Hypothetical Matrix for Institutional Modeling of the Basis for Economic Development in the Countries of Southeast Europe

Abstract

In this paper we propose three hypothetical matrices for institutional modeling of the basis for economic development. They apply selectively chosen elements of Neo-Institutional Theory (NIT) and convention theory, which are in line with affirmation of institutional pluralism and criticism of institutional monism. In this sense, the developed institutional pluralism is critically and polemically opposed to all forms of opportunistic behavior, which in the conditions of the domination of institutional monism leads to the creation and strengthening of alternative institutions. Its hypothesis is that the hypothetical modeling of pluralistic institutional basis for economic development must be based, inter alia, on the elements and recommendations of the NIT and the convention theory on key issues (research parameters). This is especially the case with institutional elements, factors and recommendations that have been confirmed in the practice of developed countries. The conclusion is that the economic growth requires strong and pluralistic institutions, which represent the best means of protection from all forms of opportunistic behavior.

Levels and Factors of Transitional Crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Serbia

“…The idea for this study is based upon the opinion of many authors (Draskovic, 2006;Draskovic, 2008;Mesaric, 2011;Polterovich, 2012;Delibasic, 2016;Androniceanu, 2017), who point out that the reproduction of the crisis in these countries is dominantly influencing those five groups of factors. In this regard, we have researched their impact as independent variables on the level of transitional crisis in Montenegro, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (as dependent variable).…”

“…On the contrary, it is the result of deliberate and interests establishment of various forms of quasi-institutional relations, where the force of institutional monism of the market type dominates, as well as privileged and inti-institutional individualism (Yerznkyan et al, 2014;Ząbkowicz, 2017). The basic method of implementing the anti-development reform has been monopolistic substitution of formal and informal institutions by alternative institutions and opportunistic behavior in practice (Delibasic, 2016;Delibasic and Grgurevic, 2013;Vitola, & Senfelde, 2015). As a result of the planned deficit of institutional changes in society, the economy have established new forms of dictation, dogmas, domination, alienation, and major social differences.…”

Preference of institutional changes in social and economic development

“…There is enough empirical material and detailed research to prove that in the majority of post-socialistic countries institutes have been developing very slowly, often insufficiently and also illogically, moreover, they were often under the influence of alternative institutes. Many authors, including (Draskovic, 2014;Draskovic et al, 2015;Delibasic, 2016;Draskovic, Draskovic, Bilan & Delibasic, 2016) see the major precondition for such development in the anti-productive and anti-civilizational development of sociocultural capital as well as in parallel domination of alternative (shadow) institutes, the latter getting only stronger due to growing dominance of narrow, personal incentives over the truly social interests. Therefore, we have no doubts that the deficit of institutes is the major limiting factor in the potential development of sociocultural capital in these countries, thus, it is also a limiting factor for their socioeconomic development.…”

Untitled

“…This ultimately led to a long-term and powerful economic crisis, which marked almost 30-year period of the so-called transition or "transformational recession" (Kornai, 1994). This way, the public sector management has emerged and manifested as the main development problem in the SEE countries (Delibasic, 2016, p. 149).…”