Large-Scale Transition of Economic Systems Do CEECs Converge Towards Western Prototypes?

Ahlborn, Markus; Schweickert, Rainer; Ahrens, Joachim

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2740984

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The choice of pertinent variables was based on the results of earlier studies on the subject [Amable, 2003;Schwartz and Seabrooke, 2009;Farkas, 2011Farkas, , 2016Ahlborn et al, 2016;Próchniak et al, 2016;Rapacki et al, 2016], the economic significance of a particular variable, data availability, cross-country variance, and the range of values assumed by a variable as well as on its theoretical justification. At the same time, the list of indicators selected for this study reflected to some extent authors' own judgment on their relevance.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging models of patchwork capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe: empirical results of subspace clustering

Rapacki

Czerniak

2018

International Journal of Management and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main aim of this paper was to shed a new empirical light on the nature and most salient features of the evolving postcommunist capitalism in 11 Central and Eastern European (CEE11) countries against the backdrop of Western European models of capitalism. The research approach capitalizes on the conceptual framework put forward by Amable [2003, The diversity of modern capitalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford] , i.e., it seeks to identify the current clusters or models of capitalism in 25 European Union (EU) countries in six institutional areas. However, in contrast to the original Amable’s methodology, the subspace clustering method was used, what allowed to take into account a vast set of 132 institutional measures and to analyze their change between 2005 and 2014. The main finding is that CEE11 countries developed their own distinct model of capitalism dubbed “patchwork capitalism.” In all but two areas, i.e., product market competition and financial intermediation, postcommunist countries form their own institutional clusters that are substantially different from those observed in Western EU countries. In addition, the paper shows that each CEE11 country followed its own distinct vector of change, which eventually led to a unique patchwork of institutions. Yet, the institutional variance within the region is smaller than the difference between CEE11 countries and other country clusters in the EU.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging models of patchwork capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe: empirical results of subspace clustering

Rapacki

Czerniak

2018

International Journal of Management and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As shown by Schröder (2013) attempts to define prototypes of economic systems in both strands of the literature lead to similar clusters due to the need for complementarity across the spheres of production and welfare as well as shared target systems based on similar societal preferences. Following this reasoning, three prototypes of economic (production and welfare) systems can be defined for advanced OECD countries (Ahlborn et al 2014): 2…”

Section: Prototypes Of Economic Systems -Characteristics and Stylizedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public debt and economic growth – economic systems matter

Ahlborn

Schweickert

2017

Int Econ Econ Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most studies on the relationship between public debt and economic growth implicitly assume homogeneous debt effects across their samples. We -in accordance with recent literature-challenge this view and state that there likely is a great deal of cross-country heterogeneity in that relationship. However, other than scholars assuming that all countries are different, we expect that clusters of countries differ. We identify three country clusters with distinct economic systems: Liberal (Anglo Saxon), Continental (Core EU members) and Nordic (Scandinavian). We argue that different degrees of fiscal uncertainty at comparable levels of public debt between those economic systems constitute a major source of heterogeneity in the debt-growth relationship. Our empirical evidence supports this assumption. Continental countries face more growth reducing public debt effects than especially Liberal countries. There, public debt apparently exerts neutral or even positive growth effects, while for Nordic countries a non-linear relationship is discovered, with negative debt effects kicking in at public debt values of around 60% of GDP.

show abstract

“…7 The most important manifestation of the institutionalization of the new division was the establishment in 2010 of the control of the "troika" (the IMF, the ECB and the EC) over the management of public finances in the states, which were imposed by these bodies with programs of radical budget cuts, employment reduction, tax increases, and labour market deregulation, thus radically limiting their economic sovereignty. 8 Such a situation makes the institutional systems of CEE be classified as different types of capitalism or as a mixed type considered to differ from the "pure" Western models [Ahlborn et al, 2016;Rapacki, 2019].…”

Section: Similarities and Differences Of The Eu Peripheriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The coronavirus and center-peripheral relations in the economies of the European Union

Jasiecki

2022

International Journal of Management and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the perspective of the diversity of capitalism and that of economic sociology, the article deals with the issue of center-peripheral relations as one of the key dimensions of economic diversification that determines the development opportunities of the European Union. The collapse of the convergence processes during the 2008–2010 financial crisis revealed the separateness of development trajectories of various countries and geographical regions of the EU. Without reversing this phenomenon and working out new mechanisms of development convergence and institutions supporting them, the process of European integration will enter further structural crises that may lead to the disintegration of the EU. Various classifications of the core and of the peripheries of the euro area are characterized, within which several types of countries are identified with different economic characteristics (countries of the Northern core and of the Southern peripheries of the euro area, different types of peripheries in Southern Europe and in Central and Eastern Europe, the internal core and the external core or the outer core, and the internal peripheries and the external peripheries, as well as the super-peripheries including candidates or potential candidates to join the EU). The COVID-19 crisis has an asymmetric impact on the economic situation of the Member States. As with other crises, this impact will be the result of the interconnection of the prior state of economies, structural differences in growth patterns, and responses to new challenges brought about by the pandemic. Also, the consequences of the pandemic for the reconfiguration of center-peripheral relations in the EU are discussed, with a particular focus on the CEE.

show abstract

Large-Scale Transition of Economic Systems Do CEECs Converge Towards Western Prototypes?

Cited by 10 publications

References 29 publications

Emerging models of patchwork capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe: empirical results of subspace clustering

Emerging models of patchwork capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe: empirical results of subspace clustering

Public debt and economic growth – economic systems matter

The coronavirus and center-peripheral relations in the economies of the European Union

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About