Guest editorial: social work in times of transformation: a perspective from Central and Eastern Europe

In his analysis of the changes in Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of communism, János Kornai (2006) provided an account of the social transformation of eight countries that joined the EU in 2004, employing a perspective rooted in comparative historical analysis. This examination led to the identification of an exceptional success story. Kornai argued that while other great transformations have occurred in world history, this particular one was unique due to the simultaneous presence of six key characteristics—something unprecedented in history. In summary, these were: (1–2) the fact that the changes aligned with the primary directions of Western civilisation's development (capitalism and democracy); (3) a comprehensive transformation unfolded across all spheres of society (economy, political structure, political ideology, legal system, social stratification); (4) it was a non-violent transformation; (5) it transpired under peaceful circumstances; and (6) it occurred with remarkable speed (Kornai, 2006, pp. 217–218). Simultaneously, Kornai acknowledged that such an extraordinary (civilizational!) transformation was accompanied by an entirely different everyday experience. Deep-seated economic challenges and a sense of loss for a substantial portion of the population have been etched into the memory as integral aspects of this transformation, significantly influencing its course.

Looking back at Kornai's analysis after almost twenty years, one can observe that the social transformation of the entire region challenges the notion of uniqueness. In some parts, it was a violent transformation, and the ideals of Western civilizational development, particularly democracy, have come under increasing scrutiny. Nevertheless, his analysis remains a significant account of a remarkable historical change, something easily overlooked. Moreover, and pertinent to this editorial, it provides a methodological guide on the importance of simultaneously examining local and global developments and challenges.

The analytical perspective can and should focus on specific developments. For instance, one might explore how social work evolved as a profession or examine the social circumstances under which it has operated since 1989. Simultaneously, the perspective should be global. It is no longer viable to rely solely on a Central and Eastern European ‘transformational’ outlook to comprehensively address challenges in social work in region which has become truly global. Persistent poverty and evolving poverty profiles, increasing and shifting inequality, the disparity between proclaimed rights and their implementation for specific groups, citizenship and social rights, and migration are just a few examples.

Echoing Lorenz's assertion that

1989 was not only a political event of enormous importance for the political geography of Europe and for subsequent global developments; it also triggered social transformations which affected the very fabric of societies on both sides of the former Iron Curtain,

there is a rightful emphasis on reflecting on broader transformations, as

social work had its origins always as response to two newly arising challenges for societies, the re-structuring of economic conditions associated with technological changes and the need to ensure the integration of citizens into the politically and mostly also geographically newly defined units of nation states. (Lorenz, 2021a, p. 1)

Staying within the framework of broader social changes, the necessity for social work to adapt to newly established welfare arrangements was perceived as a natural progression in its development. However, the attempt to classify post-communist countries into existing welfare models (conservative-corporatist/Bismarckian, social-democrat/Scandinavian, liberal, South-European) soon proved to be an impossible task. Cerami and Stubbs (2011) identified fifteen different classification approaches, ranging from varieties of capitalism to welfare regime perspectives. An illustrative example was Fenger’s analysis (2007), which, with minor adjustments, maintained the conventional classification for Western countries but grouped post-communist nations into three categories: former-USSR (Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine), post-communist (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia), and developing welfare states (Georgia, Romania, Moldova). Consequently, while the welfare state approach was an essential analytical exercise, it yielded limited insights into the understanding of new welfare arrangements in post-communist countries. This was partly due to the necessity to refine the theoretical and empirical foundations of welfare models (Aidukaite, 2009; Kasza, 2002) and reflected broader changes in ‘old’ welfare states occurring simultaneously (e.g., Palier, 2010). Additionally, welfare models were found to inadequately address certain aspects, such as gender roles (e.g., Lewis, 1992). Despite these limitations, these approaches underscored the imperative to systematically integrate new social and political actors into the analysis, spanning from Europeanization to local political actors and various pressure groups. For instance, in Croatia, powerful social groups, particularly war defenders, distorted the welfare rights of ‘traditional’ recipients, leading to theoretical concepts like the ‘captured nature of social policy’ and ‘clientelistic welfare’ (Stubbs & Zrinščak, 2009, 2015). Conservative religious groups also played a significant role in attempting to redefine existing welfare rights, particularly those related to gender, within the broader context of democratic backsliding. Despite some insightful analyses (e.g., Lendvai-Bainton & Szelewa, 2021; Szikra & Őktem, 2023), a crucial link between new welfare agents/social processes and social work remains absent. While the human rights approach holds promise, further exploration is needed (Karsniqi & McPherson, 2022).

Focusing more narrowly, the development of social work education emerges as a promising starting point for understanding the post-1998 era. Existing analyses emphasise its specificity and often overlooked diversity (Zaviršek, 2014, 2015). Although there was a history dating back to the early twentieth century, it was largely disrupted after World War II due to ideological concerns. Social work was perceived as ideologically problematic, challenging the omnipotent state's ability to address all social problems through a communist-driven social development (Bežovan et al., 2019). Despite maintaining some social intervention programmes in a few countries, they operated more as administrative programmes under state control. The legacy of the state's role and the challenge of establishing social work as an autonomous profession and scientific discipline persisted (e.g., Bašić, 2022; Lazar, 2021; Zaviršek, 2014). A notable exception was former Yugoslavia, the only communist country to establish social work education in 1952 in Zagreb, Croatia, followed by other former republics (Bašić, 2022; Opačić & Žganec, 2021; Zaviršek, 2014). Although social work remained closely tied to the state and its ideology, this experience highlighted the significance of broader social circumstances. The recognition of social work as a profession and the establishment of centres for social work in municipalities were pivotal developments resulting from Yugoslavia's political break with the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, this legacy was often neglected during post-communism, and international impact often failed to address the specificity of local needs, lacking an alliance of stakeholders for a holistic approach to reform (Stubbs & Maglajlić, 2012, p. 13). Balancing neglected history, local needs, and internationalisation remains a critical issue in the development of social work.

Despite these challenges, progress in social work education during the post-communist era is undeniable. Lorenz (2021a) succinctly summarised the challenges for social work in post-communist societies: (1) positioning among university disciplines; (2) the relationship between academia and practice; (3) the relationship with social policy; and (4) reputation in society. These challenges are compounded by broader issues within the neoliberal social policy context and populist politics. Lorenz (2021b) emphasises the need to analyse social work concerning state and politics. From my understanding of social work-social policy dynamics in post-communism, I underscore (1) the need to analyse the impact of various ways of governing social work on its performance; (2) the discussion of how powerful social groups curtail professionalism; (3) how social work responds to population heterogeneity and rising fragmentation of needs; (4) the balancing act between ideas of solidarity and rising individualism (and the rhetoric of (un)deserving); and (5) the role of social work as a science and profession contributing to a truly inclusive society, as its social role ‘can be summed as “making a critical difference”’ (Lorenz 2017, p. 319). In essence, understanding how progress (academization and professionalisation) affects the social vision of a genuinely inclusive society is crucial. While the Editorial is not the appropriate venue for an exhaustive academic exploration, it serves as a call for further contributions to these critical issues. Unfortunately, the current rate of submissions to the European Journal of Social Work is unsatisfactory. For instance, out of 489 submissions from authors across Europe between 2020 and November 2023, only 85 (17.3%) originated from Central and Eastern European countries. The acceptance rate shows an even wider gap. Therefore, the progress, experience, and challenges of Central and Eastern European countries over the past 35 years are yet to be adequately reflected in scientific contributions, a matter of special interest for this European Journal. In this context, it is essential to reiterate the journal’s commitment to the idea that social work must respond critically, informedly, and independently to contemporary social developments, striving for social justice, and recognising human rights. The journal seeks to eliminate discrimination, racism, and exclusion, providing a platform to recognise and discuss the diversity of cultural and conceptual traditions in which social work in Europe and beyond is grounded. Central and Eastern European countries offer a rich repository of experience that can significantly contribute to the analysis of social work in various European countries. We hope to see this reflected in an increasing number of valuable scientific contributions from the region.