Vera Vratua (-unji)1

Faculty of Philosophy
University of Belgrade

Review article
UDK: 316.422
Received 11 March 2010
DOI:10.2298/SOC1003253V

INNOVATION AND SOCIAL INTERESTS

Inovacija i drutveni interesi
ABSTRACT The paper focuses on socially and historically structured circumstances
surrounding and moral problems involved in the pragmatic definition of innovation as
"novelty proven useful by its users". Contending conceptions and strategies of innovation of
the organization of social relations in dialectical social systems are compared and socially
and historically contextualized in the so-called transition countries on the new Eastern
border of the European Union. The conclusion is that the cited pragmatic definition of
innovation may be misused for an apology of morally dubious new ends and means in the
narrow interest of particular groups of users, often at the expense and against the interest of
a majority of other individuals and social groups.
KEY WORDS innovation, pragmatism, anti-pragmatism, social interests, conservation,
reform, radical transformation
APSTRAKT Rad se bavi drutveno i istorijski strukturisanim okolnostima i moralnim
problemima pragmatine definicije inovacije kao novine koja se za svoje korisnike
pokazala korisnom. Suprotstavljene koncepcije i strategije inovacije organizacije
drutvenih odnosa u dijalektikim drutvenim sistemima uporeene su i drutveno-istorijski
situirane u tzv. zemlje tranzicije na novoj istonoj granici Evropske unije. U tekstu se
zakljuuje da se navedena pragmatina definicija inovacije moe zloupotrebiti za apologiju
moralno sumnjivih novih ciljeva i sredstava u uskom interesu odreenih grupa korisnika,
esto na tetu i protivno interesima veine drugih pojedinaca i drutvenih grupa.
KLJUNE REI inovacija, pragmatizam, antipragmatizam, drutveni interesi, ouvanje,
reforma, radikalni preobraaj

Theoretical and Methodological Framework

The main hypothesis of this paper is that contending conceptualizations,
pragmatic and radical, of the goals of innovation of social relations and unequal
distribution of a given inventions application benefits, are both rooted in the
contradictory interests of broad social groups to conserve, reform or radically

vvratusa@f.bg.ac.rs

254

SOCIOLOGIJA, Vol. LII (2010), N 3

transform dominant social relationships within dialectical social systems of class

division of labor (Vratua, 1995).
This hypothesis will be checked applying the method of historical and social
comparative context analysis and symptomatic reading of conspicuously present or
absent overt and covert messages of authors formulating conservative, reformist and
radical conceptualizations and strategies of social relations innovation. Manifest
statements of these wielders of expert power on the aims of their respective versions
of innovation determination will be confronted with latent functions of their related
policy recommendations to the wielders of economic and political power or to
disowned classes.
The term innovation, the key concept in this paper, stems from the Latin
word innovatio meaning renovation (Gaffiot, 1934), suggesting the restoration of
something that already existed. In intensively changing historic, social and cultural
context of the late Middle Ages, Enlightenment philosophers gave to this term the
connotation of complete novelty. During the epistemological battle with theologians
they began to use the term innovation in the sense of replacement of the old
scholastic deductive method of elaborating the revealed religious truth by the new
empiricist inductive method of discovering scientific truth (Bacon, 1620/1964).
French Encyclopaedists used the term innovation mostly within the realm of
politics, in the sense of consciously inducing innovative reforms of conduct in the
direction of solving social problems. They underlined that novelties are realized
even against the will of some people as the result of Time, understood as the
greatest innovator. They stressed however that the most honourable and gratifying
are useful inventions by people endowed with a natural instinct for mechanics that
are applied to improve the well-being of the entire human species. Such innovations
are the common good of humanity, while political innovations are always
accompanied by sorrow, tears and blood (Diderot, dAlembert, 1773).
During Industrial Revolution, innovation began to be identified with bringing
into being of technical & technological inventions of new materials, tools, products,
markets and/or organization of production processes, insuring material progress and
pecuniary rewards. Neo-classical economists like Schumpeter emphasize the most
the aspect of instrumental rationality of the creative destruction. They
quantitatively measure the usefulness of a new combination of production factors in
terms of the increase in individual competitiveness of economic actors on the
pluralistic markets in specific phases of constant economic cycles (Schumpeter,
1942/1950).
Marxist critics of political economy emphasize rather the qualitative aspect of
substantive normative rationality reproaching the enslaving impact, at both
individual and collective levels, of the class division of labour. They define the main
social content of innovation as a transformation of the relations of production which

Vera Vratua (-unji): Innovation and Social Interests

255

overcomes the alienating separation of commanding and executing labour functions

and enabling all human beings to realize their latent potential of conscious, free and
creative praxis of participation in strategic decision-making and managing their own
lives.

Pragmatic Definition of Innovation and its Critics

There is a wide variety of ways of theorizing that have adopted the term
pragmatism for their label since its tagging and academic institutionalization by
mostly American theoreticians such as the psychologist and philosopher William
James (1907/1963). Common to them all (and their Utilitarian English predecessor
Jeremy Bentham (1780/1982)) is a deliberate avoidance of metaphysical and, for
them, unanswerable ontological questions about the essence of being, gnoseological
questions about the ultimate truth, and ethical questions of unattainable ethical
principles of justice and equity. They focus therefore on practical means to solve
particular real life problems, equating truth with those intelligent actions that are
helpful in successful solution of problems and attainment of goals humans set
themselves in their struggle with the environment. Epistemological abstract
individualism, empiricist rationalism and economic and political liberalism founding
personal freedom in private property, are the remaining shared characteristics of
pragmatist thinkers.
All these characteristics are present in the pragmatic approach to innovation,
as it focuses on the practical question of quantitative instrumental rationality: how
to select the most efficient means to gainfully apply an invention or novelty
accepted as useful by customers and granting the suppliers a suitable profit (Mulej,
enko, s.a.). Innovation in short presents therefore novelty proven useful by its
users". This definition is extracted from the relevant official OECD and EU
documents that often identify users with buyers acting in the environment of
competitive pluralistic markets. Thus the OECD document while defining
technological product innovation in the Oslo 1995 Manual as implemented
technologically new products and significant technological improvements in
products, stresses as well that technological product innovation has been
implemented if it has been introduced on the market (OECD, 1995).
Those partisans of the pragmatic approach to innovation as a new useful
problem solving mechanism that works in practice who do include innovation of
social relations beside the technological one within the realm of their interest,
typically endorse evolutionist, consensual functionalist and constructivist versions of
the sociocybernetic system-theoretical and methodological framework. They point to
the unpredictability of new and unintended side-effects of innovation due to the
insufficiently known causal network between complex social systems, composed of

256

SOCIOLOGIJA, Vol. LII (2010), N 3

differentiated, complementarily interacting and interdependent dynamically

emerging components, and their environment (see for example Hornung, 1988).
Pragmatism met from its inception with criticism coming from two
perspectives. The first perspective taken by what we can call moralists, criticizes
primarily the assumed indifference of pragmatists to moral question about universal
criteria of distinction between good and evil and consequentially furnishing tools for
attainment of any goal. The second perspective taken by what we will call radicals,
acknowledge that some pragmatists hold certain moral assumptions (the greatest
happiness of the greatest number), but go on to expose the ideological character of
these assumptions in the work of both pragmatists and moralists.
In accordance with the radical perspective in criticizing pragmatism, it can be
reproached to the authors of the above cited OECD definition that they a-historically
assume the natural eternal and universal character of the merchandised form of
organization of social reproduction, ruling out the entire sphere of possible
innovation of extant commoditized competitive social relations institutionalization,
as if these relations were not a product of human interaction, subject to
transformation.
The main objection of critics to the partisans of the pragmatic, outcomedefinition of innovation is that they tend to avoid the prior critical question of
qualitative substantial rationality: why apply a given new concept or method of
accomplishing a goal in the first place, especially in view of the empirically based
high probability that commercialized application of a given invention will reproduce
a narrow circle of potential beneficiaries and a larger circle of deprived within the
presently dominant exploitative and exclusionist social relations. Critics reproach to
partisans of the pragmatic approach to defining innovation that they tend to lose
from sight contradictory relations and interests of the interacting components within
dialectical social system, concerning the selection of reference problems to be
resolved and goals to be realized in a more efficient way. Since terms like class
conflict and unequal distribution of decision making power do not exist on their key
word list, critics argue, it comes as no surprise that promoters of the pragmatic
approach to innovation rarely undertake the evaluation of the highly probable
differential distribution of a given invention's application costs and benefits in
conditions of monopolistic concentration and centralization of capital. Pragmatic
problem-functionalist approach to encouraging and controlling inventions thus
contributes, unintentionally or intentionally, to the conservation and deferring
justification of the existing dominant social relations (Vratua, 2004).

Vera Vratua (-unji): Innovation and Social Interests

257

Two Variants of Pragmatic Constructivist Definition of the Innovation of

Social Relations
The conservative neo-liberal version of the pragmatic approach to defining
innovation of social relations
Ideological representatives of control package owners and managers of 200
biggest transnational corporations (Anderson, Cavanagh, 2001) in mid-20th century
used to label what in their perspective was a desirable innovation of social
relations - the politics of modernization (e.g. Apter, 1965). In the centurys last
decade however they reinvented the label economic and social transition (e.g.
Madar, 1996). The content of both labels boils down to the institutionalization of
privatization of all forms of collective, public and communal property, free capitalist
market competition of private producers of products and ideas, highly qualified
professional management, formal rule of law, apparent representative multiparty
parliamentary democracy and "the civic culture".
Only those innovations of social relations that are Western-modernization
oriented, steering entrepreneurial spirit and democratic civil society (see for
example Benderly, Kraft /eds./, 1994) are evaluated as progressive and democratic.
All alternative conceptions and strategies of societal transformation are denigrated
as traditionalistic, Oriental, conservative, state authoritarian, dictatorial, militaristic,
repressively centralized and wastefully redistributive in favor of less developed
regions and less qualified labor for the sake of full employment.
This black-and-white presentation of opposing strategies of innovating or
transforming social relations in the period after the symbolic Fall of the Berlin Wall,
came to the fullest expression during the disintegration of former Yugoslavia caused
by closely interrelated endogenous and exogenous social forces and factors
(Vratua, 1997) . Entrepreneurial and innovative use of the constellation of these
endogenous and exogenous factors is epitomized in the metamorphosis of the former
leader of Slovenian youth civil society antimilitaristic movement against the
former Yugoslav peoples army and its death trade, first into a political leader coresponsible for Slovenias unilateral armed secession that started the war
(Zimmermann, 1995), then defense minister organizing illicit and profitable arms
smuggling (Marinkovic, 1994) and finally into a prime minister sending the new
generation of Slovenian youth to fight in Iraq as part of NATO occupation troops
(Franco, 2006).
Promoters of the conservative neo-liberal version of pragmatic designation of
societal innovation that in practice contributes to the conservation of TNC interests,
tend to see the main and perhaps the only historical source of richness of the
West in the innovation of social relations in the late medieval period which

258

SOCIOLOGIJA, Vol. LII (2010), N 3

abolished feudal guild and Catholic Church monopolies that had prevented
competition of producers and appearance of excessive supply of commodities,
stimulating thus innovations that reduce production costs (Rosenberg, Birdzell,
1986). They are inclined to ignore the historical processes of violent separation of
direct producers from the life reproduction means and colonization, together with
accompanying worldwide monopolistic centralization and concentration of capital
(Marx, 1867/1999). In short, the nowhere really existing system of the free market
competition distribution mechanism is being imposed as the only viable and
desirable blueprint for innovating the management of social relations. In the world
of allegedly scarce resources and overpopulation, free competition according to
conservative neo-liberal pragmatists should ensure the survival of the fittest to adapt
to such hostile natural and presumably unalterable environment. Luckily for the
Slovenian people, partisans of the neo-liberal interpretation of social innovation
were curbed by the partisans of a specific variant of inherited self-managing neoKeynesianism who refused to implement models of privatization recommended by
foreign experts (Mencinger, 2001).
In periods of cyclical systemic crises of depression (Amin, Gunder-Frank,
Arrighi, Wallerstein, 1983) there regularly reappear violent waves of social
conservation or re-imposition of peripheral capitalist social relations through crime
against peace, military aggression and use of forbidden weapons of mass destruction
like agent Orange in Vietnam and Cambodia, or radioactive shells in former
Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan At such times transnational corporate and financial
capital attempts to find the way out of the systemic accumulation of capital crisis
through war mobilization, destruction of people, capital and commodities that
cannot be gainfully employed or sold on the market and through global expansion or
regaining control over global human and natural resources (Vratua, 1993, 2002).
In the battle of ideological labels, these factual processes are cynically masked
and legitimized as humanitarian interventions against dictators or terrorism in
favor of peace or democratization (see for example Holbrooke, 1998). Such
contra-factual and amoral manipulation of labels hides the fact that military
occupation and recolonization entails violent reduction of existing production and
social innovation capacity, including autonomous local scientific research and
development and international communication in the occupied societies.
The reformist etatistic version of the pragmatic approach to innovation of social
relations
The farthest that partisans of the reformist version of the pragmatic approach
to steering and controlling dominant capitalist social relations' innovation are
ready to go, is the neo-Keynesian suggestion to societal elites to realize their

Vera Vratua (-unji): Innovation and Social Interests

259

enlightened self-interest and redistribute part of their profits in order to boost

paying-capable demand and thus attenuate depression crisis (Evans, Rueschemeyer,
Skocpol, 1985).
Keenly aware of systemic crisis production and morally unacceptable unequal
distribution of benefits within actual conservative pragmatic conception of
innovation of dominant social relations, the partisans of its reformist version insist
on wider spreading of benefits from innovation to all coworkers and managers
cooperating in the commercialization of the invention. Toning down the competition
part in Adam Smiths notion of the hidden hand of the market transforming
individual selfishness into general good and rehabilitating its cooperative and moral
elements, reformist partisans of social relations innovation may additionally plead
for the ethics of interdependence between humans and social responsibility of
private corporations. They argue that humans have more in common than
differences, being all parts of the same nature and having mutually complementary
specializations in social division of labor, as well as that rights of enterprise owners
to make efficient business decisions must not be divorced from their concern for
their social effects within and outside the corporation (Freeman, 1984; Petzinger,
2000; Mulej, Potoan, 2004; Hrast, Mulej, Knez-Riedl /ur./, 2006). These ideas
found their way as well in the offical documents of the European Union, attempting
to preserve elements of social Europe in the face of neo-liberal onslaught (EU,
2001). While attempting to win over enterprise owners to practice social
responsibility and accountability, promoters of this social innovation point to the
benefits that can be derived from increased employee engagement (i.e. more loyalty,
improved recruitment, increased retention, higher productivity, and so on), as well as
improved relationships with external stakeholders such as customers, consumers,
investors (particularly institutional investors), regulators, academics, and the media
(Fombrun, 2000).
Champions of reform-oriented innovation pragmatism however do not
demonstrate convincingly how the moralizing invocation of interdependence ethics
and social responsibility of private owners can prevent or even just diminish the
real- world reproduction of imminent effects of the existing system of dominant
social relations of capital accumulation, namely a growing number of unemployed
and employed poor unable to access commercialized innovation. In the system of
life reproduction run by the profit motive and private appropriation of socially
produced wealth, the externalization of social costs to employees, community
ecosystem, consumers and other stakeholders, is an important mechanism of profit
making. Every attempt at curbing this mechanism, therefore, soon hits against the
limits posed by profit-making itself. Did not Enron, for instance, file its yearly
"Corporate Responsibility Annual Reports", before its managers brought it to
bankruptcy through socially irresponsible speculative investment and accounting
practices?

260

SOCIOLOGIJA, Vol. LII (2010), N 3

Two Variants of Anti-Pragmatic, Critical Realist Definitions of

Innovation of Social Relations
In the ideological class fight for the recognition of anti-capitalist conceptions
and strategies of the innovation of social relations, organic intellectuals or at least
self-proclaimed ideological representatives of the exploited and oppressed, ever
since the Communist Manifesto (Marx, Engels, 1848/1987), have proposed
alternative, anti-capitalist models of radical transformation of dominant social
relations.
The revolutionary communist version of critical realist approach to the
transformation of social relations
The heirs of the Leninist tradition insist on radical, if necessary revolutionary
transformation of social property relations and dictatorial political measures against
the counterrevolutionary reaction of former ruling classes (Lenjin, 1917/1993). Due
to the fetishist reifying effect on the empirical trade-unionist class consciousness of
the proletariat of the apparent personal freedom and equality before the law of the
private owners contracting and exchanging different commodities on the market,
some of Lenins disciples at least in one period of their lives insisted that vanguard
revolutionary party had to bring the revolutionary consciousness and organization
from without the sphere of everyday economic struggle between the employers and
the employed (Lukacs, 1919-23).
The reformist socialist version of critical realist approach to the transformation of
social relations
Armed with the experience of transformation of dictatorship of the alleged
proletarian majority over bourgeois minority into the dictatorship of the minority
party nomenclature over the majority of working people, many partisans of antipragmatic radical realist version of social relations transformation insist rather on
the need to overcome both individually and collectively alienating and enslaving
class division of labor. They see the antagonistic separation of commanding and
executing labor functions, making the former the monopoly of the ruling class, as
the main source of conflicting instead of synergic interdependence of dialectical
social systems component elements.
Institutional innovations they propose are balanced job complexes and selfmanagement councils of producers and consumers as mechanisms for the allocation
of resources that provide everybody with direct democratic participation in decision
making on the basis of values like equity, solidarity and diversity (Albert, 2003).

Vera Vratua (-unji): Innovation and Social Interests

261

Conclusion
Admittedly, both versions of anti-pragmatic, critical realist approach to the
innovation of social relations still have many theoretical and practical flaws. This
makes it even more imperative to keep on searching for inventive and adequate
solutions to problems like the self-organization and self-emancipation of the
exploited and excluded, and allocation mechanism for participatory planning and
decision making concerning the organization of life-reproduction and satisfaction of
human needs.
Until the recent, 2008 explosive manifestation of the global accumulation of
capital systemic crisis, the conservative neo-liberal version of pragmatic conception
of social relations innovation was dominant. Especially in former colonies and
former countries of really existing socialism, the neo-liberal strategy of innovating
social relations is still being applied in the narrow unaccountable and imperialist
interest of TNC financial plutocracy, exacerbating further the systemic crisis and
possibly precipitating preemptive nuclear war and annihilation of humanity
(Vratua, 2010).
Failure to theoretically and practically confront the conservative neo-liberal
pragmatic approach to definition of social innovation in the interest of TNC
plutocracy, would maybe please those who claim that there is no such thing as
human progress and that according to the thermodynamic trends towards entropy,
heat death is unavoidable anyway. One of such deniers of human progress is the
ambitious general-systems theoretician Niklas Luhman: We have to come to terms,
once and for all, with a society without human happiness and, of course, without
taste, without solidarity, without similarity of living conditions the very success of
the (operationally closed, functionally differentiated) function systems depends upon
neglect (of functionally excluded) (Luhmann, 1997).
Should we agree with Luhmann? Or should we counter the metaphor of
inevitable death with a life-facilitating metaphor and at the least attempt to reduce
human suffering and postpone death through experimentation with innovation and
transformation of existing private ownership social relations which reproduce
exploitation and exclusion, with social ownership and right of associated producers
and consumers to use and control, but not abuse, the means and conditions of
reproduction for the satisfaction of human needs and development of human
capacities?

262

SOCIOLOGIJA, Vol. LII (2010), N 3

References
Amin, S., Gunder-Frank, A., Arrighi, G., Wallerstein, I. (1983). Dynamics of Global Crisis.
N.Y., London: MRP.
Anderson, S., Cavanagh, G. (2001). Top 200 The Rise of Corporate Global Power,
Institute for policy studies http://www.ips-dc.org/downloads/Top_200.pdf
Apter, D. (1965). The Politics of Modernization, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Bacon, F. (1620/1964). Novum organum scientiarum/ Novi organon, Zagreb: Naprijed,
Benderly, J., Kraft, E. (eds.) (1994). Independent Slovenia. Origins, Movements, Prospects,
New York: St. Martin's Press.
Bentham, J. (1780/1982). Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation, London,
New York: Oxford University Press
Diderot, D., dAlembert, J., eds.(1773). Encyclopedie ou dictionnaire raisonn des sciences,
des arts et des metiers, t. VIII, Livourne
EU 2001 [Commission of the European Communities, 2001]: Green Paper on Promoting a
European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility, COM (2001) 366 final,
Brussels: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0366en01.pdf
Evans, P.B., Rueschemeyer, D., Skocpol, T. (1985). Bringing the State Back In. New York:
Cambridge University Press
Fombrun, C. (2000). "The Value to be Found in Corporate Reputation". Financial Times,
December 4, 2000
Franco, J. (2006). Slovenia: verso lo stato di polizia?, Osservatorio sui Balcani,
22.03.2006, http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/articleview/5433/1/50/
Freeman, R. (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman
Gaffiot, F. (1934). Dictionnaire illustr Latin Franais. Librarie Hachette, Paris.
Hrast, A., Mulej, M., Knez-Riedl, J., ur. (2006): Drubena odgovornost in izzivi asa 2006.
IRDO, Maribor
Holbrooke, R., (1998). To End a War, New York: Random House
Hornung, B.R. (1988). Grundlagen einer problemfunktionalistischen Systemtheorie
gesellschaftlicherEntwicklung. Frankfurt, Bern, New York, Paris: Verlag Peter Lang.
James, W. (1907/1963). Pragmatism and Other Essays New York: Simon and Schuster.
Luhmann, N. (1997). Globalization or World Society: How to Conceive of Modern
Society?. International Review of Sociology, Vol. 7, No. 1.
Lukacs, G. (1919-1923). History and Class Consciousness, http://www.marxists.org/archive/
lukacs/works/history/index.htm
Lenin, V., (1917/1993). The State and Revolution, http://www.marxists.org/archive/
lenin/works/1917/staterev/
Madar, Lj. (1996). Privatizacija kao cilj privredne i drutvene tranzicije, Svojina i slobode
(Ownership and Freedoms), Beograd: Institut drutvenih nauka, Centar za ekonomska
istraivanja

Vera Vratua (-unji): Innovation and Social Interests

263

Marinkovic, G. (1994). Slovenia: The Arms Trade Humanitarian Robbery, Vreme News
Digest Agency, No 147, July 18, 1994
Marx, K, (1867/1999). Capital), I. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867c1/index.htm
Marx, K., Engels, F, (1848/1987). The Manifest of the Communist Party,
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
Mencinger, J. (2001) Intervju, Vreme, 26. April, http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.
php?id=131966
Mulej, M., enko, Z. (s.a. Elektronski vir) Introduction to systems thinking with application
to invention and innovation management, http://leonardopublic.innovation.si/1.
Introduction/Mulej-za%20LdV-04TS-EngTextbook.doc
Mulej, M. Potoan, V. (2004) What do EU, United Nations, International Standards
Organization, OECD, etc., Mean by Systems Thinking? http://www.gwu.edu/
~rpsol/conf2004/04ECMSR-MM.doc
OECD (1995). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Proposed
Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Oslo Manual.
2nd edition, DSTI, OECD / European Commission Eurostat, Paris 31 Dec 1995.
Petzinger, T. (2000): The New Pioneers. Men and Women who are Transforming the
Workplace and the Marketplace. New York. A Touchstone Book, Simon and Schuster
Rosenberg, N., Birdzell, L. E. (1986). The Past. How the West Grew Rich. New York: Basic
Books.
Schumpeter, J. (1942/1950). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper &
Row.
Vratua, V. (1993). Rat i razvoj. Sociologija, Vol. 35, No. 4, 517-531
Vratua, V. (1995). O smeni dominantne paradigme u drutvenim naukama, Socioloki
pregled, Vol. 29, No. 3., http://www.veravratusa.org/TEORMOD1.doc
Vratua, V. (1997) The Intrinsic Connection Between Endogenous and Exogenous Factors
of Social (dis)Integration a Sketch of Yugoslav Case, Dialogue (Paris), Part I, No. 22,
7-25, Part II, No. 23, 3-37, http://web.archive.org/web/20000823160440/
www.bglink.com/business/dialogue/vratusa.html
Vratua, V. (2002). Globalization of Democratic Participation and Self -Governance versus
Globalization
of
Oligopolistic
Markets
and
Totalitarianism,
http://203.94.129.73/docs/p655.rtf
Vratua, V. (2004). "Sociological Systems Theory in the Service of Innovation or
Conservation?", Rebernik, M., Mulej, M., Krolin, T., eds., STIQE 2004 Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference on Linking Systems Thinking, Innovation, Quality,
Entrepreneurship and Environment. Maribor, Slovenia, June 23 - 26, 2004, Institute for
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management at Faculty of Economics and
Business, University of Maribor; and Slovenian Society for Systems Research, ISBN:
961-6354-41-8, 135 144, http://web.archive.org/web/20050216002911/http://epfip.unimb.si/publica/proc/stiqe2004.pdf

264

SOCIOLOGIJA, Vol. LII (2010), N 3

Vratua, V. (2010) Trini fundamentalisti su zla kob srpske ekonomije, Peat, No 100, 5.
februar, http://www.pecat.co.rs/2010/02/trzisni-fundamentalisti-su-zla-kob-srpske-ekonomije
Zimmermann, W. (1995). The Last Ambassador: A Memoir of the Collapse of Yugoslavia,
Foreign Affairs, March/April