-transition CEE countries, PM research follows the trends settled up in the developed countries (quantitative studies examining the extent of usage of different PM tools, influence of contingent factors, relationship PM-strategy, and impact on company’s performance). Also, the findings illustrate the modernization of PM practices: increasing importance of nonfinancial indicators and integrated performance management systems (PMS), although financial indicators are prevailing.

On the contrary, in transition countries PM research and practices are at an early stage, the reviewed literature highlights some specific issues related to transition context: the dynamic aspect of PM, change management, importance of informal systems, cultural aspects, and business traditions.

Because of the large number of CEE countries and the diversity of their national languages, many studies conducted in native languages have not been addressed in this literature review, which is essentially based on publications in English and French. Only for three CEE countries (Russia, Romania, and Moldova) publications in national language were considered.

This literature review may be useful for practitioners, providing insights on the extent of diffusion and usage of different PM tools and identifying difficulties and pitfalls to avoid in their implementation.

The chapter represents one of the first contributions to the knowledge about PM research and practice in former communist CEE countries. The adopted framework for reviewing and classifying the literature allows identifying the differences in PM research and practices between post-transition/transition and Soviet/non-Soviet countries.

This chapter reports the current status of management practices in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) region as seen by international expatriates. Based on the results and expert insights, we aim at giving guidance to MNE leaders and strategy makers as well as operative HRM staff and other expatriate managers how to best exploit the value-added opportunities in the CEE region by adopting the region-specific talent management and staffing policies and practices.

This study is based on the views of 1108 managers on the local management in six CEE countries: Bulgaria, Czechia,¹

In this chapter, the term Czechia is used to refer to the Czech Republic.

MNEs have been able to successfully capitalize on the economic integration and growth of the CEE region during the past 25 years. A new generation of competitive local managers is now growing into leadership positions, but MNEs need to find a more sophisticated way to retain those in the region in order to be able to exploit growth opportunities in future too.

Because the national cultural differences between the six analyzed CEE countries remain very characteristic and divergent, talent management and staffing strategies and policies of MNEs must be adopted and fine-tuned accordingly. Language and communication difficulties, knowledge of the standards management techniques are not a challenge anymore. Instead local management’s soft skills, leadership values and attitudes need to be developed now simultaneously with increasing wages, as the most talented local staff and management is readily relocating into higher-wage countries.

The originality and scholarly interest of this study lies in its cross-cultural, comparative approach. The originality and practical interest of this study is that it gives clear recommendations to MNE and expat managers. Furthermore the presented results have been tested during critical forum discussions with more than 60 CEE-experienced managers, expatriates, and the representatives several foreign chambers of trade and commerce held at the Central European University Business School in spring 2015.

The purpose of this study is to modify the gravity model to identify the main determinants of the European Union (EU) bank lending to the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) countries during 1994-2012.

This study uses both two-stage least squares and dynamic generalized method of moments to estimate the modified gravity model.

This study finds that the CEE countries with more developed stock markets have received the higher EU bank lending inflows. The EU banks have greater access to additional financing in the stock markets. Second, the higher stock market difference between the CEE and EU countries has boosted the EU bank lending. Compared to the developed EU stock markets, the less developed CEE stock markets have become more favorable to the EU banks seeking to earn higher profits.

The CEE countries can further boost the EU bank lending inflows through deepening capital liberalization. They should facilitate easy foreign bank entry by reducing excessive bank legislations and regulations. Moreover, they can promote the EU bank lending through substantial EU bank integration. This can accelerate the major bank reform which would facilitate better bank supervision and regulations.

Most previous studies have primarily used the macroeconomic and institutional factors to explain the EU bank lending. In contrast, this study explores the growing importance of the CEE financial development and bilateral trade in explaining the EU bank lending.

The aim of this research is to investigate and detect determinants of the training practice and conspicuous differences in the sample of nine Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries (Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Serbia and Romania). The study was conducted with three distinct objectives: the investigation of the training and development (T&D) practices in the CEE region, the investigation of the determinants of T&D practices in the CEE region and the measurement of the differences between the economies in the sample of CEE countries regarding their T&D practices.

The research is based on the Cranet research network results from 2015 to 2016. The data for the CEE countries were selected in order to investigate the determinants of T&D practice, and the differences between these economies. The nine CEE countries were divided into two groups, on the basis on the variety of capitalism (VoC approach), in order to investigate its effects on the T&D practices. T-test, chi-square test, Spearman correlation tests and hierarchical moderated regression model were used to test the proposed hypotheses.

There are statistically significant differences between the organizations from coordinated market economy (CME) countries and liberal market economy (LME) countries in the case of the percentage of GDP of the country spent on education, the percentage of annual payroll costs of the organizations spent on training, the percentage of annual staff turnover, the implementation of the systematic evaluation of training needs, the training effectiveness, the existence of T&D strategy and the primary responsibility for major policy decisions on T&D. The results of the regression model showed that the majority of national and organizational level factors have a statistically significant relationship with the percentage of the annual payroll costs of the organization spent on training. Variety of capitalism moderates the relationship between independent variables and the dependent variable, too.

In the presented model, the authors excluded from their investigation the effects of MNCs. It must further be stated that only the data from the latest Cranet research round were used, thus it was not possible to investigate the development of the training practice in CEE over a longer time period. These limitations could be used as possible directions for further research in the relevant area of HRM in the CEE region.

Since there is relatively little empirical research in the relation between capitalism type and T&D practice, especially in the region of CEE, the present paper lends new insight into this issue as well as into comparative HRM. It is hoped that this work can be taken as a starting point for further research.

This essay explores the relationship between neo-liberal transformation in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and globalization in the region. It starts with an overview of the increasing level of globalization activities in the CEE countries. The first section of this essay also shows remarkable cross-country diversity among the CEE countries regarding the extent to which their citizens participate in four aspects of globalization, outbound tourism, citizens working abroad, students studying abroad, and internet use. The second section of the essay identifies three ways in which neo-liberalism could affect citizens’ participation in globalization activities. A direct impact of neo-liberalism on globalization could be expected through the spread of similar neo-liberal economic policies and practices in CEE, which would then create the conditions for making citizens in the region more likely to get involved in globalization. Indirectly, neo-liberalism is expected to (1) increase self-reliance among citizens and (2) reduce the level of government spending on social programs, such as education and health care, thus creating less attractive social conditions in each country. The analysis in section three of this essay shows conflicting evidence about the linkages between neo-liberalism and globalization in Central and Eastern Europe. Increased labor-flexibility, one of the most pronounced aspects of neo-liberalism, is associated with reduced participation in globalization activities. The indirect impact of neo-liberalism, however, is quite pronounced. Neo-liberalism is positively associated with the extent of self-reliance among the CEE citizens, yet it also leads to reduced government spending on healthcare and education. Both reduced reliance on the state and reduced spending for these programs, on the other hand are associated with an increase in globalization activities of CEE citizens.

The authors’ aim is to establish the variance of youth welfare citizenship regimes in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and to revisit the applicability of the regime approach to the emerging welfare regimes (EWRs).

The empirical analysis follows the descriptive case study strategy aiming to discover diversity of youth welfare citizenship patterns. The case selection is made within the CEE country group, which includes countries in Central Europe, the Baltics, Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe, all sharing the communist past. The subdivision of these countries in reference to the welfare states can be made via the European Union (EU) membership based on the assumption that EU social policy frameworks and recommendations have an important effect on domestic policies. We included countries which are in the EU, i.e., with a similar political and economic transition path. There were three waves of accession to the EU in CEE countries. In the first wave (2004), all the Baltic countries, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia joined. In the second wave (2007), Romania and Bulgaria joined. Finally, Croatia joined the EU in 2013. Altogether 11 CEE countries are the EU members today, the remaining CEE countries are non-EU members and thus are excluded from the current research. Those countries which are part of the EU share similarities in social and economic reforms during the pre-accession period and after in order to reach a comparatively similar system with other member states. So, in terms of casing strategy these six countries can be named as emerging welfare regimes (EWRs) evolving transformations across different public policy areas. Handpicking of six countries out of 11 relies on the assumption that the Anglo-Saxon welfare system characteristics are more evident in the Baltic countries (Aidukaite, 2019; Aidukaite et al., 2020; Ainsaar et al., 2020; Rajevska and Rajevska, 2020) and Slovenia, while in Bulgaria and Croatia certain outcomes reflect the Bismarckian principles of social security (Hrast and Rakar, 2020; Stoilova and Krasteva, 2020; Dobrotić, 2020). This brings important variety into our analysis logic. Last but not least, we juxtapose six CEE EWR countries under analysis with six mature welfare regime countries representing different welfare regime types. Those mature welfare regime countries (Finland, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, UK) are not an explicit object of the study but help to put analysed CEE EWR cases into larger context and thus, reflect upon theoretical claims of the welfare regime literature.

The authors can confirm that the EWR countries can be rather well explained by the welfare citizenship typology and complement the existing knowledge on youth welfare regime typology clusters in the Western Europe. Estonia is clustered close to the Nordic countries, whereas Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia and Slovenia are close to the Bismarckian welfare model despite rather flexible, non-restricted educational path, universal child and student support. Bulgaria is an outlier; however, it is clustered together with mature Mediterranean welfare regimes. Former intact welfare regime clusters are becoming more diverse. The authors’ findings confirm that there is no any intact cluster of the “post-communist” welfare regime and Eastern European countries are today “on move”.

Altogether 11 CEE countries are the EU members today. The remaining CEE countries are non-EU members and thus are excluded from the current research. Those countries which are part of the EU share similarities in social and economic reforms during the pre-accession period and after in order to reach a comparatively similar system with other member states. At least one CEE country was chosen based on existing theoretical knowledge on the welfare regime typology (Anglo Saxon, Beveridgean, Bismarckian) for the Post-communist country groups.

In the social citizenship dimension we dropped social assistance schemes and tax-relief indices and included poverty risk and housing measures. Youth poverty together with housing showed rather clear distinction between familialized and individualised countries and thus, made the typology stronger. In the economic dimension the preliminary picture was much fuzzier, mainly due to the comprehensive education in the region and intervention of the EU in domestic ALMPs (and VET) reforms. The authors added a new indicator (pro-youth orientation of ALMP) in order better to capture youth-sensitivity of policy.

The authors included a working poverty measure (in-work poverty rate) in order to reflect labour market insecurity as an increasing concern. Yet, the analysis results were still mixed and new indicators did not help locating the regime types.

In order to improve the validity of the youth welfare citizenship regime economic dimension, Chevalier's (2020) model may also be worth revisiting. The authors argue that this dichotomy is not sufficient, because inclusive type can have orientation towards general skills or occupational skills (i.e. monitored or enabling citizenship clusters), which is currently ignored. Chevalier (2020) furthermore associates inclusive economic citizenship with “coordinated market economies” (referring to Hall and Soskice, 2001), which seems hardly hold validity in the Nordic and at least some CEE countries.

Purpose – This paper contributes to the discussion of the effects of the global financial and economic crisis of 2008–2009 (GFEC) on strategies of multinational companies (MNC) in the unique regional context of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).

Methodology/approach – The considerations are based on secondary data and accessible studies dealing with corporate responses to the recent economic downturn.

Findings – The author argues that the business model which guided the expansion into CEE still remains valid. The huge market potential did not disappear and the advantages stemming from a skilled workforce and favourable resource situation were not eliminated by the crisis. What markedly changed is the perception of risk of doing business in CEE. As a consequence, foreign investors follow a more cautious and selective approach in their regional strategy. Regional players will try to stay in CEE and benefit from the exit of weaker competitors. Multi-tier brand strategies and affordability initiatives will gain in importance.

Research limitations/implications – As this is a discussion paper further research is necessary to validate the propositions.

Practical implications – An external shock such as the recent crisis forces management to conduct a comprehensive review of the pillars of their strategy. This paper offers a guideline for review of a regional strategy.

Originality/value of paper – The paper provides a comprehensive review of the business model for CEE in the light of the recent global crisis and highlights probable strategic responses of foreign MNCs.

Does the rise of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Central and Eastern Europe lead to supraterritoriality? The analysis of FDI flows between world investor countries and Central and East European (CEE) hosts between 1989 and 2000 shows that the majority of FDI flows into CEE in this period do not exemplify a trend of undifferentiated transcendence of post-communist borders. Rather, FDI flows continue to be based in territoriality and embedded in existing social relations between investor and host countries: migration and trade flows, historical ties, political alliances, and cultural affinities. Nevertheless, the rhetoric supporting the opening of post-communist countries to FDI is widespread and consistent with the neoliberal credo, which has acquired a supraterritorial character. Ultimately, we see that embeddedness and supraterritoriality co-exist but they manifest themselves for distinct FDI phenomena: the concrete economic practice and the economic rhetoric, respectively.

As women’s position in the economy and society is often explained by cultural factors, this study aims to verify whether the observed changes in female empowerment in the region of Central and East European (CEE) countries of the European Union (EU) are associated with masculinity as a cultural trait.

The authors apply the k-means clustering method to group CEE countries into clusters with similar levels of female empowerment in two time points – 2013 and 2019. Next, the authors examine the clusters and cross-reference them with the national culture’s masculinity to explore the interrelations between female empowerment and cultural traits in the CEE countries and their development in time.

The analyses reveal that female empowerment is not uniform or stable across the CEE countries. The masculinity level is not strongly related to women’s position in these countries, and changes in female empowerment are not closely linked to masculinity.

Despite the tumultuous history of women’s empowerment in the CEE countries, the issues related to gender equality and cultural traits pertaining to the region are relatively understudied in the literature. By focusing on the CEE region, the authors fill the gap in examining the independencies between female empowerment and cultural masculinity.

The purpose of this paper is to provide details of the communist and socialist past to inform the debate on redesigning tourism in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries as impacted by the transition and accelerated by European Union (EU) membership.

The issues from two sides are addressed: academic and practical. Based on a literature review, the authors propose a model of five main research topics that represent the main areas of change and conceptualise the general EU accession research debate on tourism. Content analysis is conducted on each of the revealed main research topics that are presented and discussed from the standpoint of tourism-relevant socialist and communist stature and image. On the other hand, this paper engages with reality as it surveys real-life practices in tourism development and business operation based on the personal experience of the researcher regarding the social situation under consideration.

The findings concerning the revealed main areas of tourism change in CEE countries following EU accession refer to the: change from communism towards a new image (Europeanisation and re-imaging), change from communism to capitalism (transformation and marketisation), change from old communist tourism products to new products (rejuvenation, diversification), change from communist towards sustainability values (sustainability) and change from tourism inside the communist block to international tourism (re-internationalisation) The discussion indicates how each area of change relates to socialist and communist content and its tourism relevance and the potential for tourism development, policy and business.

The list of relevant works is not exhaustive as only tourism-focussed quality journals are surveyed in order to define the main areas of change.

A very relevant source of information and impartial advice for tourism developers and policymakers in ex-socialist and communist countries is provided regarding tourism development at the strategic and managerial levels.

This paper fills an identified information/resource gap concerning the potential and contribution of communist and socialist heritage to tourism development and business, and places this in the context of the changes CEE countries have made in order to stay and/or become tourism destinations. It introduces a new term “tourism redesign” which explains the transition in tourism development, policy and management through different areas of change.