5 ms·
Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism went re
by Zev 17y ago
Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence. Hell, in Czechoslovakia, the workers actually put in unpaid overtime to make up for the work that they missed while they were protesting to gain freedom.
// edit: Don't include Romania, actually. ATB pointed out, rightfully, that the Romanian revolution was among the more violent of the revolutions in 1989.
If you look at the Balkans (countries that used to make up Yugoslavia (sans Slovenia), Bulgaria, Albania, etc), the economic story is slightly different. In Bulgaria, for example, the economy only got back up to pre-1989 levels in mid-2004. The economies here were much more tied to the Soviet Union's and its collapse hit them much harder. Or, they just devolved into a series of ethnic battles, which doesn't go over well with the economy.
- idlewords 17y agoAnd we both forgot the plucky Baltic states, which have done very well indeed!
- Zev 17y agoEstonia, Lithuania and Latvia? They weren't satellite states during the Cold War; they were part of the Soviet Union (or Russia, if you go back to before World War 1). They broke off afterwards. To me, it doesn't make much sense to examine these states the same way you would satellite states. They weren't in the same situation during the Cold War. Although, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia did simply vote themselves out of the Russian Federation, rather then joining it after the Soviet Union collapsed, so, there's a common thread for success, I suppose.
- idlewords 17y agoWhy is the distinction important? We're discussing post-Soviet states, including Russia, and how they managed their transition away from communism. Whether or not they were an integral part of the USSR or just a vassal state has no bearing on this, except to the extent that the ex-Soviet republics tended to be even more of an economic shambles. After 1990, everyone was in the same boat, and the countries that were able to push through "shock therapy" reforms prospered, while the rest did not.
- Zev 17y agoexcept to the extent that the ex-Soviet republics tended to be even more of an economic shambles. Exactly. Thats it. The economic position of the state prior to their transition away from communism absolutely has an effect on how they managed after the transition. I'd be willing to guess that while part of the Soviet Union and under a planned economy, whatever the Estonian state was responsible for was closer to being services-based and processing raw materials after they were obtained. Not a lot of agriculture or mining. After 1990, everyone was in the same boat, and the countries that were able to push through "shock therapy" reforms prospered, while the rest did not. But, why did shock therapy fail in the countries that it didn't work in? I highly doubt it was as simple as "Ukraine wanted it while Croatia didn't." Why did Estonia (a former Soviet state) not end up with looting as well?
- idlewords 17y agoShock therapy required a short but very sharp drop in GDP, and a large and long-lived jump in unemployment (as make-work public sector jobs were eliminated). It also required people on fixed incomes to endure severe poverty due to anti-inflationary measures. The countries that had the political resources to stick with this harsh program, and ride out the first two years where none of the positive effects were felt, ended up much better off than the ones that didn't. Everyone ended up with some degree of looting. It was a matter of which countries had political institutions strong enough to push through this transition, prevent the rise of an organized gangster economy like we saw in Russia, and face up to the magnitude of the challenge.
- hristov 17y agoThey are actually all doing very badly now.
- idlewords 17y agoThey're EU members in the Schengen zone, hit particularly hard by a global recession after ten years of the fastest GDP growth rates in the world. "Very badly" is still a hell of a lot better than, say, Bulgaria.
- ATB 17y ago"Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence" The Romanian revolution was extremely violent: over 1,000 people died and over 3,000 were wounded, and the former dictator and his wife were found guilty in a hasty show trial and executed on the spot. Their former allies then former a post-Communist clique that looted the country for most of the 90s and stole several elections. Romania continues to have one of the highest corruption rates in Eastern Europe. But yes, aside from that, it went "remarkably well." This isn't random conspiratorial nonsense, it's well-documented and NPOVed five ways from Sunday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989#Aftermath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989#Aft...
- Zev 17y agoPoint. Its late for me and I got slightly jumbled up. You're absolutely right that Romania was the most violent of the revolutions and that I shouldn't have included them in the lacking violence part. I've edited the original post to mention this. Even still, it could have been much worse; the revolution could have failed. And it lead to a stable government that successfully transitioned between parties afterwards. And the Romanian economy is doing fairly well. I'd call that a pretty remarkable success, given how spectacular the failures in Eastern Europe are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Their former allies then former a post-Communist clique that looted the country for most of the 90s and stole several elections. I haven't really read much about this, Romanian elections being fraudulent. Don't suppose you could recommend a few good news articles or other data (books or papers, perhaps) on the subject (Romania after 1989, not just elections specifically)? The Wikipedia article doesn't have any citation for it either.