Collective Bargaining and Pay Inequity in the Public Sector Essay

Collective Bargaining and Pay Inequity in the Public Sector - Essay Example In the United States at the moment majority of the states have passed legislations that permit workers to organise themselves and bargain collectively. This is because collective bargaining is a very important way through which employees can push for their rights considering the historical discrimination that has been witnessed in America’s public sector. The laws vary from state to state, for instance, only 12 states of all who have legalized collective recognise strikes are being legal. Those states not allowing strikes have outlined various processes for resolving issues in the workforce such as mediation and fact-finding. A good number of states use interest arbitration where neutral arbitrators listen to grievances raised, evaluate facts, and follow statutory criteria to come up with decisions as to the terms of collective bargaining agreements. Nonetheless, collective bargaining through unionisation has become a very popular practice in America and the world over. Unions represent members in many different ways which include and not limited to lobbying for favourable labor laws such as protection of employees from arbitrary discharge, educating and training members on their rights and most importantly negotiating compensation directly with employers on behalf of the membership. Collective bargaining agreements also address issues of discrimination in the work place based on gender, race and even class hence attempt to force employers apply the same standards to every individual. AFSCME for instance, which is mostly concerned with women has for the past few decades managed to lobby against pay inequity that is based on gender. One negative concern about trade unionism and collective bargaining agreements has been that they tend to indirectly further the inequality gap. In particularly comes about when covered employees are

Christian scriptures Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Christian scriptures - Essay Example The Christian holy scripture forms the starting point of the great majority of the doctrines and theological concepts adopted as well as disputed by the numerous denominations of the Christian faith.2 Today as much as in the past the Old Testament could be read to give the reader an indication of what Jesus Christ was expected to achieve, whilst the New Testament describes what he is supposed to have actually achieved. The New Testament also mentions how the Early Church started to spread the Christian religion whilst having debates about the best means of leading Christian lives.3 The studies of the New Testament soon came to the conclusion that there was a great deal that the Synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke held in common with each other.4 The study of holy scriptures was tightly restricted before the Reformation yet that altered with the spread of Protestantism, especially in its most evangelical guises.5 The consequences of the Protestant Reformation as well as the Roman Catholic counter - Reformation could be arguably discerned in the study of holy scriptures right down to our own times.6 The numerous Protestant sects and the Roman Catholic Church even now present their own, sometimes very different interpretations of the holy scriptures.7 Yet in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries many Biblical scholars were of the opinion that the Synoptic Gospels all shared at least shared one common source of information about Jesus before using different sources to raise the unique parts of their own gospel accounts.8 Those different understandings of holy scriptures are shaped by theological differences and how literally the text of the Holy Bible is, or is not taken to be. The Christian holy scriptures had a very strong influence over the development of many Western cultures and societies although there are convincing indications of declining religious affiliations in

The persuasive speech

The persuasive speech Persuasive Speech Did you know that 50% of kids in foster homes die from child abuse a year? There are a half of a million children in the foster care system. Many people are unaware of this hidden tragedy that happens behind closed doors and away from the public eye. We should take a stand and fight for stricter regulations with Child and Youth when children are placed in foster care. We should advocate tougher laws and guidelines for social workers, foster families and the ?system? that runs it. First, we should talk about the social workers that work for Division and Youth services. The regulations for social workers are poor and unethical. Most states do not have requirements to work in this profession only a high school diploma and the ability to pass a criminal background check. In Pennsylvania, the state does not demand a license for these workers. Social workers believe that their actions they take violates the law but say ?they are necessary to comply with ethical standards. Fredrick Reamer a PHD writes, ?social workers follow their own personal option and reasons of why they do the things they do? and ?believe that the laws are unjust and harmful? (Reamer 1). They are suppose to follow the laws that are in place by our Constitution and by the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics. What gives them the right to be above the law? In my case coming from New Jersey, the social workers came in and took us out for good reasons. In Pennsylvania, my neighbor was going to have her kids taken away because they missed so many days of school. Child and Youth came to her house and demand a reason for this. Jess, my neighbor, told me ? the lady came into my house and yelled at me in front of my kids, calling me an unfit parent and said that they were going to take the kids? (Jess, PI). Children and Family Justice Center says that technique is a criteria and ?see the bully fight as worth having, stand up for despised, demonized, brilliant and tenacious children? (Bernadine Dohrn 1). What should be done with these so called social workers? We should demand that all get a license in this field which requires a masters or a doctrine degree. We should tell the National Association of Social Workers to enforce penalties on those who do not follow the law and ethical standards that are in place to protect the families and children that are innocent. We have to come together as families and protect ourselves and know the laws in our state. Another problem we face is the foster homes and state run facilities. Agencies fail to investigate abuse reports, find permanent homes for children or track children under care. In Pennsylvania a judge wrote, ?In recent years, the system run by DHS and overseen by DPW had repeatedly failed to fulfill its mandates and unfortunately has often jeopardized the welfare of the children in its care? (Rick Thomas 1). Did you know that there are 20,000 kids in foster care in Pennsylvania and 30 percent of them have no prospect of having a permanent home? Or that ?28% of children in foster homes are abused a year and half of them die of abuse? (Donna Devane 1). There is more abuse occurring in foster homes than the general public and it is increasing each year. For example, Gilbreanie Wallace was placed in foster care because her grandmothers house became unlivable when her pipes broke and flooded her house. Instead of Division and Youth helping the family out and finding them another house, they took Gilbreanie and placed her with a family. A few months later, she was killed by the foster mother, who had several complaints against her already and a record of a troubled history. Thousands of children are removed from homes a day, mostly from non-abusive parents. Why does this occur? States receive thousands of dollars for grant money which taxpayers pay from the Federal government when they put children in State Protective Services, foster care or state run facilities. They get even more money if the parental rights are terminated after 15 months. This is destroying families and our country. Innocent families cannot afford the thousand of dollars to get an attorney to defend their rights and by that time it is too late. Even if they are proved to be innocent they are forced into treatment. Devane writes, ?falsely accused families run up the National Defense Budget by 4.1 billion dollars a year? (Devane 1). The taxpayers are left to pay for this bill. What impact does this have on the kids that go through the foster care system and are abused? Children experience separation anxiety disorder, trauma, physical and sexual abuse and sometimes death. It is a scary and traumatic experience being taken away from your family and your home. To be put in a home that sometimes are classified as unfit and not healthy for children to be in. Many states are cracking down on these homes and facilities but it is not enough. California alone had last year ? 3,000 cases of foster care facility problems that were not reported to the state? (Ben Tanzer 1). Lets put a stop this abuse in foster care settings and demand to the government to enforce stricter laws. We should advocate that every state has the same standards in foster and adoptive homes. We should fight for the right to have every person gets background checks before they let children stay with them. The government should have mandatory classes that teach these parents instead of throwing kids at their door with no prior knowledge. The law states in Pennsylvania, ?only a Police Officer is allowed to remove the children from the home and put them into protective custody when their in danger? (Rutherford Institute 1 ). Many states in this country have this law, except a few like New Jersey, where they are allowed to take the children without consent of the parents. So why does Pennsylvania allow social workers to slip through the cracks or have our homes searched without probably cause? We should crack down on the government and stand up for our children. The Federal government should have more investigations on child abuse reports that occur in foster care facilities. The states should start penalizing more homes and facilities that fail to provide promised medical and health services, and not checking children in their care. They should also change their reviews on each case. The Federal law requires a six month review for each child in foster care. We should petition for them to change that review to more frequent ones. I believe this would lessen the children that are waiting for homes. We should also demand that Pennsylvania change their adoption policy to an ?open adoption?. Right now the law states, ?adoption is a closed adoption, where you have no ties and cut from your birth family? (Adam Fleming 1). Many children in foster care do not want to have permanent homes because of them loosing ties with their birth parents. Changing the laws would encourage families and the children to move into permanent homes. The goal with the foster care system is to look after the children and defend them when abuse is at hand. I believe somewhere along the line we got off track and now the government set out to help is destroying our children. Cases that involve birth parents abusing their children should be top priority and the children should be taken out. Social workers and the Federal Government should not try to intervene with parents trying to raise their kids for something they do not like.

The Creation of Barbie as an American Icon Essay -- Exploratory Essays

The Creation of Barbie as an American Icon Barbie, at the age of 41, is one of the longest living toys in America. Analyzing her early history can give a person a look into the societal trends and culture of the late 1950's and early 1960's. There is evidence of fashion innovations in Barbie's wardrobe. Also, one can see the perception of females by society, such as what they should look like, how they should act and dress, as well as what their future goals could be. The following essay follows Barbie's history from 1959 to 1963, covering her development, her appeal to children, and her existence as a cultural artifact of the time period. History: Barbie's Debut in 1959 In February of 1959, Barbie was first introduced at the American International Toy Fair in New York (Barbie Dolls). Her creators, Ruth and Elliot Handler (co-founders of Mattel) modeled Barbie after the German doll known as Lilli. Lilli began as a cartoon character in a daily newspaper called the Bild-Zeitung (BillyBoy 19). This character, known for her large breasts and sexy clothing, was created for adult entertainment "a symbol of sex and pornography for the men of Germany" (Johnson "History"). Handler discovered Lilli while shopping in Switzerland and brought the doll home for her daughter to play with. Ruth was inspired to create an adult doll for little girls. Handler had Jack Ryan, executive of Mattel, purchase the rights for Lilli and negotiate with a company from Tokyo to create a doll like Lilli. The reason for going overseas was in order to create an inexpensive new doll. American male designers told Handler that it would be impossible to make such a doll (with stylish clothing and accessories) for an affordable price. The new doll had a s... ...Barbie's Effects on American Suburban Culture. (6 March 2000) http://www.otal.umd.edu/~vg/mssp96/ms07/cult.htm Johnson, Kristi. Evaluation. (7 March 2000) http://www.otal.umd.edu/~vg/mssp96/ms07/eval.htm Johnson, Kristi. History. (6 March 2000) http://www.otal.umd.edu/~vg/mssp96/ms07/hist.htm Kehoe, John. "Barbie." Biography 2.12 Dec. 1998. (28 Feb. 2000) http://www.ebsco.com Lord, M.G. Forever Barbie. William Morrow and Co.: New York, 1994. Origin of Barbie. (6 March 2000) http://www.nondairy.com/People/Raven/Barbie.html Riddick, Kristin. Introduction. (6 March 2000) http://www.people.virginia.edu/~tsawyer/barbie/barb1.html Weiss, Michael. Toys Were Us. (7 March 2000) http://www.discovery.com/stories/history/toys/BARBIE/shoulda.html 40 Years with Barbie. (29 Feb. 2000) http://www.barbie.com/40th_Anniv/40Years/1959.asp

Outline and evaluate the learning theory of attachment Essay

The learning theory of attachment focuses of two concepts; operant and classical conditioning. Classical conditioning as an explanation for attachment describes the baby receiving food (and unconditioned stimulus) and producing an unconditioned response (happiness) and the mother feeding the baby will be the neutral stimulus. The baby will then experience the mother giving them food (and therefore happiness) a number of times and then learn to associate the mother (now a conditioned stimulus) with the feeling of happiness (a conditioned response) and thus an attachment will form. Operant conditioning describes attachment as a reinforced response. When a baby gets food it’s discomfort will become happiness and the baby will associate this feeling with food and therefore food will become the primary reinforcer. The person feeding the baby will also be associated with the happiness and therefore become the secondary reinforcer and an attachment will form. (evaluate) Even though the learning theory of attachment provides an adequate explanation of attachment it is flawed. Research evidence, such as that of Harlow’s monkey study, opposes the idea of learning theory as an explanation of attachment. Harlow’s monkey study involved giving a baby monkey the choice of either food or comfort (food was portrayed by a wire ‘monkey’ with a feeding bottle attached to it and comfort was portrayed by a wire ‘monkey’ covered in cloth). According to the learning theory of attachment the monkey should have spent most of his time on the food ‘monkey, however the opposite was true – the monkey spent the majority of his time on the comfort ‘monkey’. This decreases the validity of the learning theory of attachment as an explanation for attachment because the findings of Harlow’s monkey study opposed what it suggested. However, the monkey study was conducted on monkeys and it could be argued that this is not an accurate representation of human attachment. Humans are a lot more complex than animals and so therefore research on animals to study behaviour cannot be applied to human behaviour. Outline and evaluate the learning theory of attachment (12 marks) A GRADE (outline)

Civil Society in Russia

The term â€Å"civil society† in Russia is rarely referred to something other than to the civic organisations and movements created during and after the break-up of the Soviet Union (start of the 1990’s). Never the less this paper will look at the â€Å"civil society† term in Russia more widely and insidely. I will talk more and discuss about our time â€Å"civil society†, which came in in the end of the 90’s with the Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin’s ascension on the presidency. Putin re-established a top-down order in Russia and has proved to be quite antagonistic both to Western foreign policy and to pro-Western civil society groups.However, both capitalism and multiparty democracy continued their uncertain paths in Russia through the last decade. After two terms as president, Putin handed over to Dmitri Medvedev and therefore he built a so called monopoly in the hidden â€Å"Dictatorship† in the Russian political sphere. Total dominat ion until the unability of being the ruling force of the country will come in but even then he has a cut back plan of Medvedev and some later chosen candidate, that will help Medvedev make same what Putin did, with getting the presidentship back in his hands as soon as possible. Looking to the future, the paper highlights two main trends.First, the continuation of Russia’s tradition of civic and political activism, seen most dramatically in the mass demonstrations in Moscow and other cities. Second, the major steps made by CSOs and local government in implementing social partnership, with new funds from the state that both replace and build on the contributions of foreign donors during 1995-2005. History. The beginnings of Russian civil society. The first stage (1760-1860) flows out of Catherine the Great’s reforms to the Russian estates and was characterized by the creation of public organizations related to science, literature, the arts, leisure and charitable activi ties.These included famous and influential associations like the Russian Geographical Society, the Free Economics Society, the Moscow Agricultural Society, the Russian Technical Society, and the Pirogov’s Association of Russian Doctors. These societies were set up with hopes for friendly cooperation with the Tsarist authorities and in the second half of the 19th century their members played a key role lobbying for social and legal reform. Civil society growth under Tsarism. Russia’s second stage of civil society development began with the Great Reforms ushered in by Tsar Alexander II in the 1860s.Serfdom was abolished, basic civil rights were established in law, and the first steps taken in the creation of a local government system. CSOs expanded gradually, became more professional, and began to provide educational and health support to vulnerable groups across the country. At the same time industrialization and urbanization gathered pace in Russia. The extension of th e railway system across Siberia to the Pacific was one of the most dramatic examples of this in the late 19th century. Though ,the development of capitalist relations in the economy was not mirrored by political changes.The period of reforms gave way to a new period of repression and political stagnation, and the state was challenged by increasingly radical political forces such as the Popularitists(Narodniki) with their â€Å"to the people† movement, culminating in the 1905 revolution. Many voluntary associations were radicalized too (including almost all the scientific societies noted above). Significantly, the only law passed in Tsarist time devoted to public organizations was issued by the Senate in the immediate aftermath of the first Russian Revolution, in March 1906.In the next few years, almost 5,000 new organizations, societies and unions were registered. However, once again this reforming, liberalizing movement ran into opposition from the state and with the crisis that was brought into the country because of the participation and taking a huge part and playing important role in World War I. Civil society in the Soviet period. The Soviet period (1917 to the mid-1980s) is the third stage in Russia’s civil society development, notable for the â€Å"nationalization of civil society institutions†.Again, there were stages when popular activity flowered. The Soviet arts, cultural and scientific avant-garde of the 1920s is well known, but less well known are the local movements, peasants’ and proletarian organizations that emerged all around the country. For example, every settlement/district had its own Peasant Mutual Society and the Central Bureau catered to the welfare needs of students much as voluntary associations had done before the revolution.However, in the 1930s this phase gave way to a period of repression and political regimentation – occasioned by the Soviet government’s decision to forcibly collectiviz e agriculture and go for rapid industrialization. This â€Å"required state-oriented CSOs which were to drive the foundation of socialism†. The voluntary associations created in the 1920s â€Å"offered alternative ways of solving social problems† but the authorities â€Å"doubted the utility of voluntary movements and the reliability of their participants. † Thousands were shut down in the 1930s and new associations set up in their stead, as part of the government machine.It was not until the late 1950s-early 1960s that citizens’ organizations of a less politicized type began to re-emerge, encouraged by Kruschev’s denunciation of Stalin and the political though that followed. Russian analysts have identified about 40 of these, operating mainly within the arts and scientific fields under the patronage of Communist Party bodies and subject to the latter’s decisions on policy and personnel matters. By the Brezhnev period, associations were acti ve among groups as varied as war veterans, professional designers and those involved in child welfare. Civil society now included the dissident  movement.Dissidents developed various modes of resistance to the Soviet state – writing and publishing artistic or journalistic critiques of the regime, creating a variety of informal circles and discussion groups, and making statements on political and human rights issues that brought down considerable persecution on themselves. But they had many sympathizers and considerable impact on the political atmosphere in the country and its reputation abroad. The dissident movement included not only western-leaning liberals, but also strident nationalists and religious activists from many of the constituent republics of the USSRTransition period to our times. â€Å"Civil society† played a huge role in dissident ideology in Eastern Europe and the USSR in the 1980s. When the communist regimes collapsed one after the other it seemed t o many people that an entirely new society was being born. Many different analyses of â€Å"newly-created† civil society in the region were built around this view. Twenty years later and with the benefit of new historical research, most experts in the region see things differently. The current stage of civil society development in Russia is a fourth stage, starting in the mid-1980s and continuing to the present day.The movement for perestroika and glasnost led by Gorbachev was designed to solve the USSR’s pressing economic crisis (caused by the arms race and economic competition with the West) and to shore up the legitimacy of one-party rule. But it led instead to the collapse of the communist system. Many of the most active civil society sectors today can trace their origins to the 1980s – not just the human rights groups, but also the environmental movement with its active networks among young people and in the regions.The adoption of a law on public associati ons in the late soviet period, supported by subsequent Russian Federation laws regulating public and charitable activity, opened the door to CSO registration for all-comers. However, under Yeltsin’s successor Putin, the environment for civil society changed significantly. On the one hand, Putin accelerated a process initiated under Yeltsin –government financing of the sector (mainly via contracting out social services to CSOs), and set up a national structure of Public Councils to dialogue with and co-opt the sector.On the other hand,  in 2006 he introduced regulations limiting the influence of foreign donors. The study’s authors call this policy â€Å"import substitution†; the replacement of foreign models and funding by national programs, self-organization and local philanthropy. Russian civil society today. General features of the sector After two decades of transition, analysts of current developments in Russia are beginning to gain a balanced view of the civil society sector. Civil society in Russia, is showing more attention to the detail, shows that elements of continuity and change, tradition and innovation, exist alongside one another.Here is what I can say on that theme: †¢ civil society activists today are â€Å"a strong minority of citizens† who deserve more support †¢ Informal networks are important for civil society, especially in rural areas because they include a large membership and their ability and readiness to provide vital daily services, plus often good links with government †¢ Foreign funding has had a positive effect in many areas (for example, it helped open up dialogue on many issues like feminism, domestic violence and others) †¢ Mafia-type groupings have had a powerful and negative effect at all levels in Russia – even â€Å"co-opting the role of civil society† †¢ The millionaires or â€Å"oligarchs† that emerged during the 1990s preferred not to work through formal or wider business associations; hence they contributed little to civil society development. So Russia surely has a civil society. The question is how to develop it further, from local to national level. Here is some thoughts on that part because there are many different opinions from different experts on that note. I will try to suggest the best possible ways of improving it and making in stronger and more vulnerable to what tries to hurt it.†¢ Civic engagement: the level of public activity in stable periods is moderate, but CSOs have shown they can mobilize quickly when the external situation demands †¢ Level of organization: Russian civil society is still in a difficult period of organizational development †¢ Practice of values: CSO members and activists refer to non-violence, tolerance and internal democracy as being among the most important for the sector †¢ Perception of impact: the general image of civil society is not equal from internal an d external points of view. CSOs themselves rate their social and political impact as higher than the scores given by external experts †¢ External environment: the majority of the population do not approve of corruption, tax evasion, and so on. These positive social attitudes could potentially act as a catalyst for further civil society development. †¢Consultative mechanisms.Set up by Putin in 2004, the national Public Chamber has 126 members, selected in equal numbers by the President, public organizations, and Russia’s regions. The aim was to develop the space for civil society and intersectional dialogue. Gradually, this model has been extended across Russia. Critics said they would prove to be mere â€Å"window-dressing to legitimize the government’s increasingly authoritarian policies†, but at local level many NGO supporters have proved willing to give them a try. (A survey found that 60% of activists would participate if asked, while 16% wouldnâ⠂¬â„¢t, 181) In all of these developments, a clear gap can be seen between advanced and less advanced elements in civil society and government.The rural areas lag behind the cities, the remote regions lag behind the industrial centres. The character of political opposition to the regime is quite different in the regions. As the demonstrations of autumn 2011 and spring 2012 showed, present-day ‘dissidents’ in Moscow and St Petersburg tend to be middle-class, liberal and western-leaning. However, in the Urals and Siberia, many of the most strident activists are from the communist and nationalist camps. Conclusion and perspectives. In December 2011, Russia was admitted to WTO (18 years after first applying) and all that remained was for the Duma to ratify the agreement. In March 2012, Putin returned as President for a new seven-year term.Thus, for the alter-globalization movement as for other dissident forces, a new period of struggle lies ahead to win a greater degree of social and economic justice and a more democratic society in Russia. On the other hand, Putin has promised to priorities social issues and CSOs are well placed to work for positive results in this area. This is a kind of â€Å"crossroads† for Russian civil society – will activists and organizations collaborate or conflict with government? None can say surely but it is likely that many will opt for the first of these strategies, so they face the challenge of how to resist incorporation and maintain their own agenda during the negotiations.Both the democracy and the alter-globalization movements face the challenge of how to coordinate their activities, combine different viewpoints, and communicate more effectively with the general public. The activists involved in social issues at local level have put energy and ideas into setting up grants contests, ensuring transparency in awarding contracts. Now they need to focus on the development, implementation and monitoring of l onger term programs – whether carried out by NGOs or government itself. Only a truly independent position will enable them to work effectively in difficult areas like anti-corruption, anti-racism or the protection of minority rights. Civil Society in Russia Introduction.The term â€Å"civil society† in Russia is rarely referred to something other than to the civic organisations and movements created during and after the break-up of the Soviet Union (start of the 1990’s). Never the less this paper will look at the â€Å"civil society† term in Russia more widely and insidely. I will talk more and discuss about our time â€Å"civil society†, which came in in the end of the 90’s with the Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin’s ascension on the presidency. Putin re-established a top-down order in Russia and has proved to be quite antagonistic both to Western foreign policy and to pro-Western civil society groups. However, both capitalism and multiparty democracy continued their uncertain paths in Russia through the last decade.After two terms as president, Putin handed over to Dmitri Medvedev and therefore he built a so called monopoly in the hidden â€Å"Dictatorship† in the Russian political sphere. Total domination until the unability of being the ruling force of the country will come in but even then he has a cut back plan of Medvedev and some later chosen candidate, that will help Medvedev make same what Putin did, with getting the presidentship back in his hands as soon as possible. Looking to the future, the paper highlights two main trends.First, the continuation of Russia’s tradition of civic and political activism, seen most dramatically in the mass demonstrations in Moscow and other cities. Second, the major steps made by CSOs and local government in implementing social partnership, with new funds from the state that both replace and build on the contributions of foreign donors during 1995-2005.History. The beginnings of Russian civil society.The first stage (1760-1860) flows out of Catherine the Great’s reforms to the Russian estates and was characterized by the creation of public organizations related to science, literature, the arts, leisure and charit able activities. These included famous and influential associations like the Russian Geographical Society, the Free Economics Society, the Moscow Agricultural Society, the Russian Technical Society, and the Pirogov’s Association of Russian Doctors. These societies were set up with hopes for friendly cooperation with the Tsarist authorities and in the second half of the 19th century their members played a key role lobbying for social and legal reform.Civil society growth under Tsarism.Russia’s second stage of civil society development began with the Great Reforms ushered in by Tsar Alexander II in the 1860s. Serfdom was abolished, basic civil rights were established in law, and the first steps taken in the creation of a local government system. CSOs expanded gradually, became more professional, and began to provide educational and health support to vulnerable groups across the country. At the same time industrialization and urbanization gathered pace in Russia. The exte nsion of the railway system across Siberia to the Pacific was one of the most dramatic examples of this in the late 19th century.Though ,the development of capitalist relations in the economy was not mirrored by political changes. The period of reforms gave way to a new period of repression and political stagnation, and the state was challenged by increasingly radical political forces such as the Popularitists(Narodniki) with their â€Å"to the people† movement, culminating in the 1905 revolution. Many voluntary associations were radicalized too (including almost all the scientific societies noted above).Significantly, the only law passed in Tsarist time devoted to public organizations was issued by the Senate in the  immediate aftermath of the first Russian Revolution, in March 1906. In the next few years, almost 5,000 new organizations, societies and unions were registered. However, once again this reforming, liberalizing movement ran into opposition from the state and wi th the crisis that was brought into the country because of the participation and taking a huge part and playing important role in World War I.Civil society in the Soviet period.The Soviet period (1917 to the mid-1980s) is the third stage in Russia’s civil society development, notable for the â€Å"nationalization of civil society institutions†. Again, there were stages when popular activity flowered. The Soviet arts, cultural and scientific avant-garde of the 1920s is well known, but less well known are the local movements, peasants’ and proletarian organizations that emerged all around the country. For example, every settlement/district had its own Peasant Mutual Society and the Central Bureau catered to the welfare needs of students much as voluntary associations had done before the revolution. However, in the 1930s this phase gave way to a period of repression and political regimentation – occasioned by the Soviet government’s decision to forcib ly collectivize agriculture and go for rapid industrialization.This â€Å"required state-oriented CSOs which were to drive the foundation of socialism†. The voluntary associations created in the 1920s â€Å"offered alternative ways of solving social problems† but the authorities â€Å"doubted the utility of voluntary movements and the reliability of their participants.† Thousands were shut down in the 1930s and new associations set up in their stead, as part of the government machine. It was not until the late 1950s-early 1960s that citizens’ organizations of a less politicized type began to re-emerge, encouraged by Kruschev’s denunciation of Stalin and the political though that followed.Russian analysts have identified about 40 of these, operating mainly within the arts and scientific fields under the patronage of Communist Party bodies and subject to the latter’s decisions on policy and personnel matters. By the Brezhnev period, associatio ns were active among groups as varied as war veterans, professional designers and those involved in child welfare. Civil society now included the dissident  movement. Dissidents developed various modes of resistance to the Soviet state – writing and publishing artistic or journalistic critiques of the regime, creating a variety of informal circles and discussion groups, and making statements on political and human rights issues that brought down considerable persecution on themselves.But they had many sympathizers and considerable impact on the political atmosphere in the country and its reputation abroad. The dissident movement included not only western-leaning liberals, but also strident nationalists and religious activists from many of the constituent republics of the USSRTransition period to our times.â€Å"Civil society† played a huge role in dissident ideology in Eastern Europe and the USSR in the 1980s. When the communist regimes collapsed one after the other it seemed to many people that an entirely new society was being born. Many different analyses of â€Å"newly-created† civil society in the region were built around this view. Twenty years later and with the benefit of new historical research, most experts in the region see things differently. The current stage of civil society development in Russia is a fourth stage, starting in the mid-1980s and continuing to the present day. The movement for perestroika and glasnost led by Gorbachev was designed to solve the USSR’s pressing economic crisis (caused by the arms race and economic competition with the West) and to shore up the legitimacy of one-party rule. But it led instead to the collapse of the communist system.Many of the most active civil society sectors today can trace their origins to the 1980s – not just the human rights groups, but also the environmental movement with its active networks among young people and in the regions. The adoption of a law on publ ic associations in the late soviet period, supported by subsequent Russian Federation laws regulating public and charitable activity, opened the door to CSO registration for all-comers. However, under Yeltsin’s successor Putin, the environment for civil society changed significantly.On the one hand, Putin accelerated a process initiated under Yeltsin –government financing of the sector (mainly via contracting out social services to CSOs), and set up a national structure of Public Councils to dialogue with and co-opt the sector. On the other hand,  in 2006 he introduced regulations limiting the influence of foreign donors. The study’s authors call this policy â€Å"import substitution†; the replacement of foreign models and funding by national programs, self-organization and local philanthropy.Russian civil society today. General features of the sectorAfter two decades of transition, analysts of current developments in Russia are beginning to gain a bala nced view of the civil society sector.Civil society in Russia, is showing more attention to the detail, shows that elements of continuity and change, tradition and innovation, exist alongside one another. Here is what I can say on that theme: †¢ civil society activists today are â€Å"a strong minority of citizens† who deserve more support †¢ Informal networks are important for civil society, especially in rural areas because they include a large membership and their ability and readiness to provide vital daily services, plus often good links with government †¢ Foreign funding has had a positive effect in many areas (for example, it helped open up dialogue on many issues like feminism, domestic violence and others)†¢ Mafia-type groupings have had a powerful and negative effect at all levels in Russia – even â€Å"co-opting the role of civil society† †¢ The millionaires or â€Å"oligarchs† that emerged during the 1990s preferred no t to work through formal or wider business associations; hence they contributed little to civil society development. So Russia surely has a civil society. The question is how to develop it further, from local to national level. Here is some thoughts on that part because there are many different opinions from different experts on that note. I will try to suggest the best possible ways of improving it and making in stronger and more vulnerable to what tries to hurt it.†¢ Civic engagement: the level of public activity in stable periods is moderate, but CSOs have shown they can mobilize quickly when the external situation demands †¢ Level of organization: Russian civil society is still in a difficult period of organizational development †¢ Practice of values: CSO members and activists refer to non-violence, tolerance and internal democracy as being among the most important for the sector †¢ Perception of impact: the general image of civil society is not equal from in ternal and external points of view. CSOs themselves rate their social and political impact as higher than the scores given by external experts †¢ External environment: the majority of the population do not approve of corruption, tax evasion, and so on.These positive social attitudes could potentially act as a catalyst for further civil society development. †¢Consultative mechanisms. Set up by Putin in 2004, the national Public Chamber has 126 members, selected in equal numbers by the President, public organizations, and Russia’s regions. The aim was to develop the space for civil society and intersectional dialogue. Gradually, this model has been extended across Russia. Critics said they would prove to be mere â€Å"window-dressing to legitimize the government’s increasingly authoritarian policies†, but at local level many NGO supporters have proved willing to give them a try. (A survey found that 60% of activists would participate if asked, while 16% wouldn’t, 181)In all of these developments, a clear gap can be seen between advanced and less advanced elements in civil society and government. The rural areas lag behind the cities, the remote regions lag behind the industrial centres. The character of political opposition to the regime is quite different in the regions. As the demonstrations of autumn 2011 and spring 2012 showed, present-day ‘dissidents’ in Moscow and St Petersburg tend to be middle-class, liberal and western-leaning. However, in the Urals and Siberia, many of the most strident activists are from the communist and nationalist camps.Conclusion and perspectives.In December 2011, Russia was admitted to WTO (18 years after first applying) and all that remained was for the Duma to ratify the agreement. In March 2012, Putin returned as President for a new seven-year term. Thus, for the alter-globalization movement as for other dissident forces, a new period of struggle lies ahead to win a greater de gree of social and economic justice and a more democratic society in Russia. On the other hand, Putin has promised to priorities social issues and CSOs are well placed to work for  positive results in this area. This is a kind of â€Å"crossroads† for Russian civil society – will activists and organizations collaborate or conflict with government?None can say surely but it is likely that many will opt for the first of these strategies, so they face the challenge of how to resist incorporation and maintain their own agenda during the negotiations. Both the democracy and the alter-globalization movements face the challenge of how to coordinate their activities, combine different viewpoints, and communicate more effectively with the general public. The activists involved in social issues at local level have put energy and ideas into setting up grants contests, ensuring transparency in awarding contracts.Now they need to focus on the development, implementation and monit oring of longer term programs – whether carried out by NGOs or government itself. Only a truly independent position will enable them to work effectively in difficult areas like anti-corruption, anti-racism or the protection of minority rights.