I am travelling by train thorough a rainy Bulgaria - maybe that's what gives me a kind of melancholic feeling. Maybe it is just that time of year.
![]()
Photo credit: Cassini83 Picture from Wikipedia commons
For the last half an hour I have been hearing an old lady complaining about how hard it is to be retired in today's Bulgaria, and how hard it has been the last twenty years. I heard the same story last week, travelling the same distance in the other direction.
Next to me sits a woman, struggling to learn English with a second hand teach-yourself book that looks no good to me. Will it ever give her something else than a dream of once become part of the big world?
Bulgaria does not fit into the standard definitions of a developing country, but it is none the less a place where a lot of development has been going on since the fall of communism. When you visit twice yearly, as I do, the material development is almost tangible.
But what is also tangible is that the faster one part of society moves ahead, the further behind a part of society falls. Most of my Bulgarian friends live lives that are very similar to my Swedish friends' lives. But the difference between them and the Bulgarians that don't make it is huge. And I dare to bet that the difference is bigger today than it has ever been since 1989.
Unfortunately or not, Bulgaria does not in any way stand out. In both western and eastern Europe the social inequality has increased for decades. I would be very surprised if the pattern is not the same in development success stories like India, Brazil and China, as well as in less succesful cases like Ethiopia or Mali.
With Bulgaria's history in mind - the alternatives to this development seem to be even worse. There has been a time when dissident thinking renderd you a place in a camp. There has been a time when the stores where empty. It is better to be poor in a democracy, than to be poor in a dictatorship. But development and democracy comes with a price tag - inequality and injustices towards those too weak to develop.
We all know about the genocide of American indians that took place while the US became the world's richest country and the world's best working democracy. But the stories of the Amercian losers are endless - appalachian hillbillies living like serfs under coal mining companies. The blacks who where abused in the cotton fields in the south or discarded as unemployed in the ghetto's in the north. Their white counterparts, who shared their fate and faith, but all too often resorted to racial hatred.
Sweden's history is not any merrier. It is the history about denying natives their right to land, denying anyone the right to anything if that right is contrary to bigger econmical interests, contrary to development. But the poor Swedes had at least the opportunity to emigrate.
The history of economic development is ugly. Development is a cynical machine that moves towards increased consumption and increased profits at any price. In Bulgaria today you can see it all - the machines that moves ahead, the masses that struggle to keep the pace, and a tragic minority who falls behind.
It sounds cruel, and it is. But it seems like all other ways ahead have been tested and found worse. Let's accept that, and do our best. But let's also be frank - development will never benefit everyone. If there are winners, there will also be losers.
Postscript: No matter how poor you get in this world - you always own at least one mobile phone. Even if you live in a tiny home built shack without sanitation. Does that mean that wealth is spreading, only that a mobile phone can not be considered wealth?


“But it seems like all other ways ahead have been tested and found worse.”
I think that your assessment is realistic. What should come next is that the state does something to help the weakest. Then there are very important issues of the origin of the capital of the new riches, as well as corruption. With the two latter taken care of, there would be more to distribute to the poor, or at least more credibility of the institutions and better social relations between those more and less successful. That, as far as I know, applies to most of Southeastern European countries.
Economic scissors have been mouthing in ex-communist countries. Rich are richer, poor are poorer and middle class hasn´t been fully established yet.
Economist expected this development, but it is new to inhabitants in these countries. Especially older generation is not coping well with it - they lived in communism all their lives, were used to social security and things have changed - unfortunately for them for worse.
@Larisa “What should come next is that the state does something to help the weakest” Definitely. i think one of the toughest question is how to do that, without slowing down the speed of progress.
Yes, I think the same factors apply to more or less all southeast europen countries, even if every country also have their own specific problems. BUt a good thing is that it seems like societies and politicians are coming to terms with how to deal with them, don’t you think?
@Radka In deed! I thin this development is “natural” in some way - not that it is necessrily very nice, but that the alternatives are worse. Economists and historians could predict it, but for the populations themselves it often comes as a chock. And I think it is probably very hard to accept why you should be poor when others are so rich. Especially for those who worked their entire lives in a different society, and now are too old to work for themselves.