Major argument of the article draws on the perspective of institutional economics according to which post-communist privatizations were not symmetrical to communist nationalizations and for this reason it was not possible to conceptualize economic reforms in terms of the big bang claimed by liberals. More concretely, adherents of institutional economics have claimed that post-communist transformations should be seen through the perspective of formal rules and informal constraints; while formal rules could be changed relatively quickly by political mechanisms, informal rules have been rooted in social habits and routines and they cannot be changed very quickly due to their ʻpath dependency tendenciesʼ. The article highlights the notion of political capitalism elaborated by Polish researcher Jadwiga Staniszkis as a theoretical framework that could elucidate dissolution of nomenklatura system as well as explain transformation of economic domain in last decades of posttotalitarian regimes. Later on argumentation proceeds to explanation of institutional conceptualization of early post-communist property changes by differentiating among notions of ‘institutional privatizationsʼ, ‘spontaneous privatizationsʼ and ‘political capitalismʼ in order to provide a framework for the adoption of the more elaborated model that could contribute to insight in recent privatization processes.
The article focuses on the development of Czech political economy (economics) in the 1970’s and 1980’s. It examines the texts of professional economists and analyses new theoretical paradigms they were using after the 1960’s analytical categories of market socialism had been pushed out of the official expert discussion. It identifies the 1980’s expert group, formed around the seminars at the State bank with Václav Klaus as one of the main organizers, as an important intellectual milieu where a new language of critique of the socialist economy was created. The new approaches, based largely on microeconomics, enabled their adherents to imagine alternative economic policies, different to the alternatives presented by their predecessors in the 1960’s, and prepared them for embracing even radical ideas such as privatization of state assets OPEN ACCESS 88 WISOHIM/ESHP 29 (something unheard of in the previous decades). Such development was possible also because of the limited capability of the state’s security apparatus to effectively control the experts’ professional activities.
This paper focuses on property rights and performance of enterprises. The objective of this paper is to summarize existing knowledge from empirical studies dealing with the question of whether private property and privatization of enterprises encourage firms to increase their performance measured as growth of profitability, labor productivity, investments, costs effectiveness, etc. On the basis of empirical studies, it is also determined what the influence of institutional frameworks of property rights and privatization is on the firm performance. The first part of the paper reviews results of studies on the non-transition economies privatized by 1990. The second one evaluates the impact of private ownership on performance of enterprises from transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe, and the Former Soviet Union. The results of the studies suggest that private ownership is an important but not sufficient determinant of firm prosperity, subsequently resulting in overall rise of wealth of nations. The positive impact of private ownership on economic performance can occur only in an appropriate institutional environment with relevant legal standards (righteous and enforceable contracts, the protection of shareholders and creditors, adequate banking system, functioning bankruptcy courts, capital market supervision, etc.).
Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie pluralizmu rozumień przekształcenia własnościowego. Jako odniesienie teoretyczne tej kwestii wykorzystano propozycję "czterech systemów ekonomii" Ferdynanda Zweiga, koncentrując się na zawartych w niej koncepcjach własności oraz propozycjach jej przekształceń. W zakończeniu rozpatrzono problem uzasadnienia dla współistnienia różnych rodzajów własności.
EN
The aim of the study is to review of various interpretations of the transformation of property. The main objective of this paper is to present the concept of economic systems proposed by Ferdynand Zweig. Next the meanings of the transformation of ownership are described. The final part contains investigations of the problem of justification of coexistence of different types of property.
After the demise of socialism, the considerable transformation of the Polish housing sector occurred in the early 1990s. The new laws and institutions were introduced and those new arrangements strongly influenced the development of housing. Currently, the State does not participate directly in the housing development process – it is one of local government responsibilities. Hence, the main purpose of the article is to analyze the priorities and actions of local authorities in the field of housing policy, particularly those aspects that have a specific spatial implications (mainly affect spatial development of the inner city). Analysis is focused on Lodz that really stands out among all municipalities in Poland for the largest participation of public housing, that in the inner city is mostly represented by the old tenement buildings, unfortunately in a very poor condition.
Tematem pracy jest przedstawienie teoretycznych uwarunkowań prywatyzacji, w tym szczególnie teorii ekonomicznych, które uzasadniają wyższość własności prywatnej nad publiczną: teorii praw własności, agencji, kosztów transakcyjnych, wyboru publicznego i austriackiej szkoły ekonomii.
EN
The subject of this paper is the presentation of theoretical determinants of privatization, especially those economic theories which justify the supremacy of private over public property such as: the theory of ownership, of agencies, transaction cost theory, public choice theory, and the so called Austrian School of Economics.
The study deals with the process of privatization of bus and rail transport in the United Kingdom in the years 1979–1997. It tries to give information about roots of the privatization, discussed options and motivations of interest groups. It utilizes archival documents, which was created by Department of Transport, The Treasury, Number 10 Policy Unit or Boards of National Bus Company and British Rail. The comparative analysis tries to explain different impacts of processes on particular categories.
CS
Studie se věnuje privatizačnímu procesu v autobusové a železniční dopravě ve Velké Británii za vlády Konzervativní strany v letech 1979–97. Snaží se podat informace o kořenech privatizace, zvažovaných variantách a motivech zájmových skupin přičemž se snaží využít archivní dokumenty vytvořené na ministerstvech dopravy a financí, Politickém oddělení nebo v Radách National Bus Company a British Rail. Oba procesy jsou v závěru podrobeny komparativní analýze vysvětlující odlišné dopady v dílčích kategoriích.
Celem artykułu jest analiza porównawcza historii i stanu obecnego przedsiębiorstw państwowych (pp) w Wielkiej Brytanii i Norwegii. Oba kraje są zaliczane do najbardziej rozwiniętych krajów świata, a jednocześnie diametralnie różnią się pod względem roli oraz znaczenia pp w gospodarce. Analiza wartości wskaźników IPE, PMR, CSS oraz udziału pp w zatrudnieniu wskazuje, że znaczenie pp w gospodarce norweskiej jest dość wysokie, natomiast w gospodarce brytyjskiej – bardzo niskie. Przeprowadzona analiza wykazała, że obie gospodarki w odmienny sposób podlegały trendom ogólnoświatowym, duży wpływ na przebieg zmian miały wybory polityczne społeczeństwa a obecny kształt sektora przedsiębiorstw państwowych jest uwarunkowany otoczeniem instytucjonalnym, jak też doraźnymi reakcjami na wydarzenia gospodarcze.
EN
The purpose of this article is to conduct a comparative analysis of the history and the current state of state-owned enterprises in the UK and Norway. Both countries are among the most developed economies in the world, but they radically differ in terms of the role and importance of SOEs. The analysis of IPE, PMR, CSS indicators and the share of SOEs in the total employment in both economies indicates that the importance of SOEs in the Norwegian economy is relatively very high, while in the UK economy – very low. The analysis also indicates that both economies reacted in different ways to global trends and also that political choices of societies contributed to this process. Also, we conclude that current shape of SOEs sector is conditioned both by the economic institutions and ad hoc reactions to economic events.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.