Reform Reversals: Areas, Circumstances and Motivations

The rapid journey from central planning to euro area (EU) membership stress-tested the social learning processes of the former transition economies (FTEs). The desire for a higher standard of living, to be anchored to the West and to enter the EU spurred major reform waves and led to the very rapid introduction of institutions that had evolved as best-practice in highly developed countries. Although social learning accompanied this process, in many FTEs it was not fast enough to keep pace with the rapid reforms, leaving new institutions with social norms that were not sufficiently strong to maintain them. As a result, widespread reform reversals emerged in the region. Such reform reversals appeared as formal reversals, which changed legislation, and behavioral reversals, which eroded the quality of an institution by materially changing the way it worked. It was frequently the interaction of reversals in different sectors that created a full-blown reform reversal episode, with the financial sector particularly prone to behavioral reversals, both in public and private institutions. External anchors such as the Washington institutions played a dominant role in shaping the transition process. The EU and EU accession acted as a strong anchor that could prevent or reverse formal reform reversals in areas covered by EU law, but could play a much weaker role in the case of behavioral reversals. The ultimate solution to prevent reform reversals is to accelerate social learning processes that strengthen the national ownership of reforms. It is also important to focus on the quality and internal coherence of reforms and newly created institutions.