IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article

Big Bang vs. Gradualism – A Productivity Analysis

  • Hans J. Czap


    (University of Michigan, Dearborn)

  • Kanybek D. Nur-tegin


    (Wilkes Honors College, Florida Atlantic University)

Registered author(s):

    In the beginning of the 1990s, the former socialist countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union began reforming their economies. Yet despite two decades of research, it is still unclear which reform path – gradual or radical – is better for long-run growth. Unlike most other studies on the topic, which concentrate on the growth of output per capita, this paper compares the two alternative reform approaches based on the analysis of productivity. We estimate a Malmquist multifactor productivity index for 22 transition economies over 17 years to compare their relative performance depending on their speed of reform. The Malmquist index is further decomposed into efficiency and technological change, and statistical inference is obtained using a smoothed bootstrap procedure. The main results are that the radical reformers exhibit higher rates of productivity growth in the initial years of transition, while the gradual countries do better in the later years. Over the whole time period a gradual reform strategy is superior to faster reforms. These findings have important implications for reforms in the remaining non-market economies and many developing countries.

    If 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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Danubius University of Galati in its journal Euroeconomica.

    Volume (Year): (2011)
    Issue (Month): 29 (August)
    Pages: 38-56

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:dug:journl:y:2011:i:29:p:38-56
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dug:journl:y:2011:i:29:p:38-56. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Florian Nuta)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.