Shock Therapy Versus Gradualism: The End Of The Debate (Explaining The Magnitude Of Transformational Recession)
The conventional explanation for the dynamics of output during transition is associated with “good” and “bad” economic policies, in particular with the progress achieved in the liberalization, as measured by the liberalization index, and with the success or failure in macroeconomic stabilization, as measured by the rates of inflation. This paper seeks to provide alternative explanation to the differing performance during transition: the supply-side recession, which in turn is caused by reallocation of resources needed to overcome disproportions inherited from the era of central planning. It is shown that over 60% of the differences in the economic performance can in fact be explained by uneven initial conditions, such as the level of development and pre-transition disproportions in industrial structure and trade patterns.After controlling for these non-policy factors, the impact of liberalization becomes insignificant. However, variations in inflation rates and institutional capacities of the state (as measured by the change in the share of government revenues in GDP and/or by the ratio of the rule of law to the democracy index) remain important determinants of performance - together with non-policy factors they explain over 85% of differences in GDP change in 28 transition economies. It is therefore argued that the debate between shock-therapists and gradualists that dominated professional discussions for the whole decade of the 1990s was interesting, but to a large extent misfocused and misguided. The crux of the debate – the speed of transition - turned out to be a secondary issue for performance, whereas the primary issue – the strength of institutions – was overlooked by both schools of thought. Comparative Economic Studies (2000) 42, 1–57; doi:10.1057/ces.2000.1
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): 42 (2000)
Issue (Month): 1 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/|
|Order Information:|| Postal: Palgrave Macmillan Journals, Subscription Department, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS, UK|
Web: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/pal/subscribe/index.html Email:
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:compes:v:42:y:2000:i:1:p:1-57. 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: (Daniel Foley)
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.