Efter upplösningen av Sovjetunionens starka maktkontroll över sina satellitstater den 9:e november 1989, kunde de Centrala och Östeuropeiska länderna (förkortning CEEC på engelska) påbörja sin övergång till marknadsekonomi. Sättet att närma sig en fri marknad är indelat i två olika tillvägagångssätt – chockterapi och gradualism. Den förstnämda metoden genomförs med fokus på snabbhet och en samverkande engångsförvandling av de ekonomiska sektorerna medan den sistnämnda beaktar en grad- och stegvis omvandling. Omvandlingsprocessen i sig består av flera variabler, exempelvis privatisering av statligt ägd egendom, makroekonomisk stabilitet samt liberalisering av priser och handel. Beroende på vilken metod som valdes genomfördes de ovan nämnda variablerna vid olika tidpunkter och med varierande hastighetsgrad. Åsikterna bland ekonomer rörande vilken metod som uppnått bäst resultat är omdebatterad. Följaktligen är syftet med denna uppsats att undersöka vilken av omvandlingsmetoderna som har uppnått högst BNP per capita tillväxt i de valda CEEC under perioden 1992-2003. Tio CEEC valdes ut för att få en rättvis delning mellan de två tillvägagångssätten, med tillhörande fem länder i varje grupp. Därtill valdes fem referensländer ut, för att i en grafisk analys kunna relatera utvecklingen i omvandlingsländer till redan etablerade marknadsekonomier. De erhållna resultaten visar att val av tillvägagångssätt inom omvandlingsprocessen inte har någon signifikant inverkan på BNP per capita utvecklingen. Ländernas grundförutsättningar samt i vilken ordning variablerna implementerades visar sig troligen ha större inverkan på BNP per capita tillväxten. Dessutom visar de empiriska resultaten klara indikationer på att det finns en skillnad mellan CEEC och referensländerna. / After the resolution of the Soviet Unions strict control over its satellite with beginning on the 9th of November 1989, the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) began their transition towards a market economy. How to approach the economic system of a free market has been divided into two major policies – shock therapy and gradualism. The first policy is implemented with speed and one-shock change within the economic sectors as a focus while the second constitutes of slow and gradual implementations. The transformation process in itself consists of several variables, for e.g. privatization of state-owned properties, macroeconomic stabilization and liberalization of prices and trade. Depending on what policy chosen, the variables were implemented at different times and with different speed. The views among economists regarding which of the two models that achieve the best result when transforming differs widely. Hence, the purpose of this thesis is to investigate which of the two models that have had the best effect upon the GDP per capita growth in the chosen CEEC. Ten CEEC were picked to have a fair representation for each policy, with five countries representing each policy group and the years measured were 1992-2003. In addition, for a graphical analysis to be performed and to distinct CEEC from already established market economies, five reference countries were included. The results obtained indicate that the policy choice has no impact on average GDP per capita growth. Instead we concure with earlier research that claim that preconditions and sequential order of the market reforms have a larger impact on GDP per capita growth. Additionally, empirical results indicated that there is a significant difference in the GDP growth over the last decade between our CEEC and the reference countries.

<p>Efter upplösningen av Sovjetunionens starka maktkontroll över sina satellitstater den 9:e november 1989, kunde de Centrala och Östeuropeiska länderna (förkortning CEEC på engelska) påbörja sin övergång till marknadsekonomi. Sättet att närma sig en fri marknad är indelat i två olika tillvägagångssätt – chockterapi och gradualism. Den förstnämda metoden genomförs med fokus på snabbhet och en samverkande engångsförvandling av de ekonomiska sektorerna medan den sistnämnda beaktar en grad- och stegvis omvandling. Omvandlingsprocessen i sig består av flera variabler, exempelvis privatisering av statligt ägd egendom, makroekonomisk stabilitet samt liberalisering av priser och handel. Beroende på vilken metod som valdes genomfördes de ovan nämnda variablerna vid olika tidpunkter och med varierande hastighetsgrad. Åsikterna bland ekonomer rörande vilken metod som uppnått bäst resultat är omdebatterad. Följaktligen är syftet med denna uppsats att undersöka vilken av omvandlingsmetoderna som har uppnått högst BNP per capita tillväxt i de valda CEEC under perioden 1992-2003. Tio CEEC valdes ut för att få en rättvis delning mellan de två tillvägagångssätten, med tillhörande fem länder i varje grupp. Därtill valdes fem referensländer ut, för att i en grafisk analys kunna relatera utvecklingen i omvandlingsländer till redan etablerade marknadsekonomier. De erhållna resultaten visar att val av tillvägagångssätt inom omvandlingsprocessen inte har någon signifikant inverkan på BNP per capita utvecklingen. Ländernas grundförutsättningar samt i vilken ordning variablerna implementerades visar sig troligen ha större inverkan på BNP per capita tillväxten. Dessutom visar de empiriska resultaten klara indikationer på att det finns en skillnad mellan CEEC och referensländerna.</p> / <p>After the resolution of the Soviet Unions strict control over its satellite with beginning on the 9th of November 1989, the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) began their transition towards a market economy. How to approach the economic system of a free market has been divided into two major policies – shock therapy and gradualism. The first policy is implemented with speed and one-shock change within the economic sectors as a focus while the second constitutes of slow and gradual implementations. The transformation process in itself consists of several variables, for e.g. privatization of state-owned properties, macroeconomic stabilization and liberalization of prices and trade. Depending on what policy chosen, the variables were implemented at different times and with different speed. The views among economists regarding which of the two models that achieve the best result when transforming differs widely. Hence, the purpose of this thesis is to investigate which of the two models that have had the best effect upon the GDP per capita growth in the chosen CEEC. Ten CEEC were picked to have a fair representation for each policy, with five countries representing each policy group and the years measured were 1992-2003. In addition, for a graphical analysis to be performed and to distinct CEEC from already established market economies, five reference countries were included. The results obtained indicate that the policy choice has no impact on average GDP per capita growth. Instead we concure with earlier research that claim that preconditions and sequential order of the market reforms have a larger impact on GDP per capita growth. Additionally, empirical results indicated that there is a significant difference in the GDP growth over the last decade between our CEEC and the reference countries.</p>

China’s rise and Russia’s fall shape today’s global political economy. This new great divergence originates from the different policies pursued in the transition from a command economy. Russia applied a ‘big-bang’ doctrine with rapid price liberalisation at its core. In contrast, a policy of experimentalist gradualism manifested in the dual track price system (DTPS) laid the foundations for China’s economic success. But the Chinese reform approach was highly contested in the 1980s and China came close to implementing a big bang. My dissertation sheds light on this critical crossroads by asking on what intellectual grounds China escaped a big bang in price reform; or to turn the question positively, on what intellectual grounds the DTPS was defended against the plans to implement a big bang. To derive an answer, the first part presents the broad historical and theoretical context of the 1980s Chinese price reform debate. In particular, I analyse the ancient Chinese tradition of price regulation, the US price control experience and controversies during and after the Second World War, and the Chinese Communists’ price policies in the Maoist period. Against this background, the second part conducts an in-depth study of the 1980s price reform debate drawing on more than 50 interviews with Chinese and foreign economists, previously unexplored archival evidence and a wealth of Chinese sources. I show that the DTPS emerged from bureaucratic practices and was justified by large-scale empirical research efforts conducted by young intellectuals, who had gained influence through their contribution to rural reform. In contrast, I find that the big bang reform approach was introduced to China by Eastern European émigré scholars and Western economists, and was promoted by a group of Chinese academic economists. I demonstrate how the DTPS was grounded in a pragmatic philosophy of economic policy-making deeply rooted in China’s bureaucratic tradition, which prevailed over the idealist stance underlying the panacea of a big bang.

本論文主要在探討俄羅斯聯邦於一九九一年至一九九七年間，所推行的各項經濟改革政策及其經濟實況。本論文嘗試著以政治經濟學的角度來剖析俄羅斯經濟改革與政治發展間的互動，以宏觀的手法探討俄羅斯經濟改革政策，並分析影響俄羅斯經濟日後發展的因素，從而預測俄羅斯日後政治經濟發展的趨向。 本論文共分為伍章: 第壹章為緒論，敘述本論文之研究動機、研究途徑、研究架構、研究範圍與研究限制：第貳章探討俄羅斯經濟改革的背景與特徵。本章主要先論述蘇聯傳統社會主義計劃經濟的形成以及其特徵，並依時間順序介紹蘇聯時期歷次的社會主義經濟改革的大要。先了解整個社會主義計劃經濟的特徵與弊端，然後再探討俄羅斯經濟改革的背景與必要性，以及俄羅斯經濟改革的特徵；第參章剖析俄羅斯經濟改革的主要內容，首先探討俄羅斯經濟改革理論的演進，描述俄羅斯經濟改革策略由蓋逢時期的激進、快速的「休克療法」演變成契爾諾米爾丁時期的緩進、折衷的經濟改革策略的演變過程。然後詳細地論述俄羅斯經濟體制各領域的改革內容，包括：所有制變革、價格自由化、金融體制改革、社會保護制度改革、財稅體制改革、貿易體制改革、住屋制度變革、以及農業與上地私有化方面的改革措施，木章最後再論述契爾諾米爾丁於一九九六年底所提出修正的經濟改革措施，以瞭解今後俄羅斯經濟改革的方向；第肆章論述俄羅斯經濟改革實行結果與影響，提出其經濟改革之結果與影響、以及在俄羅斯經濟改革過程中不斷出現的兩難困境，與俄羅斯日後推行市場經濟的阻力；第伍章為本論文之結論，本章主要是論述俄羅斯經濟改革的前景，並在此章節中提出筆者個人的研究發現與建議未來俄羅斯經濟改革的改善途徑。 在研究過程中筆者發現，俄羅斯的經濟改革往往與俄羅斯政治的權力鬥爭相互影響。經濟改革並非是單純的經濟改革，往往是政治因素左右了俄羅斯的經濟政策走向；而政治勢力的消長，亦因為經濟表現的優劣而隨之消長。尚有相當多的因素影響到俄羅斯的總體經濟表現，諸如：社會治安因素、外援、通貨膨脹等等。因此，政治的考量打亂了經濟改革的原有計劃除此之外．加上上述各方面的影響之下，俄羅斯的經濟成長根本無法如預期般地好轉，即使時至今日也難以紓緩。 / The main role of this thesis is the Economic Reform of Russian Federation, from 1991 to 1997. This thesis applies the Kremlin politics approach and the historical approach to analyze the Russian economic reform program, and discusses the impact of domestic and international political factors on reform from a political economy perspective. There are five chapters in this thesis. Chapter One is introduction ,which include the problems, purpose, scope and the approaches of this thesis. Chapter Two is the motives of Russia economic reform. Chapter Three is the contents of Russia economic reform from 1991 to 1997.Chapter Four is the results and impacts of Russia economic reform. Chapter Five is conclusion of this thesis. After discuss this thesis, the author find that reform has resulted in a large slide in living standards, a big jump in inflation, and critical deviation in the distribution of the wealth between rich and poor. The basic reason is that the Russian government has not been able to take positive control of economic activity, as the process of privatization and the redistribution of national wealth has created mistakes. National enterprises have fallen under the hands of bureaucratic and managerial apparatus from the beginning of the privatization. Economic reform has also involved some problems, including a huge debts, capital outflow, increasing crime, growing unemployment, and heavy export dependence on raw materials and energy. Although the policy of economic reform has been revised several times, it still has not deviated from its basic design. Official economic developmental strategy thus seems to have a gap with the factual situation, with the role of the government not yet strengthened. In the next ten years, it will therefore be difficult for the Russian economy to quickly develop, though it possesses tremendous potential and resources. After reviewing the political and economic developments of Russia from 1991 to 1997, it is determined that political factors and President Yeltsin himself are the major culprit that forestalled the realization of reform goals.ln short, political considerations disrupted the original reform plan. As a result, Russia from 1991 to 1997suffered from galloping prices and declining production that have not significantly abated to this date.