A Comparative Research On The Transition Mode Of Economic System Among The Former Soviet Union, East European Countries And China

The transition of economic system in the traditional socialist countries has been ahot issue of theoretical study among the academics worldwide. Especially after theChina’a reform and opening, as well as the radical social changes in Soviet and EastEurope, these countries were embarked on a different market transition path, thusforming a distinct transition mode and transition performance. In this regard, somescholars insisted that as the representative country to take gradual transition, China hadselected the correct transition way and policies in the process of market orientedreform, which led China to achieving a sustained high economic growth during thetransition. However, affected by the “Neo-liberalism” and “Washington Consensus”,Russia and the majority of other transition economies in the former Soviet Union andEast European regions adopted “shock therapy” of radical transition program. On thisoccasion, these countries were suffered from a serious recession at the beginning oftheir transition. Other scholar argued that the different initial condition of economictransition was the fundamental causes of the difference in specific mode and path inthe later transition process of these countries. Due to the difference in the economicperformance which resulted from the “radical” or the “gradual” way of transition wasmore intuitively reflected by the China’s economic growth well ahead, it made the “thedeterminism of transition ways” point of view once won a more widespread concern.Furthermore, being as the summary of the experience of China’s socioeconomicdevelopment in her process of reform and opening, the “China Model” was alsoregarded as an optional mode and path of economic transition with generallyapplicable. Nevertheless, the seemingly definitive conclusion on the “consensus” ofthis research was actually an empirical cognition of transition process based on therepresentation of the different performance among these economies since the markettransition. It ignored the initial conditions of economic transition and separated theevolution of the structure, organization and institution of transition countries in their process of system transformation and economic development, which being as the sameprocess of institutional change. With the further development of marketization andglobalization of transition economies, the dichotomy between the “radical” and the“gradual” based on the thinking approach of “the determinism of transition ways” hasbeen insufficient to explain all the issues of economic transition independently. What ismore, based on the perspective of “China Model” even though could more intuitivelyexplain the gradual process of transition by means of combining with the real scene ofChina’s market-oriented reform and economic growth. As a particular case ofeconomic transition, however, the “China Model” was unable to provide an objectiveand comprehensive analytical framework for institutional change and economicdevelopment of other transition countries.By choosing transition economics as the research context, this paper mainly dealtwith the comparative studies on the different transition mode of economic systembased on the institutional analysis of historicism on the economic reform and transitionof former Soviet Union, East European countries and China by the integrated use oftheoretical research methods of transition economics, institutional economics,development economics, comparative system research and other related disciplines. Inorder to make a breakthrough against the wrong stereotyped thinking pattern similar tomany previous studies on the related issues, the author regards the time as the mainclue of this article and makes a large span of historical review on the differenttransition countries from their formation of planned system to the current institutionalreform in the Post Crisis Era. It contains a study of the difference in traditional plannedeconomy system among transition countries, a comparison of different transition modeand policies of their early market transition, a discussion on the strategic choice in theinteraction between the market transition and the global integration, as well as thecontinued reform and the transformational development in Post Crisis Era, a rethink ofthe formation and evolution of different transition mode in the process of systemtransformation and economic development of transition countries, an objectiveevaluation on transition performance based on a long-term, dynamic perspective, and a close attention to the transformation of government functions, corruption governance,political development, as well as other issues in transition countries. Based on theanalysis of these issues above, the author intends to systematically interpret thedifference of transition mode and its dynamic evolution in the process of institutionalchange and economic development of transition countries through a dual perspectiveof “Transition-Integration” and “Transition-Development”. Thus, it will make a morecomprehensive and clearer understanding of specific mode and path which formed inthe process of economic reform, transition and development in all transition countriesincluding China.The full text includes7chapters. The content of each chapter follows:Chapter1is the introduction of this passage. This part firstly introduces the maintopic of the whole passage by means of a brief review on the market-oriented reformand economic development of the former Soviet Union, East European Countries andChina since the transition. Secondly, it makes a discussion on the theoretical value andpractical significance of this study. Finally, the chapter introduces the research context,scope and methodology of this passage.Chapter2is the theoretical background and literature review. Considering thecomparative study of economic transition mode in this passage is mainly based on aninstitutional analysis framework of historicism, therefore the author makes a briefreview on the analysis of institutional issues or institutional theory of different schoolsand representative shholars in their research. On this basis, the passage tries tosystematically classify and summarize some representative domestic and foreignliteratures refer to the research on economic system transition, so as to provide a solidtheoretical foundation for the later study.Chapter3mainly makes an intensive study on the different planned system oftraditional socialist countries before their economic transition. The author focuses onthe analysis of different planned system with their reform process in order to point outthe differences in initial conditions of the transition in these countries. Regarded as thestarting point of this study, the passage further explores the deep institutional factors behind the different transition mode and path in the process of the transition from theplan to the market.Chapter4focuses on the driving, the genetics and the selection mechanism of theeconomic transition, also the specific transition ways and policies in the early time ofmarket transition in order to make a comprehensive comparison among different modeof the transition. According to the different transition program and institutionalarrangement in the process of marketization in the former Soviet Union, East EuropeanCountries and China, as well as based on the specific circumstances of transitioneconomies at that time, the author tries to make a re-understand and rethink to the“Shock Therapy” of radical transition, and to the “China Model” with the “dual tracksystem” in her early market transition which being as the representative case of gradualreform.Chapter5regards the “Transition-Integration” as its research perspective. On theone hand, this part provides a detailed introduction on the strategic choice of transitioneconomies for the participation into globalization during the interaction between themarket transition and the global integration. It also further interprets the influence ofthe different market transition mode on development strategy of globalization in thesecountries. On the other hand, based on the current background of the Post Crisis Era,the chapter introduces the policies and countermeasures which were implementedagainst the global economic crisis in transition countries, as well as making a deepresearch on the various problems of market-oriented reform, economic structure anddevelopment mode in these economies.Chapter6makes a further discussion on the specific influence of differenttransition mode and path on long-term growth of transition economies, which based onthe dynamic evolutionary analysis on the different transition mode in the process ofsystem transformation and economic development of these countries, as well as theobjective evaluation on the long-term transition performance since the marketizationfrom a “Transition-Development” point of view. What is more, the author also paysclose attention to the transformation of government function, corruption governance, marketization and political development of transition countries, so as to find theinternal relations between the economic transition of these countries and their laterdevelopment, as well as their modernization.Chapter7is the summary and review of this passage. Based on the research of thewhole passage, the author provides the main conclusions and basic viewpoints to thisstudy. The author also gives some comments to the biases and misconceptions whichexisted in the previous studies, and to make a prospective review on the basisconsensus or some general policy suggestions to the later reform and development oftransition economies. Lastly, the author summarizes some theoretical innovation anddeficiencies that may exist in this passage.