Abstract:
Privatization is a dividing line between the administrative-command system
and the market economy. After the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the process of
post-communist transformation began in Central, Eastern European countries
and the former “Union Republics”, the content and main direction of which was
determined by the privatization of state property.
In the post-communist transition period, privatization was characterized by
both -general and specific signs. Based on the research, two groups of countries
were identified.
Some post-communist countries (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic) and
post-soviet country (Estonia) have successfully privatized and achieved high
positive results: increased the efficiency of privatized enterprises, improved
corporate governance, modernized technology, attracted foreign technology and
Know-How, has been created a highly competitive environment, fiscal discipline
has been raised, and so on.
In countries where privatization has been flawed, the desired results have
not been achieved. On the contrary, privatization has become a serious source of
severe economic crisis and deepening social tensions.
Due to the phenomenon of privatization, one of the “mysterys “ of the postcommunist
transition period can be explained: countries that were in an almost
equal starting position at the initial stage of systemic transformation, are today
significantly different in terms of economic development and living standards. The
main reason for such differentiation is the different effectiveness of privatization
in these countries.
Description:
• Balcerowicz L. (2002). saxelmcipo gardamaval periodshi [State in Transition Period.
Tb]. (in Georgian).
• Basilia T., Silagadze A., Chikvaidze T. (2001). Post-socialuri transformacia: saqartvelos
ekonomika XXI saukunis mijnaze [Post-socialist Transformation: Georgian
Economy at the Turn of the XXI Century]. (in Georgan).
• Brada Joseph C. (1996). “Privatization is Transition – or is It?”. Journal of Economic
Perspectives 10 (2): 67-86.
• EBRD, Transition Report, 1995.
• Frydman Roman, Andrzej Rapaczynski (1994). Privatization in Eastern Europe: Is
the State Withering Away. Budapest: Central European University Press.
• Glinski Dimitri, and Redway Peter. 1999. “The Ravage of Market Bolshevizm”. Jounal
of Democracy 10 (2): 19-34.
• Kaufman Daniel, and Paul Siegelbaum. (1999). “Privatization and Corruption in
Transition Economies. Journal of International Affairs 50 (2): 419-458.
• Kornai J. (1990). The Road to a Free Economy. Shifting from Socialist System: The
Example of Hungary. NY: Norton.
• Lipton David, and Jeffrey D. Sachs (1990). “Privatization in Eastern Europe: The Case
of Poland”. Brookings Papers of Economic Activity 20 (2): 293-341.
• Murrell Petter and Yijiang Wang (1993). “When Privatization should be Delayed:
The Effect of Communist Legacies on Organizational and Institutional Reforms”.
Journal of Comparative Economics. 17(2): 385-406.
• Papava V. (2005). Necroeconomics. The Political Economy of Post-communist Capitalism.
iUniverse, Inc. New York, Lincoln, Shanghai.
• Papava V. (2015). Saqartvelos ekonomika, reformebi da psevdoreforebi, Tb. “Inteleqti”
[Georgian Economy, Reforms and Pseudo-Reforms. Tb., “Intellect”]. (in
Georgian).
• Papava V. (2020). Aratradiciuli ekonomiksi. [Unconventional Economics. Tbilisi
State University and P. Gugushvili Publishing House of the Institute of Economics].
(in Georgian).
• Papava V. (2010). Nekroekonomikis zombireba [Zombie Necroeconomics]. (in Georgian).
• Roland G. (1994). On the Speed and Sequencing of Privatization and Restructuring”.
Economic journal 104: 1158-1168.
• Roland G. (2000). “Corporate Governance Systems and Restructuring. Lessons from
the Transition Experience; Washington D. C. World Bank Annual Bank Conference
on Development Economics, April, 18-20.
• Roland Gerard (1993). “Political Economy of Restructuring and Privatization in
Eastern Europe”, European Economic Review 37 (2-3): 533-540.
• Shleifer A., and Treisman D. 2000) Without a Map: Political Tactics and Economic
Reform in Russia. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
