Creating Market Economy in Eastern Europe
Скачать: Creating Market Economy in Eastern Europe
1. Meaning of market Economy and Tasks of the Transitions.
2. The Emergence of Market Economy in European countries.
2.1. The Transition to a Market Economy.
2.2. Poland and Hungary as the best example of transition in the
3. Moldova’s way to an open economy.
This paper is oriented toward the problems of transition and
creating in countries of Eastern Europe, namely Poland, Hungary, all of which
are attempting to make the transition under a democratic, parliamentary form of
The last new years have witnessed truly extraordinary events
in the formally communist societies. Under newly established conditions of free
speech and freedom of organization, communist principles of political and
economic control have been widely repudiated, and communist governments have
been swept aside, replaced by governments committed to democratic principles
and a market economy. While in some countries and parts of countries former
communist have not been decisively dislodged, in almost all cases communism has
lost whatever remaining legitimacy it possessed, and it most of these societies
the crucial economic issue has suddenly changed from reforming the socialist
planning system by the introduction of market-like elements to moving to a
market-economy with private ownership of most of society's assets.
There are several reasons why the task of designing this
transition is fascinating, especially to economists.
First, the problem in new: no country prior to 1989 had ever
abandoned the communist political and economic system.
Second, the experience to date indicates that countries
attempting transition face a number of common problems and difficulties. While
there are important differences in the inherited situations and the choices
made by governments of these countries, the similarities in the problems they
face and the difficulties they are encountering suggest that there is logic to
the transition process.
Third, the absence of any close historical parallels and the
limited experience economics in transition offer an opportunity and a challenge
for development of normative transition scenarios. This turn out, however to be
extraordinarily difficult to construct.
Finally, the problems are not waiting for annalists'
solutions; decisions currently being made may lead to an evolution with
1. Meaning of Market Economy and the Tasks of the
That economic system which brings together natural
resources, labour supply and technology and which is principally privately
owned and were government has to some extent always been involved in regulating
and guiding the economy, has been referred to as "Market Economy".
Yet, despite this history of government intervention, individuals in that
country have always been able to choose for whom they will work and what they
Now 3 groups make decisions and it is their dynamic
interaction that makes the economy operate. Consumers, producers and government
make economic decisions on a daily basis, the primary force being between
producers and consumers; hence, the market economy designation.
Consumers look for the best values for what they spend
while producers seek the best price and profit from what they have to sell.
Government, at state and local levels, seeks to promote the
public safety, provides social safety-net, ensures fair competition and also
provides a range of services believed to be better performed by public rather
include education, health service, the postal service road and railway system,
social statistical reporting and, of course, national defense.
In this market economy system, economic forces are
unfettered, supply and demands build up the price of goods and services.
Entrepreneurs are free to develop their business unless they can provide goods
or services of a quality and price to complete with others; they are driven
from the market.
By and large, there are three kinds of business:
those started and managed personally by single
the partnership where two or more people share the risks and
rewards of a business;
the corporation, there stock holders as owners can by or
sell their shares at any time on the open market; this latter structure permits
the amassing of large sums of money by combining investment, making possible
Innovations in economic theory in the last two decades
undoubtedly affect the way economists look at the transition problem and have
probably made them more pessimistic about the ease with which it can be
accomplished. Developments in transaction cost economics, the economics of
information, the new institutional economics, and evolutionary approaches to
economics have sensitized economists to the vital role that institutions play
in economic process. One way of thinking about a successful market economy is
that it is a set of convergent expectations in the population about how other
people will behave; these expectations support an extremely elaborate division
of labour or a high degree of specialization among individuals, organizations,
and geographic areas.
In recent decades many economists have returned to the
Schumpeterian view that the advantage of the market economy (relative to its
alternatives) lies more in its facilitation of innovative activity than in its
The system of central planning is surely deficient in both
respects but it is shortcomings seem to be much greater in the area of
innovation than in allocative efficiency.
Another development in economics that has reduced the
affractiveness of the large conception of market socialism is the increased
attention paid to the motivation of government officials, both legislators and
In the 1950's and 1960's, much of economic analysis was
focused on market failures and government action to remedy these failures,
under the implicit assumption that government officials would follow the rules
laid down by the authorities. The analysis of the logic of collective action
and the formation of interest groups the theory of rent-seeking behavior, and
the study of the evolution of cooperation and norms have emphasized that
government failure as well as market failure must be taken into consideration
in designing institutions.
A vivid analogy stated by Vladimir Benachek of Charles
University is that the socialist economics are at the top of a small hill (the
planned economy), and they want to get to the top of a larger hill (the market
economy). But in between the two hills is a valley, which may be both wide and
deep. The analogy illustrates the point that the centrally planned economics
did have a coherent economic system (i.e. they were at the top of their hill).
One might add that the smaller hill was being eroded by the strengthening of
special interest groups and was perhaps, settling due to the seismic rumblings
that shattered the communist authority. The band of travelers must settle their
differences, agree on a route, and avoid the pitfalls and chasms along the way.
Perhaps economic analysis can facilitate the journey by
designing a bridge between the two hills. Given the absence of close historical
parallels and the severe limitations of economic models of society it is
clearly beyond the capacity of social engineers to draw up very precise plans
for the bridge.
2. The Tasks of the Transitions
The list of activities which governments which governments
must undertake in countries attempting the transition to a market economy is
truly staggering. The list given here is designed to convey something of the
enormity and complexity of the job. First, there is a group of activities
related to creating a new set of rules:
Setting up the legal infrastructure for the private sector:
Commercial and contract low, antitrust and labour low,
environmental and health regulations; rules regarding foreign partnerships and
wholly foreign-owned companies; courts to settle disputes and enforce the laws.
Devising a system of taxation of the new private sector:
Defining accounting rules for taxation purposes, organizing
an Internal Revenue Service to collect taxes from the private sector.
Devising the rules for the new financial sector:
Defining accounting rules for reporting business results to
banks and investors; setting up a system of bank regulation.
Determining ownership rights to existing real property:
Devising laws relating to the transfer of property, and laws
affecting landlord tenant relations; resolving the vexatious issue of
restitution of property confiscated by communist governments.
setting the rules under which private firms and individuals
may esquire and sell foreign exchange and foreign goods;
setting the rules in the same area for the
Next there are some tasks related to managing the:
Enterprises that have been privatized will presumably be
largely free to set their own prices, but early on in the process, the demands
of the government budget will require raising prices on many consumer goods
that have been provided at prices for below cost.
Creating a safety net:
Setting up an emergency unemployment compensation scheme;
targeting aid in kind or in cash to those threatened with severe hard ship by
Stabilizing the macroeconomic:
Managing the government budget to avoid an excessive fiscal
deficit and managing the total credit provided by the banking system.
Finally there are tasks related to privatization:
Releasing to the private sector trucks and buses, retail
shops, restaurants, repair shops, warehouses, and other building space for
economic activities; establishing the private right to purchase services from
railroads, ports, and other enterprises which may remain in the public sector.
Transferring medium and large-scale enterprises to the
private sector; managing the enterprises that have not yet been privatized.
An abstract Model of the Transition consist of three main
Phase 1: The cabinet-level negative phase
In this phase members of the central government interact
with nationally representative interest groups. The tasks are organized into
two categories: they will determine the general institutional structure of
society and set guidelines that will be used in phase 2 to assign each
enterprise to one of many alternative "transition regimes".
Phase 2: The assigned phase
In this phase state-owned enterprises are matched with
transition regimes. One can assume that each state-owned enterprise is
completely described by some vector of attributes. These attributes specify
such diverse aspects of the enterprise as:
the nature of the products produced by the enterprise, a
description of its plant and equipment, and technology it utilized;
a description of its financial states;
the place of the enterprise within its industry, including
its market share and the nature of its competition;
some indication of the risk profile of the firm;
the distribution of information within the enterprise;
the nature of "measurement errors" in monitoring
the performance of the enterprise;
the relationship between the enterprise and the state bureaucracy;
the "distance" between the enterprise and founding
any potential synergies between the enterprise and some
prospective foreign investor.
Phase 3: The enterprise-level negotiation phase
In this phase participants at the participants at the level
of each enterprise play an MB game (multilateral bargaining). For each
enterprise the structural parameters of the game are included in the
characterization of the transition regime to which the enterprise is assigned.
2. The Emergence of Market Economy in European Countries.
2.1. The Transition to a Market Economy
The Successes and Failures of Central Planning.
Before considering the transition to a market economy, we
must consider the need for such a transition. Today the need is clear: socialist
and communist systems have failed to deliver (in a liberal sense) anything like
the standard of material advance so often promised.
But more recent rasy assessments of central planning abound.
Even as late as 1979 the World Bank published a long and detailed study of
Romania – the most Stalinist of the eastern block. The Bank found that from
1950 to 1975 the Romanian economy had grown faster than any other country in
the world (9,8 percent per annum). The Bank attributed this startling
performance to the fact that government, through its system of central
planning, had control of all resources. The Bank forecast a rasy future for
Romania – growing at 8,7 percent per capita to 1990. Nor was Romania an
aberration. The Bank published in that same year of 1979 a most rasy history
of, and prognostication for Yugoslavia. Studies up to 1984 continued to show
that central planning, albeit somewhat modified in places, delivered the goods.
This review is not intended to score paints, but simply to
remind us of the long addiction of economists to planning and regulation.
The transition to a market economy always and at all times
involves a familiar list of policies.
First is financial stabilization reducing the budget deficit
and the monetary emissions of the central bank. This stabilization may involve
many complex policies – almost certainly a fax reform and expenditure controls,
particularly in the reduction of subsidies. There is no consensus on pegged
versus free exchange rates.
Second is deregulation, elimination a myriad of government
controls and establishing the framework for free contractual relationships.
This priority involves the recognition of property rights and the development
of a legal system suitable for a market economy. It also implies a diminished
role for the central planners as more room is provided for private initiative
and enterprise. But oddly enough it is widely recognized that there is a need
for more restraint on industry, particularly the heavy state owned firms, to reduce
pollution. Other areas of deregulation include trade reform and currency
Third is the reform and privatization of state- owned
concerns to this list should be added the reduction in monopoly power not only
of industry but also of trade unions, and in particular the reform of labour
laws. The reform of the banking system and the development of commercial rather
than planning criteria in banking it also of the utmost important.
The Political Economy of Transition in Eastern Europe:
Packing Enterprises for Privatization.
An abstract model of the transition from a centralized
command economy to a market economy focusing on privatization is a novel
orientation for this chapter. In much of the literature on privatization in
central and Eastern Europe, either a case is argued for a particular transition
proposal or specific aspects of the privatization problem are isolated and
considered in detail.
The model focuses on the way in which government policies
and enterprise-level decisions are made and relatively less on the specific
content of these policies and decisions.
The conceptual model has been designed with five basic
premises in mind: multilateral bargaining, political economy, heterogeneity,
decentralization, and pluralism.
In a world in which economic rights are ill designed, a
bargaining problem naturally arises. Throughout Central and Eastern Europe,
this problem can be conceptualized as a multifaceted conflict between multiple
interests representing workers, management, claimants to property rights based
prior ownership, foreign investors, representatives of different group in the
distribution chain, etc.
It is useful to distinguish two different kinds of
bargaining problems. There are issues that must be negotiated at the level of
central government: for example, what will be the nature the regulatory and
legal infrastructure within which these privatized enterprises will operate?
Other issues concern the disposition of individual state-owned enterprises and
must be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. In particular what will be the
precise nature of each corporate entity that is being packaged for sale to
private buyers? Who will control it? How will it be structured? What kind of
compensation schemes will be in place for management and workers?
What special provisions will be in place that affect the
relationship between the privatized entity and other firms, including
established and new competitors, firms that are up and down stream in the
distribution chain, etc.? In the discussion that follows, the focus will be on
bargaining problems of the latter kind. One presumes that, because of the
complexity and diversity of the issues during the transition, the state is not
in a position to resolve them by fiat rather, over the transition, the state is
presumed to be one negotiator among many.
Bargaining problems of this kind can be resolved in a
variety of ways. At one extreme, an explicit institutional structure may be
established by the state to facilitate an orderly negotiation of the issues.
This institution would specify:
the interests that should be represented in the bargaining
the space of issues over which these interests can
what degree of consensus is sufficient to conclude negotiations;
who will represent "the state" the founding
ministry are some agency established specially to deal with privatization;
what will happen if negotiations break down?
At the other extreme the state may provide no procedural
guidelines whatever as to how the issues should be resolved in this procedural
vacuum, the economic rights in question may simply be expropriated by whichever
party - typically the current management - is strategically located to do so.
Relative to the general trend that appears to be emerging in
Central and Eastern Europe, there should be made opportunities for
Our process-oriented perspective does suggest an indirect,
"hand off" way to exercise some control over this phase of the
process, the government can introduce some checks and balances into the
negotiations. For example, of the three "primary" parties at the
bargaining table-management, employees of the enterprise, and the state agency
responsible for privatization - the first two parties have every incentive to
design privatization plans that inhibit competitive pressures, while the third
will inevitably be more concerned this effecting a successful sale of the
enterprise than with issues such as the competitiveness of the resulting market
structure. From the standpoint of the public interest then the outcome of
multilateral bargaining is bound to be sub-optimal, provided that participation
in the process is restricted to the three primary parties. Moreover, the
directions in which these outcomes will deviate from the optimal are more or
The Multilateral Bargaining model provides a useful
analytical tool for investigating the effectiveness of this approach to policy
In other contexts, the multilateral Bargaining model has
been used descriptively to explain how during the process of multilateral
negotiation, coalitions are formed, deals are struck, and compromises are
5) Political economy.
A second basic premise is that any policy recommendations
must be both economically and politically consistent. This consistency requires
a specification of the relationship between short-term economic developments
and longer-term political ramifications. Obviously, economic policy objectives
cannot be pursued in isolation, since the prevailing political configuration
will constrain the set of options available to planners of the transition
process. On the other hand, economic post-privatization economy develops, new
interests will acquire economic power and new institutions will emerge to
strengthen the power of groups that wish to defend these institutions. The
dynamic interaction between these economic and political facets of massive
privatization programs must be taken into account. Indeed, one can expect that
models, which ignore political economic feedback effects, will have a natural
tendency to overestimate the prospects for a successful transition.
The following example illustrates the kind of
political-economic interaction that could adversely affect the reform process.
Policy makers in Central and Eastern Europe appear to be overly complacent in
their reliance of foreign competition as the main disciplinary device that will
force monopolists to operate efficiently. Indeed, Polish officials cite their
country’s liberal tradition in the area of trade policy when questioned about
the viability of this approach to antimonopoly policy. Our dynamic
political-economic perspective leads to skepticism about this heavy dependence
on competition from abroad.
If a seems very likely, the post-privatization industrial
structure turns out to be highly over-concentrated and inefficient, then the
main effect of threatening foreign competition will be to unleash a powerful
confluence of political forces in favor of protectionism. Owners of the
domestic enterprises will lobby to defend their rents, managers will lobby to
defend privileges, and workers will lobby to defend their jobs. Because the
problem of unemployment never really arose under communism, the potent tension
between introducing free trade and maintaining employment levels never became
2.2. Poland and Hungary as the best example of transition in
the East Europe
Economic Reform in Eastern Europe: The Background
The background of economic reform in Eastern Europe is not
unlike that in the Soviet Union, even though, as I have emphasized, the setting
is rather different. The brief political thaw following the death of Stalin in
the early 1950s did permit a freer discussion of ideas, which, along with growing
problems of economic performance, led to limited attempts to develop and
implement economic reform. Initially, these changes were modest in scope, and
they typically followed the Soviet reform pattern: Try to improve decision
making while preserving socialist objectives and the essence of the planning
system. This was the focus of the New Economic System in the GDR and of the New
Economic Mechanism introduced in Hungary in 1968. The potential for genuine
economic reform was certainly limited by Soviet influence. Indeed in some cases
(such as Czechoslovakia in 1968), reform was abruptly forestalled by Soviet
intervention. In other cases, such as Hungary, reform attempts dating from the
late 1960s were sustained on a limited basis, to become the background for more
serious reform in the present era. There were, then, numerous attempts at
reform in Eastern Europe. What were the major forces promoting these efforts?
First, as was the case in the Soviet Union, rates of
economic growth in Eastern Europe have undergone a long-term secular decline.
The magnitude of this decline (see Table 1) has varied from case to case, but
overall it has been pervasive. Moreover, these countries had taken pride in
being high-growth economies, even if the costs, such as little growth of
consumer well-being, were also high. At the same time, growth in productivity
slackened, especially in the late 1970s and 1980s. And inflation quickened,
though it was most serious in Poland and Yugoslavia. Repressed inflation,
though difficult to measure, grew in importance in the 1980s.
Second, East European countries relied heavily on foreign
trade as a means of stimulating economic growth in the 1970s. Their strategy
was to promote exports in Western markets so that the imports required both to
stimulate technological change in industry and to enhance consumer well-being
could be obtained without the growth of hard-currency debt. Unfortunately, this
strategy was not successful. The energy crisis led to a significant slackening
of Western markets at the very time when East European nations were becoming
more aggressive in these markets. East European imports were sustained, but
largely by means of building a substantial hard-currency debt. The magnitude of
debt repayment subsequently led to considerable internal belt-tightening for
these countries in the 1980s — precisely the opposite of what had been
Third, one could argue that in Eastern Europe, the
possibilities for economic growth through extensive means had initially been
less promising than in the Soviet case and had been exhausted more quickly. In
light of the level of economic development in Eastern Europe compared to that
in the Soviet Union, it is not surprising that the imperative for reform was
strong and that developments of the Gorbachev era quickly spilled over into
Eastern Europe. In the absence of Soviet backing, interest in the
administrative command model faded fast.
Table 1. Economic Growth and Performance in Eastern Europe: The Background to Reform
East European Reform Programs: Similarities and Differences
In this chapter we pay special attention to Poland and
Hungary. We do so because these countries are both examples of aggressive
reform but have employed different strategies. However, before we consider
these cases in greater detail, it is useful to summarize the East European
reform experience, noting important similarities and differences among the
various cases. To do so will entail some repetition of basic themes.
First, economic reform in Eastern Europe (at least in
Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia) is generally described as a transition in
that these countries seek to replace the planned economy with a market economy
rather than attempting merely to modify the former.
Second, transition programs have varied in speed and
intensity. Some countries have pursued reform on a "gradual" basis,
whereas others, like Poland, have pursued what is often termed a "big
bang," or rapid, approach to reform. However, we must remember that even
in those countries not pursuing a "big bang" or "shock
therapy" approach, the process of transition in Eastern Europe has been
relatively rapid, especially when compared to reforms of the past - and notably
so when compared to the recent Soviet record. It is important, therefore, to be
aware of the basic issues associated with transition and of the extent to which
the attempted speed of transition alters the overall reform experience.
Third, although it is possible to examine and understand the
basic elements of economic reform and even of transition from one system to
another, we really do not have a general theory of change in economic systems.
In some cases — for example, during such a period of rapid change as the 1990s
— it is difficult even to develop a way to classify the issues involved in
Fourth, important differences exist from one country to
another. Our view of the socialist transition process is heavily influenced by
our image of the best-known and most advanced reforms, such as those of Poland,
Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. We know much less about, and tend to pay less
attention to developments where reforms are proceeding at a slower pace, as in
Romania and Bulgaria. Figure 1 offers a simple, stylized view of contemporary
political and economic reform (transition) in Eastern Europe.
Figure 1. Reform in Eastern Europe
Poland: from plan to market via shock therapy
Until Solidarity won the parliamentary elections in Poland
in the summer of 1989, the Polish economy had been, since the end of World War
II, a rather typical planned socialist economic system. State ownership
predominated, and though economic reform was attempted in varying degrees at
different times, little real systemic change had taken place. Moreover, as
Table 1 shows, the rate of economic growth continued to decline, and the period
saw recurring shortages, increasing inflation, and an understandably declining
Beginning in 1990, Poland took decisive steps toward a
market economy. This "shock therapy" approach was to be sudden, and
in this it differed significantly from the gradualist approach being discussed
in other socialist systems. In addition to treeing prices, Poland implemented
monetary controls, the zloty was made convertible into hard currencies, and
steps were taken to control wage increases.
As we shall see, the "shock therapy" approach has
not been without critics. Moreover, although the Polish case quickly attracted
the interest of those who study the problems of socialist transition, it was
viewed as unique. Thus it was argued that. for a variety of reasons that were
discussed earlier, reform was much more likely to succeed in Poland than in a
case like the Soviet Union. But before we examine the Polish reform experience
in greater detail, we must review what brought the Polish economy to the reform
phase and how, at that point, it might be different from other socialist
I begin our discussion of Poland with a brief examination of
the setting. Then I discuss the Polish command system, considering the extent
to which this system led to distortions in the Polish economic structure.
Finally, I turn to the issue of transition and examine the mechanisms utilized
and the results achieved thus far.
1) Poland: The Setting
By European standards, Poland is a relatively large country.
With a land area of just over 300,000 square kilometers, it is just over half
the size of France. Moreover, with a population that approached 38 million in
1990, Poland is some 68 percent of the size of France in terms of population.
Poland is frequently viewed as having a homogeneous
society, a factor that facilitates economic reform. Although social homogeneity
is difficult to measure and may well be overstated in the Polish case and in
other cases (for example, there are regional differentials, urban-rural
differentials, and the like), the basic statistical evidence is strong. In
terms of religion, 95 percent of the Polish population is Roman Catholic. From
a stannic standpoint, 98.7 percent of the population is Polish, and only a few
minority groups occur.
Urbanization and industrialization have changed the nature
of Polish life and customs, but the church, family, and folk ties that have
sustained Poland for a long time remain strong. Thus, although Poland must deal
with problems of modernization, it also has valued traditions and a clear
identity. These qualities make implementing change more manageable here than
in many other countries.
In terms of natural resources, Poland is a country of
considerable regional diversity, though major portions of the land area are not
Poland's main energy resource is coal; basic minerals and
some deposits of oil and natural gas also exist. Both basic data and methods of
computing economic aggregates of socialist systems are currently under scrutiny.
New evidence that will make it possible to do different kinds of computations
may well lead to important adjustments. With these reservations in mind,
however, we note that Poland was reported to have a per capita gross national
product of approximately $4500 measured in 1989 U.S. dollars. This figure
places it between the high-income countries of the region (Hungary and
Czechoslovakia) and the low-income countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia)
and at one-quarter that of the United States. Prior to the onset of major
economic reform, the bulk of Polish industry was state-owned and planned.
Agriculture (representing roughly one-fifth of total Polish output) was a mixed
system wherein the private sector produced about three-quarters of the total agricultural
product. Foreign trade turnover — that is, exports plus imports — represents
roughly one-third of Polish product, again using U.S. dollar measures.
2) Poland: The Command Economy
The organizational arrangements of the Polish command
economy were established immediately after World War II and closely resembled
those prevailing in the Soviet Union. There was widespread nationalization of
property, central planning mechanisms were established, and agriculture was
socialized. In addition to organizational arrangements, Polish economic
policies of the era, such as those on investment, sectoral development, and the
like, closely mirrored the Soviet model.
Although Poland attempted modification of the command system
as early as 1956 when collectivization was abandoned, little actually changed.
Over time, private agriculture was neglected by the state, and continuing
political protests, especially in the early 1970s, signaled both political and
The 1970s was a difficult decade for many countries,
especially those that rely on imported oil. The Polish strategy in the 1970s
and later was to stimulate the domestic economy through the importation of
foreign technology. This was not an unreasonable strategy in theory, but
Western economies were themselves in the midst of the energy crisis and the
recession it caused. Poland's effort to expand exports failed, hard-currency
debt accumulated, and the projected impact of Western technology on the Polish
economy was minimal. As the 1970s came to an end, it was evident that domestic
retrenchment would be essential — a difficult path in light of the continuing
unrest among Polish workers. The 1980s began with roughly three years of
martial law and an attempt to achieve economic stabilization.
After half-hearted economic reforms in the early 1980s, the
rise of Solidarity (which had been outlawed in 1982) proved that major systemic
and structural reform was necessary. Even so, and despite the fact that Polish
economic performance was deteriorating badly, serious economic reform did not
begin until the late 1980s.
3) The Polish Transition: The "Big Bang" in
The Polish transition from plan to market has been watched
closely by a variety of interested observers. Although many of the policy and
systemic changes introduced in Poland are familiar hallmarks of the general
reform scene, the speed of implementation in the Polish case is unique.
There had been attempts to decentralize decision making in
large state-owned Polish enterprises in the 1980s, but these reforms failed to
change outcomes (a possible exception is their contribution to the wage
explosion that took place toward the end of the decade). Moreover, on the eve
of reform in Poland (the reform program began officially on January 1, 1990), macroeco-nomic
conditions there were in a state of severe disequilibrium. Although the exact
nature of monetary overhang in Poland (as elsewhere) has been the subject of
debate, there was a significant budget deficit, wage increases were out of
control, and hyperinflation had resulted. Poland's hard-currency debt position
was better than that of Hungary, but the debt that had been accumulated did
little to stimulate the Polish economy, the zioty was overvalued, and no debt
relief from external sources was in sight.
In the fall of 1989, most price controls were lifted (on
both producer and consumer goods), public spending was reduced, and the zioty
was devalued. In the second stage of major reform, begun in 1990, the budget
deficit was sharply cut, largely through a reduction of subsidies to state
enterprises. A positive real rate of interest was to be implemented, and the
market was to be used to signal changes in the value of the zloty. The latter
was a critical measure, because foreign trade and the impact of this trade on
the Polish industrial structure was to be a key component of the overall reform
strategy. In January of 1990, the government set the exchange rate of the zloty
at 9500 to the dollar (this represented a devaluation from 1989), a rate roughly
approximating its value on the black market, and it established convertibility
of the zloty for international trade. Many trade restrictions were eliminated,
and internal exchanges were set up to handle the buying and selling of hard
currencies. Although these changes resulted in domestic inflation, the initial
increases proved to be short-term and the exchange rate of the zloty has proved
to be realistic.
Finally, wage increases were to be controlled partly through
wage indexation and partly through a new tax on wage increases that exceeded
Privatization is a major element of the Polish strategy of
transition. In 1990 the Polish government passed a law creating a Ministry of
Ownership Change, a mechanism to supervise the process of privatization.
Privatization has proceeded rapidly, though it has been achieved mainly for
small enterprises in the trade and service sectors. Industrial output in the
private sector grew by 8.5 percent in 1990 and is reported to represent roughly
17 percent of total Polish industrial output
Though privatization has been very successful for
small-scale enterprises, the picture for large state enterprises is quite
different. For reasons we noted earlier, privatization of these enterprises has
proceeded very slowly. In addition, the economic position of these enterprises
worsened as the state took decisive measures to introduce a hard-budget
constraint. In addition to price changes and wage limitations, subsidies have
been ended and protection from foreign competition has been sharply reduced.
This new setting has encouraged enterprise managers to reduce costs by
restricting unnecessary output and reducing the labor force. However, the
strong commitment to rapid privatization was reinforced in June of 1991, when
it was announced that a major portion of state industry would be privatized
through creation of stock funds, with the population receiving vouchers.
Beyond these changes in the state sector, new guidelines
have been introduced to monitor enterprise performance. Furthermore, a new
Industrial Restructuring Agency will consider how remaining state enterprises
should be handled, to what extent privatization is possible, and what
restructuring should take place for those enterprises that are not viable in
the new setting. These new arrangements are designed to ensure a rapid
transformation of the Polish industrial structure, to make it similar to and
competitive with market economic systems, and to achieve this result quickly
and as openly as possible.
Note that these comprehensive reforms in Poland cover all
the critical areas discussed in Chapter 4 and earlier in this chapter.
Moreover, beginning from very precarious economic circumstance in 1989, these
changes were introduced simultaneously and rapidly. We will now do our best to
assess the early results.
4) The Polish Economy in the 1990s
It is clear that economic reform in Poland has been radical
and has moved sharply and swiftly away from the plan toward the market. In
addition to the expanded influence of market mechanisms, decision making has
been decentralized, private property introduced, and incentive arrangements
changed. By most standards, the initial results have been encouraging.
First, stabilization measures cut the rate of inflation
sharply from a reported 40-50 percent per month at the end of 1989 to roughly
4-5 percent per month in 1990. At the same time output fell, though supplies of
consumer goods in stores increased. Employment in industry declined by 20
percent during 1989 and 1990, although it is reported that only a relatively
small portion of this reduction in the labor force was caused by forced
layoffs. The unemployment rate was reported to be 6.5 percent at the end of
Another major positive facet of the Polish reform experience
has been the foreign trade sector. There has been a significant expansion of
exports, especially to hard-currency markets. This expansion resulted in part
from the devaluation of the zloty to market-clearing levels and in part from
the reorientation of trade away from the Soviet Union and other East European
trading partners. At the same time, as a result of restrictive policy measures
and the higher domestic cost of these imports, import demand declined.
A third qualified success has been privatization. Although
the initial pace of privatization was rapid, this early privatization was
largely that of small-scale enterprises in the area of trade and services.
Although Polish reformers take seriously the need to pursue privatization of
major state enterprises, bringing this about will remain a critical task for
the next several years.
Can these achievements be sustained in the coming years? We
discuss this issue more generally in the next section, but the Polish case
deserves specific comment. Quite clearly, the continued success of the Polish
transition will depend on the continuing implementation of appropriate
stabilization measures. Although this may seem relatively straightforward, it
requires cohesion and commitment among policy makers and willingness among the
populace to pay the costs of the transition. Pressures for wage increases must
be resisted, and the process of privatization must proceed. To the extent that
the latter can be achieved, the contours of new market arrangements can be defined.
Finally, although uncertainty in foreign markets remains, relief of
hard-currency debt will unquestionably add a measure of flexibility.
Another issue is the extent to which the Polish
"success" (if we can call it that) was promoted by Western assistance.
In light of the Polish leadership's commitment to rapid transition, the West
has provided considerable assistance in the form of exchange-rate stabilization
funds, debt restructuring, and government guarantees.
Hungary: the new economic mechanism and privatization
Early works in comparative economic systems devoted little
attention to the Hungarian economy. Over the last twenty years, however.
Western economists have begun to pay more attention to Hungary.
As one prominent observer of Hungary and other East European
systems has noted, "The Hungarian reform experience says as much about
central planning as it does about Hungary, and therefore an understanding of
that experience is important for those interested in the prospects for reform
in all of Eastern Europe, and indeed, in the Soviet Union. In other words,
Hungary is a prototype of economic reform for the former planned socialist economic
systems of Eastern Europe, and presumably elsewhere. These thoughts, expressed
some ten years ago, remain relevant in the 1990s as Hungary, like other
socialist systems, pursues a transition to the market. However, the background
of reform in Hungary is important to a proper analysis of contemporary
problems and prospects.
Prior to 1968, Hungary applied the Soviet model of centrally
planned socialism in a typical fashion. But then, in 1968, Hungary began to
introduce by far the most radical economic reform attempted in Eastern Europe
(with the exception of Yugoslavia). In the words of one early observer of this
reform, it clearly represents the most radical postwar change, in the economic
system of any Comecon country, which has been maintained over a period of years
and gives promise of continuity.
Although the reform program in Hungary met with only partial
success, the problems that have arisen (conflicts of objectives, for example,
and difficulty in persuading participants to change their ways) are fundamental
to the reform experience of planned socialist systems.
Hungary shares many features with other Eastern and
Southeastern European countries, such as Yugoslavia. It provides a refreshing
contrast to the Soviet Union, which in some important respects is atypical.
Hungary is a small country heavily dependent on foreign trade. The Hungarian
experience with reforming foreign trade, and in particular its efforts to
become integrated into the world economy both East and West, is prototypical.
The difficulties of reforming the foreign trade mechanism arc crucial to the
Hungarian economy as well as to the economies of many other systems of Eastern
1) Hungary: The Setting
Hungary is located in central Europe. Its land area of
approximately 36,000 square miles makes it roughly the same size as the state
of Indiana. Its population of about 11 million is comparable to that of the
population of Illinois. Although Hungary is not self-sufficient in energy, it
docs have supplies of coat, oil, and a number of minerals, including important
Although it has some rolling hills and low mountains,
Hungary is basically a flat country with good agricultural land and a favorable
climate. As in other East European countries, the period since World War II has
seen the population flow from rural to urban areas and a changing balance of
industrial and agricultural activity. Today, approximately half the population
lives in urban areas.
Hungary is not particularly prosperous. Most estimates of
its gross national product or per capita gross national product place Hungary
in the middle of the East European countries. It is generally wealthier than
Bulgaria and Yugoslavia and certainly wealthier than Albania; it ranks behind
East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Hungary's per capita income appears to be
close to that of Greece. In this sense, economic development remains a key
issue in Hungary. By the standards of Western Europe, Hungary remains
relatively poor; by the standards of the Third World, Hungary ranks among the
more affluent countries.
2) The Hungarian Economy: Prereform
The postwar reconstruction of the Hungarian economy began
quite modestly in 1945. Before the implementation of a three-year plan in 1947
(1947-1949), the main policies included stabilization of the currency, changes
in the nature of rural landholdings, and the beginnings of nationalization. The
first three-year plan was designed primarily to bring the economy up to prewar
levels of economic activity. During
this time, a planning mechanism was created and the share of national income
going to investment increased sharply. The changes were not radical, however,
and balanced development was envisioned.
The era of balanced development came to an end with the
introduction of a five-year plan in 1950. The share of national income devoted
to investment was increased substantially, and the bulk of new investment was
directed toward heavy industry. This policy was partially reversed toward the
end of the plan period, but it was reaffirmed in 1955-1956.
A number of economic trouble spots cried out for attention.
There was an observed need to improve industrial labor productivity, especially
through the development of a better incentive system to offset the declining
supply of labor from rural areas. Supply-demand imbalances were growing
increasingly severe. Waste and imbalance in the material-technical supply
system created the need for a substantially modified coordinating mechanism
In addition, excess demand for investment led to substantial
amounts of unfinished new construction and to the neglect of old facilities.
Some mechanisms for the more rational allocation of capital investment had to
be found. The adoption and diffusion of technological advances were seen as
inadequate. Technological improvement was considered crucial for continued
development of the economy.
This background seems familiar: a small country, the Soviet
(Stalinist) model of industrialization, overcentralization, emphasis on
extensive growth, rigidities of the plan mechanism, incentive problems, and the
resulting difficulties. Against this background, the New Economic Mechanism
first promulgated in a party resolution in 1966 was put into, practice in 1968.
Over twenty years later, it remains one of the most important reform programs
of planned socialist systems.
3) Intent of the New Economic Mechanism
There is disagreement about the importance and effect of the
Hungarian reform program. The New Economic Mechanism (NEM) has generally been
interpreted as leaving the power to control the main lines of economic activity
(volume and direction of investment, consumption shares) with the central
authorities, while relying on the market to execute the routine activities of
the system. The NEM called for substantial decentralization of decision-making
authority and responsibility from upper-level administrative agencies to the
enterprise level. In a general way, NEM bears a close resemblance to the Lange
model. Let us consider the original blueprint of NEM.
The objective of NEM was to combine the central manipulation
of key variables with local responsibility for the remaining decisions. The
first change was a significant reduction in the number and complexity of the
directives firms; for large state-owned firms, the traditional problems remain.
Valuation is difficult, especially in loss-making enterprises. Moreover, it is
hard to find buyers for these types of enterprises, let alone to arbitrate the
potential rights of past owners. And just as elsewhere, privatization in
Hungary is likely to become slower and more difficult as the focus shifts to
the less attractive, large enterprises.
In addition to privatization per se, Hungary has addressed
the creation of infrastructure (for example, a stock market) and new rules
designed to change the guidance of enterprises. Accounting procedures have been
refined and bankruptcy laws strengthened so that state subsidies can be
curtailed and hard budgets introduced into large state-owned enterprises.
Hungary has also pursued a variety of stabilization measures
and has liberalized policies in the sphere of foreign trade, though to a
lesser degree and certainly more gradually than Poland. Domestic price controls
have been substantially removed, and enterprises are permitted to enter into
and benefit from foreign trade transactions. Although there are limits on the
holding of foreign exchange, the Hungarian forint is substantially convertible
for business purposes. However, the Bank of Hungary has maintained controls
such that it has access to foreign exchange earnings to serve as repayment of
the Hungarian hard-currency debt. (Hungary has a per capita hard-currency debt
roughly twice that of Poland). Hungary has followed a tight monetary policy
designed to create a balanced budget and also to exert financial pressure on
Hungary has very liberal laws regarding foreign investment,
including the possibility of full foreign ownership with permission. Moreover,
repatriation laws are liberal. Not surprisingly, Hungary has been considered a
leader in the quest to attract foreign investment, though the magnitude of this
investment and its overall impact on the Hungarian economy probably remain
The initial results of the transition process in Hungary
have generally been positive when judged against the sorts of expectations that
we discussed earlier. At the same time, it is proving difficult to sustain
popular support as the inevitable costs of the transition process take their
4) The Hungarian Economy in the 1990s
In spite of a tendency to compare the processes of economic
reform in Poland and Hungary, there are important differences between the two
systems, and especially in the degree to which prior reform had taken place.
Although some would argue that the New Economic Mechanism was quite limited
compared to contemporary reforms, nevertheless the reform process has a
significant history in Hungary. The differences between the Hungarian and
Polish cases are important.
Inflation has been much less serious in Hungary than in
Poland. The annual rate of inflation for 1989 has been estimated at roughly 17
percent. Although the inflation rate increased to about 29 percent in 1990,
this performance has been viewed as positive. In addition, wage increases have
generally been controlled. Largely because of a shift away from trade with
former CMEA trading partners, the volume of Hungarian trade has declined. At
the same time, the Hungarians have experienced growth in exports to Western
markets and a generally weak domestic demand for imports — both important
developments for the overall trade balance. The good news on the exports side,
however, tends to be sector-specific. Hard-currency debt remains a serious
problem, and the movement toward a convertible currency has been much slower
than in the Polish case. Finally, the Hungarian budget deficit has increased.
The Hungarian economy was projected to shrink by
approximately 3 percent in 1991, and associated declines in consumption and
investment were anticipated. The state property agency is moving ahead with
privatization. The overall relatively slow pace of reform in Hungary may well
dictate less sharp downturns and less severe fluctuations during the periods of
downturn but, at the same time, rather slower recoveries and a longer time in
which to achieve normalization. As with Poland, the effectiveness of the
macroeconomic policies being implemented, world market conditions (such as the
price of oil), and domestic structural change through privatization will all
affect both short-term and longer-term outcomes.
Eastern europe: the reform scene
The transition from plan to market in Eastern Europe is
important, not only for those who live with and implement the transition, but
also for those interested in the subject of comparative economic systems. For
a variety of reasons, if the transition cannot succeed in countries such as
Poland and Hungary, it is unlikely to succeed elsewhere.
Obviously, it is too early to render any definitive judgment
on these cases, let alone on the more general issues of transition. Indeed, it
is difficult to chart even basic day-to-day changes in these countries. That
having been said, let us try to assess the outcomes that have occurred so far.
Judged in terms of our earlier discussion of economic reform
and projected outcomes in the early stages of transition from plan to market, there
is room for guarded optimism as we examine the early results in Hungary and
Poland. At the same time, there remain a number of basic forces that will
heavily influence future economic trends.
First, although initial political transformations are substantially
complete in Eastern Europe (with important exceptions such as Yugoslavia),
there are cases (such as Romania) where political instability and a lack of
cohesion (derived in part from the political legacy of the communist era) make
agreement on reform very difficult. Clearly, in these cases, the path of reform
will be slower and much more difficult than in the leading cases that we have
Second, the initial results of the transition have been
generally as expected. In Table2 I summarize a number of useful indicators.
As anticipated, in all cases there has been a downturn in output — occasionally
a downturn of significant magnitude. Inflation has been very uneven and in some
cases (such as Yugoslavia and pre-reform Poland) very rapid. However, post-reform
inflation rates generally leave some room for optimism, especially in those
cases where stabilization policies have been developed and applied.
Third, we have noted that initial privatization usually
proceeded rather quickly but that, after the privatization of small firms
(especially in the service sphere), the pace of change decreased significantly.
This latter development reflects the onset of major difficulties: the private
sector must now absorb large, state-owned, loss-making, and often technologically
backward enterprises. The privatization of these firms presents serious
problems, as does a setting where valuation is fraught with difficulties,
buyers are hard to find, claims from the past must be handled, and contemporary
management skills are wanting.
Fourth, although inflation and unemployment have
necessitated a growing concern for safety-net measures of various types, there
is also a sense that the availability of consumer goods and services has
All of these considerations seem to support a measure of
optimism about the eventual outcome of the transition process. At the same
time, there are important dimensions where change must be sustained if the
transition is to be successful. Stabilization policies must be maintained — a
tall order in those cases where consumer patience is lacking. Privatization
must proceed, and it must increasingly reflect the contours of new market
arrangements, including the infrastructure required for markets to function
effectively. These changes must be sustained even in the face of political
dissension, consumer dissatisfaction and an uncertain international economic
environment. These restraining forces will in large part dictate the pace and
ultimate success or failure of the transition process.
3. Moldova’s way to an open economy.
Moldova has faced significant and escalating economic
difficulties since its acquisition of independence in 1991. This situation is
reflected in the main macroeconomic indicator for the republic - Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) -, which has dropped by nearly 60%.
The agricultural sector has been strongly impacted by the
nation’s economic difficulties, as well as by adverse environmental conditions.
In 1993 Moldova’s agricultural harvest was adequate, a considerable portion
remained uncollected and unprocessed due to lack of fuel, transportation, and
financial resources. In addition, due to early November frosts, hundreds of
thousands of tons of fruit, vegetables, and tobacco were damaged beyond use. In
the summer of 1994, a simmilar stream of natural disasters, including a
drought, followed by a hurricane, followed by a flood, caused even greater
losses than those experienced the previous year. The devasting flooding in
August 94 alone brought about losses totaling US$ = 220 million, which exceeded
the amount of Moldova’s industrial activities include: refrigerator, television
furniture, clothing, and agricultural machinery production. The Republic’s
threatens the productivity of this sector. Of the republic’s 262 production
enterprises, 60% experienced production declines. Over all in 1993, many
industrial enterprises operated at levels 50% lower than their full potential.
The decline in production has negatively influenced the
budgetary capacity of the Moldovan Government to address social and other
issues. In November 1994, for example, budget areas reached a level of US$ 70
million. As a result sizable delays exist in payments of mages, pensions,
stipends and other allocations. Natural resources within the country are few.
The situation in Moldova’s energy sector is strained, therefore, more so as
nation’s capacity to import energy continues to deteriorate. All types of fuel,
including coal, oil and natural gas, delivered from the Russian Federation,
equaled US$ 250 million as of late 1994.
Nevertheless, despite the above mentioned difficulties,
economic reform -including privatization and the transition to a market economy
- is being actively pursued in Moldova current economic crisis and into a more
healthy economic state.
Building of the state and its sovereignty has allowed
Moldova to accomplish some important achievements in economic reform, i.e.,
financial stabilization on a macroeconomic level and a lessening of the
economic crisis and its social impact.
The success of macroeconomic stabilization has also helped
to increase the level of confidence and trust in Moldova amongst the
international community. The reforms are being supported by foreign creditors
and by technical assistance from donors, including the United Nations, the
European Union, USA, Germany and Netherlands.
In order to further development the private sector, it is
necessary to continue reforms and to improve mechanism supports and stimulating
them. Further-more, macroeconomic stabilization will not last unless the
reforms reach all parts of the national economy.
Although the hand code contains some contradictions, new
important measures on agriculture have been taken, such as the liberalization
of economic activity and privatization of the industrial sector of the
agroindustrial complex, contributing to a relative stabilization of the market
for food products and to an increase in imports.
Success in promoting economic reforms in Moldova -
privatization of the state property, liberalization of prices in the real estate
market liberalization of intern, trade, establishment and development of the
banking system and of the financial market - allowed Moldova to be placed in
the 11th position amongst the 25 countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the
Baltic states and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in a
classification made by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
We can, therefor, conclude that 1995 was the first year of
transition, following the first destructive stage of the reforms, to a better
However, although macroeconomic stabilization is encouraging
the continuous evolution towards a market economy, it does not guarantee an
increase in the national economy. These problems will require a longer period
to solve than that required for achieving macroeconomic stabilization.
Economic Performance in Moldova 1989-1995:
Annual Output Growth
In conclusion to all said I want to present a brief survey
of the present stage reached in the transformation process in the various
countries of Eastern Europe. As an initial, superficial impression, it can be
said that the farther west the countries a located, the more advanced the
process now is.
The transformation process is at its most advanced in
Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. All three countries now have stable
parliamentary democracies in which non-communist parties hold the majority.
Although the initial situations in the three countries were very different,
they have also all set about establishing a market economy system with
considerable energy. Since it is thus in these three countries that the most
experience has now been gathered, I have considerate my remarks on them (later
In the political sense the situation in the three Baltic
countries is similar to that of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. They too
have completed the change to parliamentary democracy. However, economic
transformation is especially impeded by the fact that owing to their histories
as Soviet republics their economics are particularly closely interwoven with
thus of to rest of the former Soviet Union.
Romania, Bulgaria and Albania have so far made less progress
than their counterparts to the north and west both in the political and the
economic transformation process. Here too, though, freely elected parliaments
have now undertaken the first legislative steps towards crating a market
economic order. However, it is still early as yet to assess the political
stability of these countries or the success of the economic reform they have so
far embarked upon.
What path will be taken in future by the successor states to
the former soviet Union and those of former Yugoslavia is, in my opinion, still
a totally open question. Neither the geographical borders of these countries
nor their political or economic systems can be foretold with any degree of
Finally, the former East Germany occupies a special place,
amongst the transforming countries. On the one hand, reunification with former
West Germany has ensured that the conditions for political and economic
transformation are now absolutely secure. On the other hand, the fact that
income levels for those in employment have been rapidly catching up with those
in the west has also crated considerable growth and employment problems. In the
real world, the transformation process has proceeded very differently in the
three furthest advanced countries of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In
Poland and Hungary, the planned economy system had gradually been shot through
with various holes during the past ten years, in stark contrast to
Czechoslovakia and East Germany.
Clague Christpher : The Emergence of Market Economics in
Eastern Europe, 1992
Blanchard O., Layard R. : Economic Change in Poland, 1990
Kornai I. : The Road to a free Economy
Rausser G.C. : A Noncooperative Model of Multilateral
Schumpeter I.A. : The Theory of Economic Development
World Bank : World Development Report, 1990
Giersch H. : Tawards a Market Economy in Central and Eastern
Europe, Berlin 1991
Kahtzenbach Erhard : Problems of Reconstructuring in Eastern
Gregory P.R., Streart R.C. : Comparative Economic Systems
Hartmats R: Making markets: Economic transformation in
Eastern Europe and the Post Soviet States.
© Реферат плюс