4 ms·

> the ones succeeding the most are those which have a nearly universal negative appraisal of the communist era. A simpler explanation is that you swapped cause

> the ones succeeding the most are those which have a nearly universal negative appraisal of the communist era. A simpler explanation is that you swapped cause and effect: it's the countries where the economy struggled, where their people regret leaving their previous socialist economy. Why some economies struggled less than other is something that probably requires a lot more of country-by-country investigation, rather than generalisations... But I think that a common trend might be: How accessible (and geographically close) is the country to potential investors? Poland is close to Germany (and German investors could already find a German speaking minority, which could help bootstrap), likewise the Baltic republic are close to Finland and Sweden (Sweden is the first country to open an embassy in Estonia for example, which is arguably a prerequisite for a lot of investment in Estonia)

toyg 3y ago
So much this. Among other causes: Poland has a population of more than 35million people, so they were able to export a lot of workforce - which then generated significant remittance income, a fundamental driver of capital creation in poor economies. Bulgaria is less than 7 million, they obviously could not do it on the same scale; they also suffered from blocks on free circulation of workers, imposed on Romania and Bulgaria on accession precisely on the back of the experience with Poland. These blocks were only lifted about 10 years ago - and significantly increased the lag they already had versus the Baltic states (which were allowed to join much earlier, largely because of strategic German interests that did not apply to Romania and Bulgaria).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
username332211 3y ago
> A simpler explanation is that you swapped cause and effect: it's the countries where the economy struggled, where their people regret leaving their previous socialist economy. That's a simpler explanation, indeed. It's also wrong. Take the 2 examples of GP. In Bulgaria, the first elections after the first president after the fall of the dictatorship was Petar Mladenov, a former politburo member. The first parliamentary elections were similarly won by the communist party. In Yugoslavia, Milosevic remained leader for decades. In both cases the "nostalgia" had already set in before anyone had the chance to experience any I'll effects caused by democracy.

toyg 3y ago

So much this. Among other causes: Poland has a population of more than 35million people, so they were able to export a lot of workforce - which then generated significant remittance income, a fundamental driver of capital creation in poor economies. Bulgaria is less than 7 million, they obviously could not do it on the same scale; they also suffered from blocks on free circulation of workers, imposed on Romania and Bulgaria on accession precisely on the back of the experience with Poland. These blocks were only lifted about 10 years ago - and significantly increased the lag they already had versus the Baltic states (which were allowed to join much earlier, largely because of strategic German interests that did not apply to Romania and Bulgaria).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

username332211 3y ago

> A simpler explanation is that you swapped cause and effect: it's the countries where the economy struggled, where their people regret leaving their previous socialist economy. That's a simpler explanation, indeed. It's also wrong. Take the 2 examples of GP. In Bulgaria, the first elections after the first president after the fall of the dictatorship was Petar Mladenov, a former politburo member. The first parliamentary elections were similarly won by the communist party. In Yugoslavia, Milosevic remained leader for decades. In both cases the "nostalgia" had already set in before anyone had the chance to experience any I'll effects caused by democracy.