Globalization and Inequality in CIS Countries: Role of Institutions
The process of opening and integration into the world economy in the CIS countries has been part of a more complex process of transition from the planned to market economy. Over the last 10 years most of these countries have liberalized their trade regimes versus non-CIS countries, introduced their own currency, and to some extent liberalized flows of direct and portfolio investment. These and other reforms were accompanied by a pronounced output decline, an increase in poverty rates and inequality indexes. Of course, most of these changes in output and income inequality are attributable to the transition process. However, it is still interesting to know whether globalization and trade opening have enhanced or, on the contrary, decreased the negative effect of transition on incomes in transition countries. Comparison of outcomes in various countries suggests that trade policy per se was less important than the ability of governments to enforce it. Countries, where reforms were implemented slowly, but the government institutions did not collapse, experienced smaller overall output decline, and smaller increase in inequality. Countries with weak governments often performed as “passive globalizers”: the trade-to-GDP ratios in them were quite high, partly accounting for capital flight. In contrast to active globalizers, output in these countries declined, while poverty and inequality increased. However, the worst results were seen in countries cut off from international trade, because of being landlocked or at war or in bad economic relations with the neighboring countries.
|Date of creation:||Dec 2002|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 117418 Russia, Moscow, Nakhimovsky pr., 47, office 720|
Phone: +7 (495) 105 50 02
Fax: +7 (495) 105 50 03
Web page: http://www.cefir.ru
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Daniel Berkowitz & David DeJong, 1998.
"Russia's Internal Border,"
William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series
189, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
- Rodrik, Dani & Subramanian, Arvind & Trebbi, Francesco, 2002.
"Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions Over Geography and Integration in Economic Development,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
3643, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Dani Rodrik & Arvind Subramanian & Francesco Trebbi, 2004. "Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions Over Geography and Integration in Economic Development," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 131-165, 06.
- Dani Rodrik & Arvind Subramanian & Francesco Trebbi, 2002. "Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions over Geography and Integration in Economic Development," CID Working Papers 97, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
- Dani Rodrik & Arvind Subramanian & Francesco Trebbi, 2002. "Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions over Geography and Integration in Economic Development," NBER Working Papers 9305, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Polyakov, Evgeny, 2001. "Changing trade patterns after conflict resolution in the South Caucasus," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2593, The World Bank.
- Luttmer,Erzo F.P., 2001. "Measuring poverty dynamics and inequality in transition economies - disentangling real events from noisy data," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2549, The World Bank.
- James E. Anderson & Douglas Marcouiller, S.J., 1999.
"Insecurity and the Pattern of Trade: An Empirical Investigation,"
Boston College Working Papers in Economics
418, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 03 Aug 2000.
- James E. Anderson & Douglas Marcouiller, 2002. "Insecurity And The Pattern Of Trade: An Empirical Investigation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(2), pages 342-352, May.
- Atkinson,Anthony Barnes & Micklewright,John, 1992.
"Economic Transformation in Eastern Europe and the Distribution of Income,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521433297, December.
- Atkinson,Anthony Barnes & Micklewright,John, 1992. "Economic Transformation in Eastern Europe and the Distribution of Income," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438827, December.
- Daniel Berkowitz & David N. DeJong, 1998.
"Accounting for Growth in Post-Soviet Russia,"
William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series
127, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
- Vladimir Popov, 2000. "Shock Therapy Versus Gradualism: The End Of The Debate (Explaining The Magnitude Of Transformational Recession)," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 42(1), pages 1-57, April.
- Earle, John S. & Peter, Klara Sabirianova, 2000. "Equilibrium Wage Arrears: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Institutional Lock-In," IZA Discussion Papers 196, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Sonin, Konstantin, 1999. "Inequality, Property Rights Protection, and Economic Growth in Transition Economies: Theory and Russian Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 2300, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Dollar, David & Kraay, Aart, 2001.
"Trade, growth, and poverty,"
Policy Research Working Paper Series
2615, The World Bank.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cfr:cefirw:w0025. 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: (Julia Babich)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.