New Institutional Economics in the Post‐Socialist Transformation Debate

Abstract

The paper suggests that there is a tension between the basic tenant of New Institutional Economics (NIE) and the manner in which it has been applied in the debate on post-socialist transformation. This tension is explored in the context of four main perspectives on NIE: (i) property rights, (ii) transaction costs economics, (iii) new economic history, and (iv) evolutionary economics. There are two main arguments. The first is that the transformation phase should be seen as 'open-ended' rather than a 'closed process' where the 'pure market' is the inevitable end result. The second is that, although the NIE literature touches on most of the issues which are relevant to post-socialist transformation, the insights that it offers are still too general for policy guidance.

Transforming employment relations in Vietnam and Indonesia: case studies of state‐owned enterprises

“…Seeking to understand institutional change and its impact is common in research focusing on transitional economies. Research using these settings is more able to see a greater dynamic interaction between the formal and informal rules of institutions (Keefer and Shirley ; Smyth ; Tian ). There are two primary approaches in transitional economies, namely ‘big bang’ and gradual reforms.…”

A Political Economy Approach to the Neoclassical Model of Transition

“…The gradualist neoclassical economists used the evolutionary paradigm of institutional development to justify their approach to reform (Smyth 1998;Kolodko 1999b). Gradualist economists argued that the transition to a market economy needed to be facilitated by an institutional structure, the development of which had to be gradual, natural, organic, and voluntary, as opposed to the constructivist, state-directed establishment of institutions (Kolodko 2000;Kornai 1992bKornai , 1995bKornai , 1997Csaba 1995;Gustafson 1999;Murrell 1992).…”

Factors Influencing China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment

“…Furthermore, as a result of gradual institutional transformation, China's economy has been able to grow rapidly, and China is often cited as the leading example of a successful gradualist approach to institutional change, with better results than Russia's reforms through shock therapy, thereby driving the rapid growth in foreign outward investment (Lau et al, 2000;Smyth, 1998). China's central government policies and regulations have played a critical role in its overseas investment.…”