The 2008 global crisis brought about curiously inconsistent changes in state ownership: asset sales by governments and purchases of private stocks increased sharply and simultaneously. These concurrent instances of nationalization and privatization, on a major scale in historical terms, deserve attention. The paper examines why both now seem appropriate tools for crisis management in Europe and in the USA. It also estimates the scale of changes after 2008. The author argues that the rapid alternation, including parallel applications and mixed, 'silent' forms of nationalization and privatization, reflects ambiguity in political, theoretical and popular views. The uncertainty far exceeds ownership issues to include the role of the state in general, revealing fragmentation of measures in each direction: neither nationalization nor privatization has been based on any integrated, defined paradigm of economic policy.So what are the main features of the process this time and the reasons behind the moves? Are all the features specific, or do they have attributes in common with the courses followed in previous crises? The approach to these questions taken here involves interpreting nationalization and privatization not just as ownership changes, but as political decisions embedded in a broader context of economic policy, considered in connection with changes in the role of the state. 1 The approach applied is also a historical one, which allows the temporal and territorial differences to be identified and explained.The paper begins by sketching the main characteristics of nationalization and privatization waves in twentieth-century Europe, as a context for interpreting the post-2008 events. It recalls the distinct, yet connected events of the recent process: nationalization and re-privatization of financial institutions accompanied by contracting and expanding public ownership in other sectors. It includes a comparison with the moves made in the USA, given their great role and the country's different traditions.
VoszKa éVa elvesztett illúziók-reformközgazdászok a rendszerváltásban Harminc évvel ezelőtt sokunkban élt három egymással összefüggő hit: a demokráciára épülő liberális kapitalizmus jól működő rendszer, ami megfelelő (szak)politikai lépéssorozattal Magyarországon is bevezethető, és kialakításában az értelmiség, a tudomány, köztük a közgazdászszakma is fontos szerepet játszik. Amellett fogok érvelni, hogy azoknak a kimondatlan, de axiómaként kezelt tételeknek a többsége, amelyek írásainkat és magatartásunkat is meghatározták, illúziónak bizonyult. Az erről nemrégiben elindult vitához annak közelebbi vizsgálatával szeretnék csatlakozni, hogy mi is volt az erős hit alapja, és mi rendíthette meg azt. Ezeket a kérdéseket nemcsak azért érdemes feltenni, hogy reálisabban mérhessük fel, hogy-szélesebb vagy szűkebb közösségünk és mi magunk-meddig jutottunk, hanem azért is, hogy a választási lehetőségeket világosabban megfogalmazhassuk.* Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) kód: A11, A14. "Nem az új gondolatok megértése nehéz, hanem a régiektől való megszabadulás."
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.