IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Development Patterns of Central and East European Countries (in the course of transition and following EU accession)

Listed author(s):
  • Leon Podkaminer


    (The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw)

Abstract The patterns of Central and East European countries’ (CEECs) development in the course of transition and following EU accession have been determined by these countries’ generally uncritical adoption of policies consistent first with the commandments of the Washington Consensus and then with the requirements of EU membership (including the acquis communautaire). Despite more detailed (and largely less important or relevant) cross-country differences (institutional, structural etc.) studied in the panel-econometrics models of transition, the main macroeconomic tendencies characterising transition (and the later stages) can be naturally interpreted in terms of the impacts of demand-side factors. Wage developments turn out to be essential. The policies followed all along constitute the ‘integrative growth model’. External liberalisation, which is the most essential pillar of that model, exposed the CEECs to recurring problems over external imbalances, bubbles driven by capital inflows and resulting growth instabilities. The CEECs suffer from persistent (Keynesian) unemployment but are reluctant to conduct active fiscal policies. The hopes invested in the integrative model of CEEC growth seem to have been disap-pointed. After some acceleration (but from very low levels, which were additionally de-pressed following the policy-induced deep transitional recessions) CEEC growth collapsed in 2009 and slowed down to unimpressive levels thereafter. Under growing integration into the European Union, CEEC growth rates seem to converge to the low rates prevailing in the ‘old’ EU. But such a convergence in the growth rates does not promise a catch-up in income-level terms. Worse still, CEECs do not prove resilient to the crises shaking the ‘old’ EU (and the euro area in particular). Last, but not least, it cannot be overlooked that whatever progress made in the CEECs, it was achieved at a high cost. In most cases high unemployment has become endemic there while high and growing internal income (and social) polarisation – the opposite of cohesion – feeds political radicalism, likely to explode sooner or later. Unfortunately, transition came much too late. Had the transition happened in the 1960s, or even in the 1970s, the CEECs would have been in a much better economic position vis-à-vis the developed Western countries. More importantly, the ‘economic model’ then prevailing in the West would not, if taken over by the CEECs, prescribe a wholesale external and internal liberalisation – and, as such, would not force them into a race-to-the bottom in fiscal and wage policies. This ‘old West European model’ would, most probably, be more conducive than the integrative one to the CEECs’ faster, more balanced, and more sustainable economic growth. The ultimate goal of convergence with the rich Western partners would, most probably, be better served under a system with built-in limitations to free trade, free capital movements – and more scope for traditional industrial and trade policies. The CEECs are in a serious impasse now. But so are other EU Member States. Arguably, the economic policy-making in the EU (and in the Member States) needs to improve. There is no shortage of proposals in this respect. The official line (epitomised by the consecutive versions of Fiscal Packs, or Pacts) boils down to the insistence on stricter, and more disciplined, adherence to the original spirit of the Maastricht Treaty. The recipe is more of the same. However, there are good reasons to believe that following that official (‘austerity’) line will do nothing to ease the vitally important problems plaguing the entire EU – and thus also the CEECs. A more radical overhaul of the basic paradigms of EU economic policy-making may be needed. Whether, and under what circumstances, such an overhaul can happen is yet another question.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw in its series wiiw Research Reports with number 388.

in new window

Length: 47 pages including 19 Tables
Date of creation: Jul 2013
Publication status: Published as wiiw Research Report
Handle: RePEc:wii:rpaper:rr:388
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Rahlgasse 3, A-1060 Vienna

Phone: (+43-1) 533 66 10
Fax: (+43-1) 533 66 10-50
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web:

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.:

in new window

  1. Falcetti, Elisabetta & Raiser, Martin & Sanfey, Peter, 2002. "Defying the Odds: Initial Conditions, Reforms, and Growth in the First Decade of Transition," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 229-250, June.
  2. Kolodko, Grzegorz W., 2000. "From Shock to Therapy: The Political Economy of Postsocialist Transformation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198297437.
  3. Rainer Schweickert & Inna Melnykovska & Ansgar Belke & Ingo Bordon, 2011. "Prospective NATO or EU membership and institutional change in transition countries," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 19(4), pages 667-692, October.
  4. Kazimierz Laski & Roman Römisch, 2003. "From Accession to Cohesion: Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain and Lessons for the Next Accession," wiiw Research Reports 298, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
  5. Bhagwati, Jagdish N, 1982. "Directly Unproductive, Profit-seeking (DUP) Activities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(5), pages 988-1002, October.
  6. 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.
  7. Gérard Roland & Thierry Verdier, 1999. "Transition and the output fall," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, March.
  8. Leon Podkaminer, 1995. "Household Behavior under "Austerity" Stabilization of Hyperinflation: The Roots of Fragility," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 17(4), pages 593-605, July.
  9. Ratna Sahay & Jeronimo Zettelmeyer & Eduardo Borensztein & Andrew Berg, 1999. "The Evolution of Output in Transition Economies; Explaining the Differences," IMF Working Papers 99/73, International Monetary Fund.
  10. Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson & James Robinson, 2004. "Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth," NBER Working Papers 10481, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. Robert J. Barro, 1991. "Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 407-443.
  12. International Monetary Fund, 1998. "Recovery and Growth in Transition Economies 1990–97; A Stylized Regression Analysis," IMF Working Papers 98/141, International Monetary Fund.
  13. Leon Podkaminer, 1998. "Inflationary Effects of High Nominal Interest Rates," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 20(4), pages 583-596, July.
  14. Angela Cheptea, 2007. "Trade liberalization and institutional reforms," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 15(2), pages 211-255, April.
  15. Kazimierz Laski & Leon Podkaminer, 2012. "The basic paradigms of EU economic policy-making need to be changed," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 253-270.
  16. 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.
  17. John Bennett & Saul Estrin & Giovanni Urga, 2007. "Methods of privatization and economic growth in transition economies," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 15, pages 661-683, October.
  18. Leon Podkaminer, 2010. "Real Convergence And Price Levels: Long-Term Tendencies Versus Short-Term Performance In The Enlarged European Union," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 640-664, November.
  19. Robert E. Hall & Charles I. Jones, 1999. "Why do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker than Others?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(1), pages 83-116.
  20. Falcetti, Elisabetta & Lysenko, Tatiana & Sanfey, Peter, 2006. "Reforms and growth in transition: Re-examining the evidence," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 421-445, September.
  21. Roxana Radulescu & David Barlow, 2002. "The relationship between policies and growth in transition countries," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 10(3), pages 719-745, November.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wii:rpaper:rr:388. 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: (Customer service)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.