Power – property core of economic development: the cases of Russia and South Korea
AbstractThe paper argues that some peculiarities of national development strategies may be described and explained with the help of the power – property concept which is used as a complement to the Economic Freedom surveys methodology. A cluster analysis approach is used to reveal the discrepancies in development strategies of Russia and of South Korea. The paper claims that factors which influence those discrepancies are mostly institutional and cultural attributes that concern the power – property phenomenon
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 44452.
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC REGULATION 4.3(2012): pp. 93-108
economic development; Russia; South Korea; power – property;
Other versions of this item:
- Pyastolov Sergey & Shitenkova Elena, 2012. "Power – Property Core Of Economic Development: The Cases Of Russia And South Korea," Вопросы регулирования экономики, CyberLeninka;Общество с ограниченной ответственностью «Гуманитарные перспективы», vol. 3(3), pages 93-108.
- O21 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Planning Models; Planning Policy
- O53 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Asia including Middle East
- P52 - Economic Systems - - Comparative Economic Systems - - - Comparative Studies of Particular Economies
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Douglass C. North, 1993. "Five Propositions about Institutional Change," Economic History 9309001, EconWPA.
- Timothy Frye & Andrei Shleifer, 1996.
"The Invisible Hand and the Grabbing Hand,"
NBER Working Papers
5856, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Sanford J Grossman & Joseph E Stiglitz, 1997.
"On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
1908, David K. Levine.
- Grossman, Sanford J & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1980. "On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 393-408, June.
- Polterovich, Victor, 2001. "Rent Seeking, Tax Policy, and Economic Growth," MPRA Paper 20058, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Gordon Tullock, 2003. "The Origin Rent-Seeking Concept," International Journal of Business and Economics, College of Business, and College of Finance, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-8, April.
- Jakob De Haan & Susanna Lundström & Jan-Egbert Sturm, 2006.
"Market-oriented institutions and policies and economic growth: A critical survey,"
Journal of Economic Surveys,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 157-191, 04.
- Jakob de Haan & Susanna Lundstroem & Jan-Egbert Sturm, 2005. "Market oriented institutions and policies and economic growth: A critical survey," TWI Research Paper Series 5, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
- Gurgul, Henryk & Lach, Łukasz, 2011. "The nexus between economic freedom and growth: Evidence from CEE countries in transition," MPRA Paper 37434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Jac C. Heckelman, 2000. "Economic Freedom and Economic Growth: A Short-run Causal Investigation," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 0, pages 71-91, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.