IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/ectrin/v31y2023i1p161-187.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public support for economic transition

Author

Listed:
  • Lucie Coufalová
  • Lenka Kolajtová
  • Libor Žídek

Abstract

This paper focuses on the Czech economic transition and aims to identify the determinants of unusually high and long‐lasting public support for market reforms. The study is based on a unique combination of statistical analysis of survey data and oral history (interviews with reformers, managers etc.), which has enabled us to depict the views of the general public as well as of many people involved in decision‐making processes on both macro and micro levels. These findings allow us to propose recommendations on how to gain and maintain public support for economic reforms. Above all, reformers must utilize the period of euphoria and communicate the individual steps of reform with the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucie Coufalová & Lenka Kolajtová & Libor Žídek, 2023. "Public support for economic transition," Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 161-187, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:ectrin:v:31:y:2023:i:1:p:161-187
    DOI: 10.1111/ecot.12329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12329
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ecot.12329?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter J. Boettke & Christopher J. Coyne & Peter T. Leeson, 2015. "Institutional stickiness and the New Development Economics," Chapters, in: Laura E. Grube & Virgil Henry Storr (ed.), Culture and Economic Action, chapter 6, pages 123-146, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Roberts, Andrew & Kim, Byung-Yeon, 2011. "Policy Responsiveness in Post-communist Europe: Public Preferences and Economic Reforms," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 819-839, October.
    3. Denisova, Irina & Eller, Markus & Frye, Timothy & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2009. "Who Wants To Revise Privatization? The Complementarity of Market Skills and Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(2), pages 284-304, May.
    4. Augustin Landier & David Thesmar & Mathias Thoenig, 2008. "Investigating capitalism aversion [‘Why not a political Coase theorem? Social conflict, commitment and politics’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 23(55), pages 466-497.
    5. Sascha O. Becker & Lukas Mergele & Ludger Woessmann, 2020. "The Separation and Reunification of Germany: Rethinking a Natural Experiment Interpretation of the Enduring Effects of Communism," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 143-171, Spring.
    6. Denisova, Irina & Eller, Markus & Frye, Timothy & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2012. "Everyone hates privatization, but why? Survey evidence from 28 post-communist countries," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 44-61.
    7. Fidrmuc, Jan, 2000. "Political support for reforms: Economics of voting in transition countries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1491-1513, August.
    8. Hayo, Bernd, 2004. "Public support for creating a market economy in Eastern Europe," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 720-744, December.
    9. Drabek Zdenek, 1995. "IMF and IBRD Policies in the Former Czechoslovakia," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 235-264, April.
    10. Sascha O. Becker & Katrin Boeckh & Christa Hainz & Ludger Woessmann, 2016. "The Empire Is Dead, Long Live the Empire! Long‐Run Persistence of Trust and Corruption in the Bureaucracy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(590), pages 40-74, February.
    11. Kim, Byung-Yeon & Pirttila, Jukka, 2006. "Political constraints and economic reform: Empirical evidence from the post-communist transition in the 1990s," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 446-466, September.
    12. Jan Fidrmuc, 1999. "Unemployment and the dynamics of political support for economic reforms," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 139-156.
    13. Fidrmuc, Jan & Doyle, Orla, 2003. "Anatomy of Voting Behaviour and Attitudes During Post-Communist Transition Czech Republic 1990-98," CEPR Discussion Papers 3801, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Riccardo Rovelli & Anzelika Zaiceva, 2013. "Did support for economic and political reforms increase during the post-communist transition, and if so, why?," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 21(2), pages 193-240, April.
    15. Duch, Raymond M., 1993. "Tolerating Economic Reform: Popular Support for Transition to a Free Market in the Former Soviet Union," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 590-608, September.
    16. Anderson, Christopher J. & O'Conner, Kathleen M., 2000. "System Change, Learning and Public Opinion about the Economy," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 147-172, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Golinelli, Roberto & Rovelli, Riccardo, 2013. "Did growth and reforms increase citizens' support for the transition?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 112-137.
    2. Riccardo Rovelli & Anzelika Zaiceva, 2013. "Did support for economic and political reforms increase during the post-communist transition, and if so, why?," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 21(2), pages 193-240, April.
    3. William Pyle, 2021. "Russia’s “impressionable years”: life experience during the exit from communism and Putin-era beliefs," Post-Soviet Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 1-25, January.
    4. Irina Denisova, 2016. "Institutions and the support for market reforms," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 258-258, May.
    5. Neher, Frank, 2011. "Markets wanted: Expectation overshooting in transition," Discussion Papers 2011/1, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    6. Sirovátka, Tomáš & Guzi, Martin & Saxonberg, Steve, 2019. "Support for Market Economy Principles in European Post-Communist Countries during 1999–2008," MPRA Paper 97585, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Frank Neher, 2013. "Markets wanted: expectation overshooting in transition economies," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 60(2), pages 187-219, June.
    8. repec:zbw:bofitp:2020_017 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Castañeda Dower, Paul & Markevich, Andrei, 2014. "A history of resistance to privatization in Russia," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 855-873.
    10. Matteo Migheli, 2016. "Behind the Wall: What Remains of the “Communist Legacy” in Contemporary Europe," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 671-690, June.
    11. Migheli, Matteo, 2009. "The two sides of a ghost: Twenty years without the wall," POLIS Working Papers 125, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
    12. Valev, Neven, 2004. "No pain, no gain: market reform, unemployment, and politics in Bulgaria," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 409-425, September.
    13. Tarabar, Danko, 2017. "Culture, democracy, and market reforms: Evidence from transition countries," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 456-480.
    14. Matteo Migheli, 2012. "The transition of people’s preferences for the intervention of the government in the economy of re-unified Germany," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 11(2), pages 101-126, August.
    15. Vladan Ivanović & Vadim Kufenko & Boris Begović & Nenad Stanišić & Vincent Geloso, 2019. "Continuity Under a Different Name: The Outcome of Privatisation in Serbia," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 159-180, March.
    16. Rovelli, Riccardo & Zaiceva, Anzelika, 2009. "Transition Fatigue? Cross-Country Evidence from Micro Data," IZA Discussion Papers 4224, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Pyle, William, 2020. "Russians' "impressionable years": Life experience during the exit from communism and Putin-era beliefs," BOFIT Discussion Papers 17/2020, Bank of Finland Institute for Emerging Economies (BOFIT).
    18. Migheli, Matteo, 2010. "Supporting the free and competitive market in China and India: Differences and evolution over time," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 73-90, March.
    19. Doyle, Orla & Fidrmuc, Jan, 2006. "Who favors enlargement?: Determinants of support for EU membership in the candidate countries' referenda," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 520-543, June.
    20. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7fst0pcf5j8cr99e1nuobt97rn is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Bernd Hayo & Florian Neumeier, 2017. "Public Attitudes toward Fiscal Consolidation: Evidence from a Representative German Population Survey," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 42-69, February.
    22. Denisova, Irina & Eller, Markus & Frye, Timothy & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2012. "Everyone hates privatization, but why? Survey evidence from 28 post-communist countries," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 44-61.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:ectrin:v:31:y:2023:i:1:p:161-187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)2577-6983 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.