The stiglitz-ellerman rejoinder: Our main criticisms remain unanswered

The rejoinder by the US economists Joseph Stiglitz and David Ellerman (S and E) is welcome above all as a clear acknowledgement that our interpretation of what we called the "Stiglitz Perspective" (but what we apparently should now call the "Stiglitz-Ellerman Perspective") is correct. However, S and E make a determined attempt to belittle the differences between their and our perspectives. This they do by emphasising broad agreement between us on the drawbacks of voucher privatization while largely ignoring our main criticisms: that they overlook the critical role of new non-state, mainly private, firms in successful transitions'; that they underplay the pre-transition causes of the transformational recession in the former Soviet Union (FSU) and Central Europe (CE); and that they chose China rather than Central European and Baltic countries, for the purpose of assessing reforms and performance in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). S and E continue to argue as if the choice of methods for privatising state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has been crucial for the success or otherwise of transition - hence their singular preoccupation with privatisation to insiders. We wish to change the terms of this debate by drawing attention to the evidence which shows that what really matters are de novo firms and therefore the reforms and policies which foster their growth.