Economics, Institutions, History and Geography in the Transition Process
This paper provides a comparative analysis of macroeconomic trends in the transition economies over the 1992-2003 period. It also describes some differences between the transition economies and emerging markets more generally. Good governance and appropriate institutions are found to be essential ingredients for success. However, history and geography seem to have predetermined the economic successes and failures. Being close to the EU provided the advantage of future accession while having been part of the Soviet Union proved to be a severe handicap.
|Date of creation:||Dec 2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in UNECE Discussion Paper Series, No. 2005_8|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Palais des Nations, CH - 1211 Geneva 10|
Phone: +4122 917 44 44
Fax: +4122 917 05 05
Web page: http://www.unece.org/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Jeffrey D. Sachs & Andrew M. Warner, 1995.
"Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth,"
NBER Working Papers
5398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Xavier X. Sala-i-Martin, 1997.
"I Just Ran Four Million Regressions,"
NBER Working Papers
6252, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Lucas, Robert E, Jr, 1990. "Why Doesn't Capital Flow from Rich to Poor Countries?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 92-96, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ece:dispap:2005_8. 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: (Robert Shelburne)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.