Transition, The First Ten Years : Analysis and Lessons for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union
This study looks at lessons to be drawn from the ten-year experience of the transition countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in the period 1991 to 2000. The World's Bank "world Development Report 1996: From Plan to Marke...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Language: | English en_US |
Published: |
Washington, DC
2013
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2002/01/1675547/transition-first-ten-years-analysis-lessons-eastern-europe-former-soviet-union http://hdl.handle.net/10986/14042 |
Summary: | This study looks at lessons to be drawn
from the ten-year experience of the transition countries in
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in the period
1991 to 2000. The World's Bank "world Development
Report 1996: From Plan to Market" focused on the
transition process during the first half of this period. It
recognized that while initial conditions are critical,
decisive and sustained reforms are important for recovery of
growth and should be accompanied by social policies designed
to protect the most vulnerable groups until growth takes
hold. Many of the prescriptions of the 1996 World
Development Report continue to be valid today. The present
study confirms that while initial conditions were critical
for explaining the output decline at the start of
transition, the intensity of reform policies explains the
variability in the recovery of output thereafter. Beyond
this, important new lessons highlight some key tradeoffs
facing countries in transition that can be translated into
priorities for policy. First, this study highlights the key
role of the entry and growth of new firms in generating
economic growth and in creating employment. A second lesson
concerns the need to develop or strengthen legal and
regulatory institutions to oversee the management and
governance of both private and state enterprises. A third
lesson involves recognizing that winners from the early
stages of reform may oppose subsequent reforms when these
reduce their initially substantial benefits. |
---|