IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sec/cnstan/0280.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Post-Adaptation Growth Recovery in Poland and Russia - Similarities and Differences

Author

Listed:
  • Marek Dabrowski
  • Oleksandr Rohozynsky
  • Irina Sinitsina

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the sources, economic and social characteristics, of growth recovery, which followed the first period of output decline in two transition countries – Poland and Russia. They represent two different groups of transition countries (new EU member states vs. CIS) in terms of adopted transition strategy and accomplished results. Generally, fast reformers succeeded and slow reformers experienced a lot of troubles. Although eventually all former communist countries entered the path of economic growth, those which moved slowly lost sometimes the whole decade. Social costs of slow reforms were also dramatic: income degradation and rising inequalities, high level of poverty and corruption, various social and institutional distortions and pathologies, violation of human rights and civil and economic liberties, attempts of authoritarian restoration, etc. The period of ‘adaptation’ output decline was much more severe and longer in Russia than in Poland, and recovery came later. Unlike in the leading transition countries, the role of new private firms and FDI in Russia has been very limited what can be explained by administrative barriers, widespread corruption, lack of transparency, instability and contradictions in economic legislation, reflecting poor business climate. In the absence of FDI and with limited role of SME Russian economy is dominated by large domestic corporations, many of them having an ‘oligarchic’ characteristic. This additionally complicates the political economy of market reforms and weakens constituency of favor of open democratic society and liberal economic policies. The high oil prices helped in economic recovery and fiscal adjustment in Russia in early 2000s. However, Russian economy has become increasingly oil-dependent. While major obstacles to future Russia’s growth can origin from its structural monoculture dominated by the oil and energy sector, and poor business climate, the excessive welfare state can be considered as the main development burden in the case of Poland. In both analyzed countries poverty and inequality increased substantially during 1990s, to much bigger extent in Russia compared to Poland. While part of the income polarization was inevitably connected with departure from communist egalitarianism and part of poverty phenomenon reflected transition adaptation costs, other factors such as continuous structural distortions, incomplete liberalization, high inflation, insufficient competition, barriers to entrepreneurship, institutional weaknesses of the state captured by oligarchs, corruption, etc.,played a significant role here.

Suggested Citation

  • Marek Dabrowski & Oleksandr Rohozynsky & Irina Sinitsina, 2004. "Post-Adaptation Growth Recovery in Poland and Russia - Similarities and Differences," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 0280, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:sec:cnstan:0280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://case-research.eu/upload/publikacja_plik/3047677_sa280f.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marek Dabrowski & Radzislawa Gortat, 2002. "Political Determinants of Economic Reforms in Former Communist Countries," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 0242, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    2. Lucjan T. Orlowski (ed.), 2001. "Transition and Growth in Post-Communist Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2259.
    3. Alfio Cerami, 2003. "The Impact of Social Transfers in Central and Eastern Europe," LIS Working papers 356, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    4. Miriam Beblo & Stanislawa Golinowska & Charlotte Lauer & Katarzyna Pietka & Agnieszka Sowa, 2002. "Poverty Dynamics in Poland. Selected Quantitative Analyses," CASE Network Reports 0054, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    5. Gros, Daniel & Suhrcke, Marc, 2000. "Ten years after: What is special about transition countries?," HWWA Discussion Papers 86, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWA).
    6. Vladimir Mau & Konstantin Yanovskiy, 2002. "Political and Legal Factors of Economic Growth in Russian Regions," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 321-339.
    7. Nauro F. Campos & Abrizio Coricelli, 2002. "Growth in Transition: What We Know, What We Don't, and What We Should," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 793-836, September.
    8. Marek Dabrowski & Stanislaw Gomulka & Jacek Rostowski, 2001. "Whence reform? A critique of the stiglitz perspective," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(4), pages 291-324.
    9. Michael F rster & Timothy Smeeding & David Jesuit, 2002. "Regional Poverty and Income Inequality in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study," LIS Working papers 324, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    10. Simon Commander & Andrei Tolstopiatenko & Ruslan Yemtsov, 1999. "Channels of redistribution: Inequality and poverty in the Russian transition," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 7(2), pages 411-447, July.
    11. Anders Åslund & Peter Boone & Simon Johnson, 1996. "How to Stabilize: Lessons from Post-communist Countries," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 27(1), pages 217-314.
    12. Dabrowski, Marek, 1996. "Different strategies of transition to a market economy : how do they work in practice?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1579, The World Bank.
    13. Mr. Stanley Fischer & Mr. Carlos A. Végh Gramont & Ms. Ratna Sahay, 1996. "Stabilization and Growth in Transition Economies: The Early Experience," IMF Working Papers 1996/031, International Monetary Fund.
    14. Simon Johnson & Daniel Kaufman & Andrei Shleifer, 1997. "The Unofficial Economy in Transition," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 28(2), pages 159-240.
    15. Branko Milanovic, 1999. "Explaining the increase in inequality during transition," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 7(2), pages 299-341, July.
    16. Jan Svejnar, 2002. "Labor Market Flexibility in Central and East Europe," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 496, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    17. Ruslan Yemtsov, 2003. "Quo Vadis? Inequality and Poverty Dynamics across Russian Regions," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-67, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    18. Olivier Jean Blanchard & Maxim Boycko & Marek Dabrowski & Rudiger Dornbusch & Richard Layard & Andrei Shleifer, 1993. "Post-Communist Reform: Pain and Progress," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262023628, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marek Dabrowski, 2006. "A Strategy for EMU Enlargement," Springer Books, in: Marek Dabrowski & Jacek Rostowski (ed.), The Eastern Enlargement of the Eurozone, chapter 0, pages 199-225, Springer.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marek Dabrowski & Artur Radziwill, 2007. "Regional vs. Global Public Goods: The Case of Post-Communist Transition," CASE Network Studies and Analyses 0336, CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
    2. Facchini, Giovanni & Segnana, Maria Luigia, 2003. "Growth at the EU periphery: the next enlargement," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 827-862.
    3. Thorsten Beck & Luc Laeven, 2006. "Institution building and growth in transition economies," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 157-186, June.
    4. El-hadj Bah & Josef C. Brada, 2014. "Labor Markets in the Transition Economies: An Overview," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 11(1), pages 3-53, June.
    5. Gouret, Fabian, 2007. "Privatization and output behavior during the transition: Methods matter!," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 3-34, March.
    6. Nauro F. Campos & Paul De Grauwe & Yuemei Ji, 2017. "Structural Reforms, Growth and Inequality: An Overview of Theory, Measurement and Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 6812, CESifo.
    7. Eicher, Theo S. & Schreiber, Till, 2010. "Structural policies and growth: Time series evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 169-179, January.
    8. Катышев П.К. & Полтерович В.М., 2006. "Политика Реформ, Начальные Условия И Трансформационный Спад," Журнал Экономика и математические методы (ЭММ), Центральный Экономико-Математический Институт (ЦЭМИ), vol. 42(4), октябрь.
    9. Vasilev, Aleksandar, 2015. "Growth and convergence in the Central and East European countries towards EU (1992-2002)," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 63-89.
    10. Mitra, Pradeep & Yemtsov, Ruslan, 2006. "Increasing inequality in transition economies : is there more to come?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4007, The World Bank.
    11. Dalibor Roháč, 2013. "What Are the Lessons from Post-Communist Transitions?," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 65-77, February.
    12. Bruno Merlevede, 2003. "Reform reversals and output growth in transition economies," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 11(4), pages 649-669, December.
    13. Tommaso Nannicini & Andreas Billmeier, 2011. "Economies in Transition: How Important Is Trade Openness for Growth?," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 73(3), pages 287-314, June.
    14. Theo Eicher & Till Schreiber, 2010. "Institutions and Growth: Time Series Evidence from Natural Experiments," Working Papers UWEC-2007-15-P, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    15. Campos, Nauro F. & Horváth, Roman, 2006. "Reform Redux: Measurement, Determinants and Reversals," IZA Discussion Papers 2093, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Paul Wachtel, 2019. "Reflections on Transition After 30 Years: Transition vs. Convergence," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 17(03), pages 03-08, October.
    17. Nauro F. Campos & Abrizio Coricelli, 2002. "Growth in Transition: What We Know, What We Don't, and What We Should," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 793-836, September.
    18. Ruslan Yemtsov, 2003. "Quo Vadis? Inequality and Poverty Dynamics across Russian Regions," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-67, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    19. Marek Dabrowski and Radzislawa Gortat, 2002. "Political and Economic Institutions, Growth and Poverty – Experience of Transition Countries," Human Development Occasional Papers (1992-2007) HDOCPA-2002-02, Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
    20. Lawrence P. King, 2003. "Explaining Postcommunist Economic Performance," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2003-559, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sec:cnstan:0280. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Anna Budzynska (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caseepl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.