【24h】

Letters

机译:字母

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Sir -I ought to be happy with The Economist's comments about the impressive progress Poland has made over the past 25 years (Special report on Poland, June 28th). We deserve the appreciation. However, to be frank, your hyper-positive evaluation would be disputed by many. Such enthusiasm is not shared by all. If it was, more than 2m mostly young and educated people wouldn't have left Poland for the West over the past decade. It is also wrong to claim that "rigorous economic shock therapy in the early 1990s put Poland on the right track". Absolutely, it did not. This ill-advised policy, based on a post-Communist version of the Washington consensus, drove Poland to a devastating slumpflation. The illusory expectations of the government and its foreign advisers were not met. Poland's relative success has come about not because of "shock therapy" but despite it. Our achievements are based on an unorthodox new pragmatism, policies that aim gradually for a social market economy and sustained growth, and at a fair shot at participating in the globalisation process.
机译:主席先生-我应该对《经济学人》对波兰在过去25年中取得的令人瞩目的进步感到满意(《关于波兰的特别报告》,6月28日)。我们值得赞赏。但是,坦率地说,您的过度肯定评价会受到许多人的质疑。这种热情并非所有人所共有。如果是这样的话,在过去十年中,不会有200万以上的年轻人和受过良好教育的人离开波兰前往西方。声称“ 1990年代初期的严格经济冲击疗法使波兰走上了正轨”也是错误的。绝对没有。这项不明智的政策基于后共产主义的华盛顿共识版本,使波兰陷入了毁灭性的衰退。没有达到政府及其外国顾问的虚幻期望。波兰的相对成功并不是因为“休克疗法”,而是尽管如此。我们的成就基于一种非传统的新实用主义,逐步针对社会市场经济和持续增长的政策,以及公平参与全球化进程的政策。

著录项

  • 来源
    《The economist》 |2014年第8896期|14-14|共1页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号