Different paths to economic reform in Russia and China: causes and consequences
Economic reform in Russia has been described as 'shock therapy' because rapid industrial privatization, price liberalization and democratic reforms of the political system were introduced simultaneously. However, shock therapy led to insider control of most manufacturing firms, with important consequences for foreign investment. In contrast, China's 'gradualist' reforms, without privatization or significant democratization, facilitated foreign joint ventures as the dominant means of reforming State-owned enterprises incrementally. This paper proposes an explanation for these contrasting reform paths in Russia and China and then traces their consequences for inward foreign domestic investment (FDI), exporting and for corporate governance in the short and long term. The impact of national level policies on enterprises is demonstrated in a matched pair of cases in Russia and China. Conclusions are drawn for policy, for practice and for future research.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 35 (2000)
Issue (Month): 4 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620401/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620401/bibliographic|
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Otto Andersen, 1993. "On the Internationalization Process of Firms: A Critical Analysis," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 24(2), pages 209-231, June.
- Sachs, J.D. & Woo, W.T., 1994. "Structural Factors in the Economic Reforms of China, Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union," Papers 94-01, California Davis - Institute of Governmental Affairs.
- Jeffrey D. Sachs & Andrew Warner, 1995.
"Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration,"
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,
Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 26(1, 25th A), pages 1-118.
- Jeffrey Sachs & Andrew Warner, 1995. "Economic Reform and the Progress of Global Integration," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1733, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Bruce Kogut & Harbir Singh, 1988. "The Effect of National Culture on the Choice of Entry Mode," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 19(3), pages 411-432, September.
- Estrin, Saul & Wright, Mike, 1999. "Corporate Governance in the Former Soviet Union: An Overview," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 398-421, September.
- Estrin, Saul & Wright, Mike, 1999. "Corporate Governance in the Former Soviet Union," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 395-397, September. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)