IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/ecopln/v36y2003i3p223-257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolution of the Government–Business Relationship and Economic Performance in the Former Soviet States – Order State, Rescue State, Punish State

Author

Listed:
  • Ichiro Iwasaki

    ()

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to elucidate the relationship between the reform process and economic performance in the states of the former Soviet Union (FSU). There were two strategies used by the former Soviet states to cope with the collapse of the USSR. Some of the FSU countries, in an effort to overcome the institutional vacuum caused by the disintegration of the federal economy, centralized their government authority to manage industry. Others decentralized power in an attempt to regain economic independence for domestic enterprises. To evaluate the essential differences and progress gaps among transition strategies, FSU countries can be divided into three groups, which reflect variations in institutional control of the government-business relationships. The differences in economic performance in FSU countries can be explained to some extent by examining the diversity of institutional patterns that characterize each category. The results of various empirical analyses positively support the validity of such an analytical framework. In this sense, this paper presents a new viewpoint on the transition process in FSU countries that may complement that shown in existing literature. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Ichiro Iwasaki, 2003. "Evolution of the Government–Business Relationship and Economic Performance in the Former Soviet States – Order State, Rescue State, Punish State," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 223-257, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:ecopln:v:36:y:2003:i:3:p:223-257 DOI: 10.1023/B:ECOP.0000024087.22037.63
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/B:ECOP.0000024087.22037.63
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Bank, 2002. "Transition, The First Ten Years : Analysis and Lessons for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 14042.
    2. Stanley Fischer & Ratna Sahay, 2000. "The Transition Economies After Ten Years," IMF Working Papers 00/30, International Monetary Fund.
    3. Ernesto Hernández-Catá, 1997. "Liberalization and the Behavior of Output during the Transition from Plan to Market," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 44(4), pages 405-429, December.
    4. Grogan, Louise & Moers, Luc, 2001. "Growth empirics with institutional measures for transition countries," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 323-344, December.
    5. Ernesto Hernández-Catá, 1997. "Liberalization and the Behavior of Output During the Transition From Plan to Market," IMF Working Papers 97/53, International Monetary Fund.
    6. Aghion, Philippe & Tirole, Jean, 1997. "Formal and Real Authority in Organizations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(1), pages 1-29, February.
    7. Wyplosz, Charles, 2000. "Ten years of transformation - macroeconomic lessons," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2288, The World Bank.
    8. Peter Doyle & Peter F. Christoffersen, 1998. "From Inflation to Growth; Eight Years of Transition," IMF Working Papers 98/100, International Monetary Fund.
    9. Stanley Fischer & Ratna Sahay, 2000. "The Transition Economies After Ten Years," NBER Working Papers 7664, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Ratna Sahay & Jeronimo Zettelmeyer & Eduardo Borensztein & Andrew Berg, 1999. "The Evolution of Output in Transition Economies; Explaining the Differences," IMF Working Papers 99/73, International Monetary Fund.
    11. S. Fisher & R. Sahay & C. A. Vegh, 1997. "Stabilization and Growth in Transition Economies: The Early Experience," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 5.
    12. Campos, Nauro F., 2000. "Context is everything : measuring institutional change in transition economies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2269, The World Bank.
    13. Paul J. Siegelbaum & Khaled Sherif & Michael Borish & George Clarke, 2002. "Structural Adjustment in the Transition : Case Studies from Albania, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Moldova," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 14052.
    14. Aoki Masahiko, 1995. "An Evolving Diversity of Organizational Mode and Its Implications for Transitional Economies," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 330-353, December.
    15. Nauro F. Campos & Abrizio Coricelli, 2002. "Growth in Transition: What We Know, What We Don't, and What We Should," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, pages 793-836.
    16. Selowsky, Marcelo & Martin, Ricardo, 1997. "Policy Performance and Output Growth in the Transition Economies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 349-353.
    17. Pietro Garibaldi & Nada Mora & Ratna Sahay & Jeromin Zettelmeyer, 2001. "What Moves Capital to Transition Economies?," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 48(4), pages 1-6.
    18. Beatrice Weder, 2001. "Institutional Reform in Transition Economies; How Far Have they Come," IMF Working Papers 01/114, International Monetary Fund.
    19. Nishimura, Yoshiaki, 1999. "Reconsideration on Transitional Policies for the Transformation from Socialist Planned Economy to Market Economies," Economic Review, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 50(4), pages 299-311, January.
    20. Berta Heybey & Peter Murrell, 1999. "The relationship between economic growth and the speed of liberalization during transition," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 121-137.
    21. Brunetti, Aymo & Kisunko, Gregory & Weder, Beatrice, 1997. "Institutions in transition : reliability of rules and economic performance in former Socialist countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1809, The World Bank.
    22. Kornai Janos, 1994. "Transformational Recession: The Main Causes," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, pages 39-63.
    23. Oleh Havrylyshyn, 2001. "Recovery and Growth in Transition: A Decade of Evidence," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 48(4), pages 1-4.
    24. V. Popov, 1998. "Strong Institutions Are More Important than the Speed of Reforms," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 8.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ichiro Iwasaki, 2007. "Enterprise Reform And Corporate Governance In Russia: A Quantitative Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(5), pages 849-902, December.
    2. Ichiro Iwasaki & Kazuhiro Kumo, 2016. "Decline and Growth in Transition Economies: A Meta-Analysis," KIER Working Papers 951, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    3. Alexander Libman, 2006. "Government-Business Relations and Catching Up Reforms in the CIS," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 3(2), pages 263-288, December.
    4. Ichiro Iwasaki & Taku Suzuki, 2016. "Radicalism Versus Gradualism: An Analytical Survey Of The Transition Strategy Debate," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 807-834, September.
    5. Libman, Alexander, 2005. "Globalization and outcomes of institutional competition," MPRA Paper 11779, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Libman, Alexander, 2006. "Zum Spannungsfeld zwischen staatlicher und privater Wirtschaft am Beispiel der postsowjetischen Staaten
      [On the interaction of public and private businesses: Example of the post-Soviet space]
      ," MPRA Paper 10941, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Libman, Alexander, 2006. "Different paths of the second transition in the post-Soviet world: a political-economic analysis," MPRA Paper 11781, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Ichiro Iwasaki & Kazuhiro Kumo, 2016. "Decline and Growth in Transition Economies: A Meta-Analysis," KIER Working Papers 951, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.

    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:kap:ecopln:v:36:y:2003:i:3:p:223-257. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.