IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wdi/papers/2004-669.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dual Track Liberalization: With and Without Losers

Author

Listed:
  • Jiahua Che

    ()

  • Giovanni Facchini

    ()

Abstract

The success of the Chinese economic reforms has been linked by many observers to the implementation of a dual track liberalization mechanism. This approach, relying upon the continued enforcement of existing contracts and the simultaneous creation of a free market sector, represents a powerful mechanism in economic reform. If not anticipated, it implements an outcome that is both Pareto improving and e?ciency enhancing as compared to the status quo. When the reform is instead anticipated, intertemporal arbitrage arises, potentially undermining these properties. Only when the original policy involves both price setting and quantity restrictions can anticipated dual track liberalization maintain its attractiveness. While these conditions correspond well to the circumstances faced by transition economies, our analysis invites some caution as for the further applicability of the Chinese approach to economic reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiahua Che & Giovanni Facchini, 2004. "Dual Track Liberalization: With and Without Losers," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 2004-669, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  • Handle: RePEc:wdi:papers:2004-669
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/40055/3/wp669.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dewatripont, Mathias & Roland, Gerard, 1995. "The Design of Reform Packages under Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1207-1223, December.
    2. Lau, Lawrence J. & Qian, Yingyi & Roland, Gerard, 1997. "Pareto-improving economic reforms through dual-track liberalization," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 285-292, August.
    3. Dewatripont, M & Roland, G, 1992. "The Virtues of Gradualism and Legitimacy in the Transition to a Market Economy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(411), pages 291-300, March.
    4. Peter J. Hammond, 1979. "Straightforward Individual Incentive Compatibility in Large Economies," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 263-282.
    5. Alesina, Alberto & Drazen, Allan, 1991. "Why Are Stabilizations Delayed?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1170-1188, December.
    6. Kevin M. Murphy & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1992. "The Transition to a Market Economy: Pitfalls of Partial Reform," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(3), pages 889-906.
    7. M. Dewatripont & G. Roland, 1992. "Economic Reform and Dynamic Political Constraints," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 59(4), pages 703-730.
    8. Fernandez, Raquel & Rodrik, Dani, 1991. "Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1146-1155, 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. Che, Jiahua & Facchini, Giovanni, 2007. "Dual track reforms: With and without losers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, pages 2291-2306.
    2. John Bennett & Huw Dixon & Helen X.Y. Hu, 2008. "The Effects of Reforming the Chinese Dual-Track Price System," CEDI Discussion Paper Series 08-14, Centre for Economic Development and Institutions(CEDI), Brunel University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dual Track Liberalization; Intertemporal Arbitrage; Pareto Improving Reforms; China;

    JEL classification:

    • P2 - Economic Systems - - Socialist Systems and Transition Economies
    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wdi:papers:2004-669. 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: (WDI). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/wdumius.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.