Growth in transition: Reexamining the roles of factor inputs and geography

Rusinova, Desislava

doi:10.1016/j.ecosys.2006.10.002

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Selowsky and Martin (1997) and Tichit (1999) analyze separately the Central and Eastern European countries and the former Soviet Union and find substantial differences between the two sub-groups. Fidrmuc (2003) and Rusinova (2007) estimate their regressions for different periods and, also, find substantial differences. The various post-communist countries implemented market-oriented reforms at different pace and with varying resolve, and some have experienced even temporary or sustained reform reversals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mind the break! Accounting for changing patterns of growth during transition

Fidrmuc

Tichit

2009

Economic Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that econometric analyses of growth in post-communist countries are vulnerable to structural breaks across time and/or countries. We demonstrate this by identifying structural breaks in growth for 25 countries and over 18 years. The method we use allows identification of structural breaks at a-priori unknown points in space or time. The only prior assumption is that breaks occur in relation to progress in implementing market-oriented reforms. We find robust evidence that the pattern of growth in transition has changed at least three times, yielding four different models of growth associated with different stages of reform. The speed with which individual countries progress through these stages differs considerably.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mind the break! Accounting for changing patterns of growth during transition

Fidrmuc

Tichit

2009

Economic Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the null hypothesis H o : b jk = 0 (i.e., the cross-product terms of inputs in 4 Note that the EBRD indicators are criticized based on their subjectivity and their ordinal nature as well as its use of policy input and output measures (Falcetti et al 2002, Campos andHorvath 2005). Yet, another study by Rusinova (2007) uses both Campos and Horvath's corrected data set and EBRD data set and does not find any change in the main results. 5 See the appendix in Table 4 for the classification system for transition indicators.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Progress Factors Explaining Inefficiencies in Transition Countries

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines whether progress in transition has a significant effect on the economic efficiency for 24 transition countries from 1990 to 2006. It uses nine progress factors to analyze the role of the progress factors to explain inefficiencies. It also questions the effect of the transition countries that recently joined the European Union on efficiency. The results suggest that the average efficiency scores for EU-N10 are much higher than the average efficiency scores for SEE/CIS. The scores increase over time for both groups of transition countries. Reforms also contribute to efficiency in general.

show abstract

“…Despite the dominant discourse of convergence in neoclassical economics and policy formulations (e.g. Mickiewicz, 2005;Rusinova, 2007), and contrary to high expectations in Eastern Europe of catching up with the West, most studies have been unable to substantiate anticipated convergence. Dunford and Smith (2000) have examined the trajectories of economic development of European national and regional economies in the context of the pressures for greater integration and enlargement of the European Union.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Ukraine’s diverging space-economy: The Orange Revolution, post-soviet development models and regional trajectories

Mykhnenko

Swain

2010

European Urban and Regional Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers the evolution of Ukraine’s space-economy from 1990 to 2009, paying particular attention to comparative regional economic performance during the country’s expansionary phase from 1999 to 2008. This shows that Ukraine inherited from the Imperial and Soviet eras a space-economy that was amongst the most unbalanced in Europe. Furthermore post-Soviet regional trajectories intensified these territorial imbalances. The paper argues that these trajectories are linked to a wider political economy and especially to shifts in underlying development models and the characteristics of state power. The Orange Revolution marked a significant switch away from export-led industrial growth, which involved national accumulation towards a credit-fuelled consumption model that was reliant on importing foreign capital. The paper identifies three major types of specialized regional economy that persisted despite the change in development model. Nonetheless, their relative performance and contribution to national growth were affected by the shift in model. Centripetal tendencies were reinforced, which increased regional divergence. The paper argues that the Ukrainian space-economy is best understood as a series of historically rooted and relatively geographically bounded regional economies that are increasingly functionally integrated yet externally oriented.

show abstract

Growth in transition: Reexamining the roles of factor inputs and geography

Cited by 12 publications

References 22 publications

Mind the break! Accounting for changing patterns of growth during transition

Mind the break! Accounting for changing patterns of growth during transition

The Role of Progress Factors Explaining Inefficiencies in Transition Countries

Ukraine’s diverging space-economy: The Orange Revolution, post-soviet development models and regional trajectories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About