The anti-crisis program for the specified period formulates new priorities and strategic goals.49 The main priority is the overcoming of the negative effects of the economic crisis and rebuilding of the Bulgarian economy.
In 2009 the economic crisis found its clear reflection in the decrease in GDP by 4.2%
during the first half of the year, the decrease in industrial production by 18.9% and the decrease in the turnover of industrial enterprises of 24.1%. Employment decreased by nearly 63 000 people (from 3 363500 people during the fourth quarter of 2008 to 3 300 100 people by the end of the second quarter of 2009). The number of the unemployed rose from 177 700 in the end of 2008 to 222 200 by the end of the second quarter of 2009, i.e. unemployment increased from 5% to 6.3%.50 Hence, the influence of the crisis over the labour market led to a collapse in labour demand as well as to a rapid increase in unemployment. The set of anti-crisis programs and measures that Bulgaria’s new government (elected in the middle of 2009) enforced covers the period July 2009 – April 2010.51
The approved set of measures includes 8 strategic objectives, amongst which the preservation of the existing and the opening of new working places in the sectors that are of strategic significance for the country ranks first. The other strategic objectives include legislative and normative measures aimed at decreasing the restrictions and
49 Economic Measures for Rebuilding of the Bulgaria Economy (July 2009-April 2010), Decision of Council of Ministers N772/1, October 2009.
50 National Statistical Institute. Employment and Unemployment, 4/2009.
51 Decision №772 for approval Economic Measures for Rebuilding of the Bulgarian Economy, CoM.
bureaucratic obstacles before the development of the Bulgarian businesses as well as measures for: attracting foreign investments; reformation of the public sector, the educational and healthcare systems; construction of national road and social infrastructure; overcoming the regional disparities within the country; modernization of agriculture and development of cultural tourism; establishment of energy- and resource-efficient lines of production; development of information technologies;
prioritized development of new energy sources.
The set of anti-crisis measures is sub-divided into 8 sections as follows: measures for achieving sustainability of the macroeconomic system and stability of the financial system; measures for improving the business climate; measures for intensifying agricultural production; measures for construction of superior infrastructure;
measures for stimulating employment and social security; measures for development of a knowledge-based economy and measures for effective management of European funds.
It becomes evident by its content that this set of anti-crisis measures specifies too many (a wide spectrum) and too ambitious economic development goals. This fact alone raises doubts about the possibilities for its successful implementation within the specified period. This plan is not implemented and does not meet its goals, not solely because of its excessive ambitiousness, but also because of the lack of financial resources, which ensure the execution of the reforms. Furthermore, the existence of discrepancies between the individual goals is also problematic. In fact, this document is, to a larger extend, a plan for economic development, which encompasses the entire mandate of the ruling cabinet, rather than an anti-crisis plan for a period of 10 months. It is undisputable that the probability of executing a given program successfully, incl. an anti-crisis program, is largely dependent upon the degree of concreteness of the formulated goals as well as upon the financial provision and the availability of qualified specialists. As a whole, this set of measures does not meet any of those three criteria.
With regard to stimulating employment and social security, the approved set of anti-crisis policies envisions 23 measures. Their great diversity impedes the systematization of the efforts, which would contribute to countering the decrease in labour demand, to preserving and increasing the employment level and to achieving quicker re-integration of the unemployed, etc. Some of the specified measures do not possess an “anti-crisis” characteristic; one example is the establishment of a singular informational system for the supply and demand of labour, the professional qualification and re-qualification. It is undisputable that the establishment of such a system is a necessary prerequisite for the improvement of the functioning of the labour market and of the effectiveness of its regulation. However, this mechanism is intrinsic to the labour market and cannot be established within ten months as an anti-crisis measure. In other words, a formal approach has been assumed with regard to the definition of the specific anti-crisis measures and of the understanding of the
“anti-crisis” characteristic of this plan as opposed to an approach centering on planning the operation of the institutions on the labour market.
The measures aimed at the expansion of the social services with such that create new working places can be characterized as typical anti-crisis policies as can the following: professional education for the employed and the unemployed and the introduction of the voucher system for the purposes of improving their professional qualification; limiting the access of the foreign labour force to the domestic labour market; encouraging labour mobility.
Alongside all these measures, the anti-crisis plan contains a series actions aimed at the improvement or the expansion of the legislative basis of the labour market;
amongst them, the draft laws for the regulation of work done from home and of distance employment should be noted.
As mentioned earlier, the approved program is not implemented successfully and does not contribute to a significant change in the condition of the labour market. Its execution is not monitored; an analysis of its execution has not been conducted and neither have its effectiveness been evaluated.
Meanwhile, demand for labour continually decreases as a result of the crisis and unemployment continues to rise. In practice, after April 2009, when the period encompassed by the anti-crisis program analyzed above expires, the country is left without an anti-crisis program for the labour market and for the economy as a whole.
The political messages presented to the community assert that the realization of the government’s program will contribute to finding a way out of the crisis and that the country is in need of a special anti-crisis program. The decrease in the social security burden by two percent should also be included here as this measures is anticipated to lead to the opening of 100 000 working places.
By the end of 2009, employment decreases to 3396.1 thousand people (from 3470.4 thousand in the end of the second quarter and 3486.8 thousand people in the end of the fourth quarter of 2008). In other words, employment decreases by 90.7 thousand people on an annual basis and by 74.3 thousand people in comparison to the second quarter of 2009. Towards the end of 2009 the unemployment level reaches 8% (5.1%
in the end of 2008 and 6.4% in the end of the second quarter of 2009). Hence the need for a special anti-crisis plan becomes ever more pressing; it becomes apparent that purposive measures are needed for the purposes of achieving positive economic development.
In response to the dynamically changing external and internal environment, within which the labour market functions, and to the challenges brought about by the crisis, the quest for new policies and forms of impact continues. As a result, in the end of 2010, the government approves a new set of 46 measures, which will be developed with the financial support of the euro-funds (to the amount of BGN 850 million) within the framework of Operative Program “Human Resource Development”. This new policy set includes the following measures:
• Programs for training of unemployed people as mediators in labour offices, which work with high-risk groups;
• Training programs of the employed, conducted by employers as a means to preserve employment;
• Programs for professional qualification of the employed with the aim of preventing unemployment;
• Increasing the suitability (for the purposes of employment) of specific vulnerable groups.