Nuno Martins (p)

Andrea Schmidt

This article discusses the multidimensional perspective to measuring well-being, poverty and inequality that emerged within the capability approach to human development, focusing on: (i) its implications for the conceptualisation of sustainable human development; and (ii) the need of an adequate theoretical framework for conceptualising the connections between the various dimensions of sustainable human development taking into account geographical heterogeneity.
The capability approach to human development contributed to the international prominence of multidimensional indicators with the emergence of the Human Development Index (HDI), adopted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). When advancing the HDI, there was a dynamic view of its key dimensions, in the sense that each was seen not only as a final goal of development, but also as a means for further development. But those theoretical aspects remain unelaborated. This state of affairs regarding socio-economic analysis stands in contrast to ecological analysis, where indicators connected to planetary boundaries recently adopted are advanced while explaining natural mechanisms and associated dynamics. Thus, while natural scientists seem to have reached a consensus on the ecological problems posed by modern economies, socio-economic strategies for addressing those problems remain elusive, and uninformed by a proper theoretical investigation of the multidimensional nature of the various structures at play, and their spatial dimension.
This article addresses this problem, through an explanation of theoretical frameworks that can most fruitfully contribute to develop the capability approach to human development, towards the elaboration of a theory that can provide a basis for discussions of articulated strategies for achieving social goals within planetary boundaries. This is an innovative and original perspective given its neglect in debates on the capability approach, and is quite central to recent discussions that have addressed the role of the capability approach to human development in sustainability analysis.
Furthermore, given the expansion of the multidimensional methodology informed by the capability approach to human development to various international organisations (such as the UN, World Bank or OECD, amongst others), the topic is hopefully of much interest well beyond the researchers that have focused more specifically on the capability approach to human development. In fact, the paper also discusses other influential contributions to poverty and inequality, so as to take into account their articulation with those of the capability approach to human development in the multidimensional study of well-being and sustainability.

Gabriela Carmen Pascariu (p), Alexana Gheorghiu, Valerică Greavu-Șerban

Nuno Martins

The digitalization has been regarded as a process allowing all territories and socio-demographic categories equal access and opportunities in an ever-connected world. During the past decades, it has become an integral part of the contemporary society, being elevated as top priority in the majority of European countries and regions, a key dimension of the development strategies and policies over the world. While it’s positive transformative potential is vast (and acknowledged), there is a growing concern, supported by recent data, that the digitalization process accentuates existing inequalities.
Our paper is centered on the perceptions analysis (a survey applied at national level: 558 institutions replied to the invitation to fill in the questionnaire) of the drivers and barriers of digitization in the public administration in Romania. We took into account the low level of digitization of the public institutions in Romania compared to other European countries and the negative impact on citizen-based governance. We were interested in our analysis on a regional perspective and highlighting urban-rural differences. The paper has a high normative dimension, with an emphasis on recommendations for evidence-based policies in the digital transition process.

Andrea Schmidt (p)

Gabriela Carmen Pascariu

The war in Ukraine has challenged Hungary in various ways. The country's geographical location has made it a clear route and destination for refugees. A large part of the country's population, apart from the southern border region which faced a flood of refugees in the 1991 Yugoslavian war, has not had the experience of war in its immediate neighbourhood since the Second World War.
It also brought a surprising challenge for the government. The refugee crisis that sprouted up in 2015 had at the time become firmly entrenched in government communications, sending a message to the public that refugees were to be feared, refugees were to be locked up, but better still, the best way to protect against the flood of refugees, who have been colloquially referred to as "migrants", is to build a wall, a multiple reinforced wire fence along the southern border. Now the majority of those fleeing to Hungary spoke Hungarian and came from Transcarpathia.
This paper examines how Hungary has struggled to manage the refugee influx, who and how has been involved in this task, and in what areas the challenges have been most significant. Nor can we ignore the fact that the government had already put the refugee issue in a completely different context some seven years earlier, and as previous surveys have shown, the Hungarian population has become quite distrustful of refugees from anywhere.
In this paper it is our intention to give a comparative analysis how the Visegrad Group states are facing this issue by using Hungary as a reference point.
We would like to follow a critical approach by analysing the following layers:
• the problem of the war in Ukraine as a geopolitical issue
• the conceptual frames of critical migration studies
• the number of refugees, their legal status – her we would use the terms implemented by the EU, we would rely on the reports of UNHCR and the reports of national governments
• the changes in political communication
• the reaction of the recipient countries’ society, based on public opinion polls
• the institutional framework of the refugee policy, the challenges
• the division among V4 group states, the populist approach and the standpoint towards Ukraine
We would also like to get the answer whether the migration crisis in 2015 and in 2022 can determine the cohesion or deepen the cleavages within the Visegrad Group.