Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: market reforms

Sort By:

Limit search:

Przyczyny korupcji w krajach postkomunistycznych

100%

Goczek Ł.

Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics

2010

vol. 239

issue 4

67-87

The paper provides an empirical analysis of the causes of corruption in postcommunist countries. Researchers vary in their evaluation of how economic policy instruments and structural factors influence the level of corruption in these countries, Goczek says. He looks at the two main hypotheses about the sources of corruption in the region. The first hypothesis holds that the current level of corruption in postcommunist countries is largely due to what happened under communism, including the institutional standards of the time. The other hypothesis is that these countries’ transition from central planning to a market economy is largely responsible for the current level of corruption in the region. Both models discussed in the article proved to be useful in explaining the level of perceived corruption in postcommunist countries, the author says. In the first model, Goczek checked if the current scope of corruption has its roots in these countries’ communist past. The empirical study showed that the more economically developed a particular country was in 1989, the more successful it was in dealing with the problem of corruption. Generally, the extent of central planning in the economy proved to be the most significant factor, Goczek says. He argues that the level of perceived corruption in a given country depended on the scope of central planning and the resulting market disturbance. In the second model discussed in the paper, the author tries to check if market reforms contributed to an increase in corruption in Central and Eastern Europe. According to some researchers, wide-ranging redistribution processes linked with privatization and liberalization in the economy frequently encouraged corruption after the fall of communism. Goczek’s analysis of economic policy choices reveals that the level of corruption in Central and Eastern Europe is lower than in the former Soviet Union. While most Central and Eastern European countries as well as the Baltic states introduced far-reaching economic reforms at the start of transition, Goczek says, former Soviet republics dragged their feet on such reforms. As a result, the levels of corruption in these two regions differ considerably. Generally, those countries that quickly carried out economic reforms managed to arrest and even reverse the progress of corruption after the fall of communism, Goczek concludes.

Catching Up And Falling Behind: Four Puzzles After Two Decades Of Post-Communist Transformation / Doganianie Czy Pozostawanie w Tyle: Cztery Zagadki Po Dwóch Dekadach Transformacji Postkomunistycznej

51%

Norkus Z.

Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe

2015

vol. 18

issue 4

63-79

After more than two decades since the exit from Communism, no former communist country has been completely successful in catching up with the technological frontier countries. However, they divide into two groups: those which decreased the GDP gap with frontier countries since 1989-1990, and those which failed to do so. One may ask: What were the decisive causal conditions for their progress or failure in convergence? Were they the early implementation of Washington consensus style market reforms; their neighbourhood with advanced affluent countries; peaceful transition; accession to the EU; endowment with natural resources; state sovereignty before postcommunism; or interactions between these factors (or others)? Because of the small N, statistical analysis is not an appropriate tool for testing these hypotheses. Hence this paper uses qualitative comparative analysis to identify four explanatory puzzles of the catching-up growth performance of the postcommunist countries.

Po ponad dwudziestu latach od upadku komunizmu, żaden z byłych krajów bloku komunistycznego nie był w stanie całkowicie dogonić krajów technologiczne przodujących. Jednak, kraje postkomunistyczne można podzielić na dwie grupy: te, którym udało się zmniejszyć lukę w produkcie krajowym brutto (PKB) w stosunku do krajów technologiczne przodujących, i te, którym nie udało się tego zrobić. Nasuwa się zatem pytanie, jakie uwarunkowania zadecydowały o powodzeniu lub niepowodzeniu konwergencji? Czy to było wczesne wdrożenie reform rynkowych w stylu Konsensusu waszyngtońskiego; Sąsiedztwo zaawansowanych gospodarczo krajów zamożnych; spokojny, pokojowy przebieg transformacji systemowej; przystąpienie do Unii Europejskiej, zasobność kraju w zasoby naturalne, skala suwerenności państwa przed transformacją lub interakcje między tymi czynnikami (lub inne czynniki)? Ze względu na małą liczebność próby (N), analiza statystyczna nie jest odpowiednim narzędziem do testowania tych hipotez. Dlatego w artykule zastosowano jakościową analizę porównawczą identyfikując cztery zagadki w wyjaśnianiu przyczyn powodzenia lub klęski wzrostu doganiającego w krajach postkomunistycznych.

Refine search results

1 Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe

1 Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics

1 Goczek Ł.

1 Norkus Z.

1 2015

1 2010

Search results

Przyczyny korupcji w krajach postkomunistycznych

Catching Up And Falling Behind: Four Puzzles After Two Decades Of Post-Communist Transformation / Doganianie Czy Pozostawanie w Tyle: Cztery Zagadki Po Dwóch Dekadach Transformacji Postkomunistycznej