Nedarbo įveikos galimybės begimstančioje moderniojoje Lietuvoje 1918-1940 metais

LTNedarbas 1918-1940 m. Lietuvoje buvo neatsiejamas nuo šalyje vykusios ekonominės ūkio pažangos, naujo darbo santykių reglamentavimo etapo ir savarankiškų valstybės žingsnių įgyvendinant socialinę politiką. Todėl nedarbą Lietuvoje reikia suvokti ne tik kaip konkrečią socialinę problemą, bet ir kaip reiškinį - neatskiriamą ir neišvengiamą pramoninio perversmo ir visuotinio socialinio bei ekonominio modernėjimo sudedamąją dalį. Straipsnyje kalbama apie nedarbo problemą visos Lietuvos socialinės politikos kontekste, išskiriant centrinės ir vietos valdžios indėlį, darbo biržų (tarpininkavimo) sistemos kūrimą, viešųjų darbų politikos suformavimą, socialinių draudimų pasitelkimą užtikrinant savitą Lietuvos Respublikos socialinės politikos įgyvendinimą. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Nedarbas; Socialinė politika; Darbo birža; Viešieji darbai; Unemployment; Social politics; Labour exchange; Public Works.

ENThe changes caused by the second wave of the industrial revolution and the developing world brought about certain social and economic outcomes that had been non-existent before. There were marked political, technological and social advances; however, these were tempered by cataclysmic economic problems. Lithuania did not escape hardship. The unemployment that emerged at the intersection of the 19th and 20th century was particularly prominent in the period 1918-1940, a time when Lithuania was undergoing a general process of modernisation. Lithuania’s economy and social development was influenced by a wide range of factors, such as the consequences of World War I, the post-war crisis, the Great Depression, the country’s integration into the global economy, the changing structure of the national economy and the state’s long-term economic and social policies. The emergence of the problem of unemployment should be considered not as a consequence of independence but as an inevitable issue that had to be identified, properly understood and only then tackled. Over those twenty years, the state of Lithuania created an individual and functioning social policy programme which became an indistinguishable part of the tradition of modern statehood. Social reforms, including reducing unemployment, were signs of the effectiveness and independence of domestic policy. In the post-war period (1918-1924), unemployment was understood as a temporary consequence of the recent conflict, i.e. as a temporary result of global cataclysms and not the outcome of global socio-economic processes affecting Lithuania. In this period, the main tools for fighting unemployment were the establishment of a labour exchange, an unstructured implementation of public works and the provision of support for poor people.From 1924-1927, a programme of public works was launched and implemented in Lithuania. Parliament also vigorously discussed the introduction of social welfare (including unemployment benefit). During the period of economic growth (1927-1931), which coincided with the beginning and establishment of an authoritarian government, unemployment was considered an insignificant and perhaps incidental problem that had emerged due to the inadequate socio-economic policies of the parliamentary government. In 1932, however, the effects of the economic crisis started to be felt in Lithuania and unemployment became a significant and painful problem. The states contribution to solving the issue of unemployment was evident in its attempts to reform and strengthen the policy of public works, to regulate the balance between labour supply and demand, to develop a social security base and to create a workers’ self-government (albeit one controlled by the state government). The changes in state policy were particularly evident in the regimes renewed interest in public works. Prior to its political overthrow, the government had implemented public works as a kind of support for the unemployed and had sought to create a system of self-provision and social care based on state-public-personal agreement. The new regime, however, “nationalised” unemployment by creating large-scale public works for the unemployed. Such a policy was not only locally specific but also in line with broader European tendencies towards solving the problem of unemployment in the 1930s. During that decade, government spending on public works increased almost threefold (up to 4 million Litas). [From the publication]