Privatization policies are the centrepiece of the historically unique transformation of the centrally planned, into market economies. Yet the peculiarities of the privatization process in Eastern Europe are little understood in the West because of differences in historical, socio-political and economic contexts relative to Western experience. Most research on privatization in the West is rather theoretical and thus pays insufficient attention to these contexts, perhaps because their importance is not widely appreciated and because there has been little information about them available. Moreover, the significant differences among East European countries in contexts and in policies are not well-understood even within the region, again because of a lack of information.

Annotation.

In response to mounting debt crises and macroeconomic instability in the 1980s, many countries in the developing world adopted neoliberal policies promoting the unfettered play of market forces and deregulation of the economy and attempted large-scale structural adjustment, including the privatization of public-sector industries. How much influence did various societal groups have on this transition to a market economy, and what explains the variances in interest-group influence across countries? In this book, Agnieszka Paczyńska explores these questions by studying the role of organized labor in the transition process in four countries in different regions—the Czech Republic and Poland in eastern Europe, Egypt in the Middle East, and Mexico in Latin America. In Egypt and Poland, she shows, labor had substantial influence on the process, whereas in the Czech Republic and Mexico it did not. Her explanation highlights the complex relationship between institutional structures and the “critical junctures” provided by economic crises, revealing that the ability of groups like organized labor to wield influence on reform efforts depends to a great extent on not only their current resources (such as financial autonomy and legal prerogatives) but also the historical legacies of their past ties to the state. This new edition features an epilogue that analyzes the role of organized labor uprisings in 2011, the protests in Egypt, the overthrow of Mubarak, and the post-Mubarak regime.

This volume is meant to be a modest contribution to the ongoing debate about the transitions away from the administrative planning environment typical of the former communist regimes. The central subject matter is a fairly special one, namely the privatization of these economies together with the restoration and effective monitoring of property rights. These are paramount tasks of the ongoing transformations once progress toward pOlitical democracy is secured. Though I would not allot divestment of existing state-owned assets the kind of pivotal importance that some observers reserve for it, changing rules on the utilization of these assets is evidently at the core of what the transition toward market-based economic systems should be all about. Rather than examining the entire range of issues that surround the controvery on privatization, this volume is primarily concerned with the economics of taking the state out of the decision making about existing assets. Among the several aspects of this discussion three stand out. One is the establishment of clear property rights. This is fundamental to minimize trans action costs in an environment where decisions will increasingly be taken by independent economic agents acting on their own account. Second, I look only incidentally at the various angles of creating capital markets, particularly for existing assets, in these economies.

Primerjalni pregled izkušenj, metod privatizacije in njihove uporabe v nekaterih srednje- in vzhodnoevropskih državah ter v Rusiji, odkriva probleme in pomen prehajanja na tržno gospodarstvo, vlogo in naloge privatizacije v procesu makroekonomskega prilagajanja in prestrukturiranja, v katerem ima slednja nesporno politično prioriteto ter podporo novega političnega vodstva. Več dejavnikov zavira procese privatizacije, zato v mnogih postkomunističnih državah potekajo počasneje kot je bilo predvideno, zasebna dejavnost pa se bolj kot zaradi privatizacije državnega premoženja razvija zaradi odpiranja novih podjetij.