...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International Critical Thought >State condition, foreign influence and alternative models of market reforms in China, Russia and Eastern Europe
【24h】

State condition, foreign influence and alternative models of market reforms in China, Russia and Eastern Europe

机译：中国，俄罗斯和东欧的国家状况，外国影响和市场改革的替代模式

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

China, Russia and Eastern Europe can be considered the principal examples of a massive globalization in the last two decades. All expanded their use of market forces but in terms of growth rates only China is an obvious success story; Russia is a failure, while Eastern Europe's record is lackluster. The diverse experience of these countries indicates that whether globalization succeeds or fails is a function of the condition of the state. With a strong state, China was able to undertake a gradual pattern of reforms that allowed firms to thrive. Because in Russia the state almost collapsed, reforms followed a chaotic model, throwing firms into a two-decade period of no growth. With less severe but still major state crises, Eastern Europeans followed a radical approach which locked firms into a massive downturn followed by weak growth thereafter. These economic outcomes validate the theoretical argument in favor of gradual reforms advanced by the so-called evolutionary (Austrian) economics of Joseph Schumpeter. Each of the three models of reform produced a different final type of economic system. In China a ‘corporatist structure’ with an activist but impartial state has emerged. In Russia we find ‘industrial feudalism’ with regional fiefdoms sharing power with the state, while Eastern Europe established ‘imported capitalism’, with the majority of industry and banking sold to foreigners. Foreign investors were assisted by their states in gaining access to state assets in these countries. Where these foreign states encountered weak states, as in Eastern Europe, the bulk of capital was transferred to the respective foreign buyers. But this was not the case in China, where the state agency has actually strengthened. In Russia, foreign states proved no match in asset acquisitions for the so-called oligarchs that emerged as a substitute for the largely defunct local state. It follows from these experiences that successful globalization does not involve markets replacing states. Instead, such globalization requires that the expansion of markets has to be paralleled by the expansion of states.View full textDownload full textKeywordsglobalization, state, privatization, China, Eastern Europe, RussiaRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2012.706775
机译：中国，俄罗斯和东欧可以看作是过去二十年来大规模全球化的主要例子。所有这些国家都扩大了对市场力量的利用，但就增长率而言，只有中国是显而易见的成功案例。俄罗斯是一个失败者，而东欧的记录则乏善可陈。这些国家的不同经验表明，全球化的成败与否取决于国家的状况。凭借强大的国家，中国能够采取渐进式的改革模式，使企业蓬勃发展。因为在俄罗斯，国家几乎崩溃了，改革遵循了一种混乱的模式，使公司陷入了两个十年没有增长的时期。东欧国家虽然没有那么严重但仍是主要的国家危机，所以采取了激进的方法，将企业锁定在大规模的低迷时期，此后其增长乏力。这些经济成果证实了理论观点支持约瑟夫·熊彼特的所谓进化（奥地利）经济学推动的渐进式改革。三种改革模式中的每一种都产生了不同的最终经济体系类型。在中国，出现了带有激进主义者但公正的国家的“法人主义结构”。在俄罗斯，我们发现“工业封建制度”由地区领地与国家共享权力，而东欧则建立了“进口资本主义”，其中大部分工业和银行业务出售给外国人。外国投资者在其国家的协助下获得了这些国家的国有资产。在这些东欧国家遇到弱国的情况下，例如在东欧，大部分资金都转移给了各自的外国买家。但是在中国，情况并非如此，国家机构实际上已经加强了力量。在俄罗斯，事实证明，外国在资产收购方面没有与所谓的寡头垄断相匹敌的事实，这些寡头代替了已经基本不存在的地方国家。从这些经验可以得出，成功的全球化并不涉及市场取代国家。相反，这种全球化要求市场的扩张必须与国家的扩张同时进行。查看全文下载全文关键字全球化，国家，私有化，中国，东欧，俄罗斯相关变量var addthis_config = {ui_cobrand：“泰勒和弗朗西斯在线”，services_compact ：：“ citeulike，netvibes，twitter，technorati，美味，linkedin，facebook，stumbleupon，digg，google，更多”，pubid：“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2012.706775

著录项

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