Wy are the transition paths in China and Eastern Europe different?

Elise Brezis () and Adi Schnytzer

The Economics of Transition, 2003, vol. 11, issue 1, 3-23

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. JEL classification: P2, P3.

Date: 2003
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0351.00137

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:etrans:v:11:y:2003:i:1:p:3-23

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0967-0750

Access Statistics for this article

The Economics of Transition is currently edited by Philippe Aghion and Wendy Carlin

More articles in The Economics of Transition from The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().