Globalization and postsocialist transformation

Résumé du document

Globalization is a historical process of liberalization of simultaneously going integrations, separately performing market for goods, capital and labour, as well as technologies and know hows, into one integrated world market. Globalization is often linked to the capitalistic thought and this worldwide process even reached the former socialist economies during the transition. That is why we will give a feedback of the globalization and post-socialist transformation. From 1989-1991, when the communist regimes disappeared, began the big post-socialist transformation, corresponding to a particular context of evolution of the economic thought. In the West dominated the neoliberal and the anti-interventionist currents who managed gradually to supplant, since the beginning of 1980s, the synthesis between the neo-classic traditions and the Keynesian current which had dominated since the post-war years.

Extraits

[...] New questions and trouble have appeared with the emerging markets. However, there are a lot of signs which show an imperative need of a fresh consensus. Here are the main things we can conclude about the policy: The transition in the post-communist countries is led in a period of globalization. So, it is necessary to manage with the world economy, so opening and incorporating this “global economy” is obligatory. For this process the liberalization of capital (in short term) should be controlled by the financial institutions of the countries linked with the international ones like the IMF fro example. [...]

[...] To create this kind a markets, industry should be largely and radically reorganized (privatization and western way to manage).This requires, of course, the end of the “nomenklatura” management system as it's quite done now and we can see some government always fighting against it like in Poland (and it is very controversial in some other European countries). The policy conclusions During transition, post-socialist countries have undergone policies based on the “Washington consensus”. The “Washington consensus” has had an essential significance for the instructions of systemic transformations. Recommended and executed reforms did not bring the results that were supposed to become, so some other solutions had to be found, new policies means. [...]

[...] The doctrine incorporated number of diverse influences: the monetarist conception according to which the inflation is the biggest possible troubles, and the unemployment is a variable of adaptation which fluctuates around a "natural rate" (depending on structural conditions of the economy); the " rational anticipations " of the economic agents which thwart the interventionist vague desires of the State, defended by the new classic macroeconomics; the idea that the demand is secondary (except when it is superfluous) according to the approach of the supply-side economics; the Keynesian trust in the auto-organization of the spontaneous order of the market once the minimal State is established. More particularly, the Washington consensus introduced the main element of this doctrine, that is to say the “holy trinity”: stabilisation, liberalization and privation were presented as the major goals of this unique historical experience. The priority was the fight against the inflation, and the rapidity was considered as a main condition of the privatisation. The “Shock Therapy” which was applied in Poland suggested a model for the implementation of the market economy in a very brief historical period. [...]

[...] The most problematic thing was the “transformational recession” or the “huge post-socialist depression”, which touched all the countries in transition. The “answer of the supply” was everywhere negative and not positive as it was expected, in the first years consecutive to the stabilization and to the liberalization. A big surprise was the industrial collapse of former East Germany, although it exceptionally benefited from a complete institutional transfer and from a considerable and prolonged budgetary financing on behalf of ex-West Germany. The difficulties and the delays of the process of privatization appeared as another worrisome tendency. [...]

[...] During this time China and Vietnam pursued their road of gradual and cumulative reforms (contrary to the standard economic prescriptions) under communist dominion, and knew a high growth, the outside opening and the increase of the average standard of living in spite of the strong growth of the disparities. Certain unexpected political developments also occurred during 1990s, as the electoral return of the former communist parties transformed into social democrat parties; a later surprise was that they did not knock down the strategy of transition in the capitalism nor the economic policies followed to there, but rather strengthened them. At the beginning of decade 2000, a moderate evaluation of the doctrine of the transition could be the following one. [...]