Wy are the transition paths in China and Eastern Europe different

Elise S. Brezis, Adi Schnytzer
{"title":"Wy are the transition paths in China and Eastern Europe different","authors":"Elise S. Brezis, Adi Schnytzer","doi":"10.1111/1468-0351.00137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework linking communist regime collapse and privatizing economic reforms. The framework permits us to explain why certain communist regimes lost their monopoly of political power while others have not. We show that the essential difference between those communist regimes which survived economic reform and those which did not, lies in the nature of the privatization reform introduced by the communist leadership. The privatization that we call 'Market-Leninist', was implemented in China and Vietnam while the second type of privatization, termed 'Embezzlement for a rainy day' was the type of privatization implemented in Eastern Europe. We show, in the context of a game between rulers and the population, that the size of the repressive apparatus is the key element determining the type of privatization chosen by the rulers. Copyright (c)The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2003..","PeriodicalId":47148,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Transition","volume":"2020 1","pages":"3-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economics of Transition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0351.00137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework linking communist regime collapse and privatizing economic reforms. The framework permits us to explain why certain communist regimes lost their monopoly of political power while others have not. We show that the essential difference between those communist regimes which survived economic reform and those which did not, lies in the nature of the privatization reform introduced by the communist leadership. The privatization that we call 'Market-Leninist', was implemented in China and Vietnam while the second type of privatization, termed 'Embezzlement for a rainy day' was the type of privatization implemented in Eastern Europe. We show, in the context of a game between rulers and the population, that the size of the repressive apparatus is the key element determining the type of privatization chosen by the rulers. Copyright (c)The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2003..
中国和东欧的转型路径有何不同
本文的目的是提供一个连接共产主义政权崩溃和私有化经济改革的框架。这个框架使我们能够解释为什么某些共产主义政权失去了对政治权力的垄断,而另一些却没有。我们表明,那些在经济改革中幸存下来的共产主义政权与那些没有幸存下来的共产主义政权之间的本质区别在于共产党领导层引入的私有化改革的性质。我们称之为“市场列宁主义”的私有化是在中国和越南实施的,而第二种私有化被称为“未雨绸缪”,是在东欧实施的私有化。我们表明,在统治者和人民之间博弈的背景下,镇压机器的规模是决定统治者选择私有化类型的关键因素。版权所有(c)欧洲复兴开发银行,2003..
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Economics of Transition publishes high-quality, refereed articles on the economics of structural transformation, institutional development, and growth. It presents innovative theoretical work and econometric analyses of the process of economic reform and its macroeconomic effects. The journal aims to promote new thinking on how institutions and institutional change can be analyzed and measured and how their impact on aggregate economic performance can be evaluated.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信