Synthetic 'Real Socialism': a Counterfactual Analysis of Political and Economic Liberalizations

• Autorzy: Ilaria Petrarca , Roberto Ricciuti
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We evaluate the effect of the 1989 shock over economic development in four Eastern European countries. We apply a counterfactual approach and define the shock alternatively as the trigger for economic openness, political competition, or both. The main result is an effect of economic freedom larger than the one of democratization. In Poland and Bulgaria we find a positive impact of economic freedom, whilst in Bulgaria there is also a smaller effect of democratization. In Albania, after an initial recession, economic freedom helps recovery. Finally Romania does not show any robust effect.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Economic freedom; Economic development; Socialism; Economic openness

PL

Wolność gospodarcza; Rozwój gospodarczy; Socjalizm; Otwartość gospodarcza

• Czasopismo: Economics and Business Review
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: 1 (15)
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 69--88

Twórcy

autor

Ilaria Petrarca

• University of Verona, Italy

autor

Roberto Ricciuti

• University of Verona, Italy

Bibliografia

• Abadie, A., Diamond, A., Hainmueller, J., 2010, Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California's Tobacco Control Program, Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. CV, no. 490: 493-505.
• Abadie, A., Diamond, A., Hainmueller, J., 2014, Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method, American Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.
• Abadie, A., Gardeazabal, J., 2003, The Economic Costs of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque Country, American Economic Review, vol. XCIII, no. 1: 113-132.
• Acemoglu, D., Naidu, S., Restrepo, P., Robinson, J.A., 2014, Democracy Does Cause Growth, NBER Working Paper, no. 19746.
• Barro, R.J., 1996, Democracy and Growth, Journal of Economic Growth, vol. I, no. 1: 1-27.
• Barro, R.J., Lee, J.W., 2013, A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World, 1950-2010, Journal of Development Economics, vol. CIV, no. 1: 184-198.
• Bevan, A.A., Estrin, S., 2004, The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment into European Transition Economies, Journal of Comparative Economics, vol. XXXII, no. 4: 775-787.
• Billmeier, A., Nannicini, T., 2013, Assessing Economic Liberalization Episodes: A Synthetic Control Approach, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. XCV, no. 3: 983-1001.
• Brenton, P., Gros, D., Vanadille, G., 1997, Output Decline and Recovery in the Transition Economies: Causes and Social Consequences, Economics of Transition, vol. V, no. 1: 113-130.
• Claessens, S., Djankov, S., 2002, Privatization Benefits in Eastern Europe, Journal of Public Economics, vol. LXXXIII, no. 3: 307-324.
• Dewatripont, M., Roland, G., 1993, The Virtues of Gradualism and Legitimacy in the Transition to a Market Economy, Economic Journal, vol. CII, no. 411: 291-300.
• Dewatripont, M., Roland, G., 1995, The Design of Reform Packages Under Uncertainty, The American Economic Review, vol. LXXXV, no. 5: 1207-1223.
• Dimitrova-Grajzl, V., 2007, The Great Divide Revisited: Ottoman and Habsburg Legacies on Transition, Kyklos, vol. LX, no. 4: 539-558.
• Dunning, T., 2012, Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Giavazzi, F., Tabellini, G., 2005, Economic and Political Liberalizations, Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. LII, no. 7: 1297-1330.
• Grosjean, P., Senik, C., 2011, Democracy, Market Liberalization and Political Preferences, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. XCIII, no. 1: 365-381.
• Heybey, B., Murrell, P., 1999, The Relationship Between Economic Growth and the Speed of Liberalization During Transition, The Journal of Policy Reform, vol. III, no. 2: 121-137.
• Heston, A., Summers, R., Aten, B., 2012, Penn World Table Version 7.1, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania.
• Karaja, E., 2013, The Rule of Karlowitz. Fiscal Change and Institutional Persistence, mimeo.
• Marangos, J., 2004, Was Shock Therapy Consistent with Democracy?, Review of Social Economy, vol. LXII, no. 2: 221-243.
• Marshall, M.G., Jaggers, K., Gurr IV, T.R., 2012, Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010, Center for Systemic Peace, Vienna.
• Miller, T., Kim, A.B., Holmes, K.R., 2014, 2014 Economic Freedom in the World, The Heritage Foundation, Washington D.C.
• Myant, M., Drahokoupil, J., 2011, Transition Economies: Political Economy in Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken.
• Nannicini, T., Ricciuti, R., 2010, Autocratic Transitions and Growth, CESifo WP, no. 2967, CESifo, Munich.
• Papaioannou, E., Siourounis, G., 2008, Democratization and Growth, Economic Journal, vol. CXVIII, no. 532: 1520-1551.
• Persson, T., Tabellini, G., 2008, The Growth Effects of Democracy: Is It Heterogeneous and How Can It Be Estimated? in: Helpman, E. (ed.), Institutions and Economic Performance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
• Persson, T., Tabellini, G., 2009, Democratic Capital: the Nexus of Political and Economic Change, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. I, no. 2: 88-126.
• Przeworski, A., 1991, Democracy and the Market, Cambridge University Press, New York.
• Roland, G., 2000, Transition and Economics: Politics, Markets, Firms, MIT Press, Cambridge.
• Roland, G., 2004, Understanding Institutional Change: Fast-Moving and Slow-Moving Institutions, Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. XXXVIII, no. 4: 109-131.
• Stępień, B., Robinson, I., 2002, Nature and Scope of Change within Post-Socialist Polish Enterprises, The Poznań University of Economics Review, vol. 2, no. 2: 20-36.
• Tavares, J., Wacziarg, R., 2001, How Democracy Affects Growth, European Economic Review, vol. VL, no. 8: 1341-1378.
• World Bank, 2012, World Development Indicators 2012, World Bank , Washington.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.18559/ebr.2015.1.6