this is all interesting but misses one clear fact. the reforms in the post-Soviet countries in the early 1990 needed money and funding. Poland was 'lucky' to get backing from the US and IMF. And nearby Germany was 'pouring' money into its eastern re-united part. This create a huge money bubble that absorbed millions of (central and north) eastern-European people and engaged them in productive and meaningful work.
This was not the case with Russia, which was strangled both financially and politically. It is Yeltsin who decided to break the neck of RF. He wanted to rid of million of communists who were running the economy of the country. He wanted them all to die. He was a ruthless and alcoholic maniac.
You wrote in one of u r posts that poland already getting loans from WB in 1980's! Isn't harvard a or elite university in any country should be on top of the situation?also what economists of russia ( bourgeoisie) are doing?
Also poland had support of US & other eu countries.Poland assets purchased by foreign companies( i read some where - is it relevant to poland having less millionaires)
Lucidly explains the issues separating macroeconomy’s Big Bang reforms versus privatisation.
While the communist states were chaotically selling off assets and privatising to raise funds due to inability to raise taxes Chinese government pursued reforms to speed up its growth rates and catch up with the technological advances in the western world. The issue they faced were about absorbing and apportioning economic losses due to obsolescence. As the Chinese state was powerful the gains from the improvement brought in by the reforms were acquired by the state and households received a smaller part. This is reflected in the low share of households consumption in their GDP.
India also has a large share of the economy owned by the state. The Public Sector Commercial banks are a very large part. India has been struggling for the last 2 decades to come up with an effective solution for privatising its inefficient public sector.
this is all interesting but misses one clear fact. the reforms in the post-Soviet countries in the early 1990 needed money and funding. Poland was 'lucky' to get backing from the US and IMF. And nearby Germany was 'pouring' money into its eastern re-united part. This create a huge money bubble that absorbed millions of (central and north) eastern-European people and engaged them in productive and meaningful work.
This was not the case with Russia, which was strangled both financially and politically. It is Yeltsin who decided to break the neck of RF. He wanted to rid of million of communists who were running the economy of the country. He wanted them all to die. He was a ruthless and alcoholic maniac.
Yes, Sachs makes the same point. Poland got money for pegging the Zloty and debt relief. Russia got neither.
Still a good post by Branko.
You wrote in one of u r posts that poland already getting loans from WB in 1980's! Isn't harvard a or elite university in any country should be on top of the situation?also what economists of russia ( bourgeoisie) are doing?
Why would russia be on edge of famine or civil war? Communist party was neutralised by yeltsin through military na..!
Wont some country or countries be supplying food temporarily ?
But the idea of privatisation is just opposite of ownership by government and gaidar or sacks should have ( advised) gone slow!
Also russia is a big one unlike poland.yeltsin ( his economic advisors) is a disaster like gorbhachev for russia.
has poland stabilisation completed by 1990?
Also poland had support of US & other eu countries.Poland assets purchased by foreign companies( i read some where - is it relevant to poland having less millionaires)
Lucidly explains the issues separating macroeconomy’s Big Bang reforms versus privatisation.
While the communist states were chaotically selling off assets and privatising to raise funds due to inability to raise taxes Chinese government pursued reforms to speed up its growth rates and catch up with the technological advances in the western world. The issue they faced were about absorbing and apportioning economic losses due to obsolescence. As the Chinese state was powerful the gains from the improvement brought in by the reforms were acquired by the state and households received a smaller part. This is reflected in the low share of households consumption in their GDP.
India also has a large share of the economy owned by the state. The Public Sector Commercial banks are a very large part. India has been struggling for the last 2 decades to come up with an effective solution for privatising its inefficient public sector.