Explaining Political Economy of China's Transition to Market: "Multiple-Track" Model
The paper casts doubts on explanatory potential of the models of “incremental double-track transition” (Fan Gang, Zhang Yu etc.) and “system’s self-withdrawal” (M. Csanadi) widely applied to the analysis of market reforms in China by some Chinese and foreign scholars. According to “incremental reform” concepts, the successes of market transition in China are attributed to the gradual decrease of “plan economy space” and simultaneous increase of “market economy space” which became possible mainly due to introduction of “double-track” price reform in the early 1980s. According to “system’s self-withdrawal” approach that in China there is “absolute shrinkage” of the “plan economy net” which makes China’s transition qualitatively different from the former East-European and Soviet experience with market oriented reforms. The paper below examines methodological pitfalls as well as empirical discrepancies of these approaches and elaborates on the concept of “multiple-track” model which may better explain the dynamics of systemic changes and continuities in China’s transition to market economy.
State Capitalism could be characterized by a triple role of the state: the state performs as a “programmer” to guide economic activity; it acts as a “protector” to safeguard national economic interests; and it also plays the role as a “producer” to create national wealth through its state-owned enterprises (SOEs). However, the influences of State Capitalism in a country are not only limited to the domestic sphere. They often extend internationally, either through the globalization of SOEs, or through Sovereign Fund investments, or by means of other influences. Many recent acquisition projects by SOEs, often in strategic sectors, highlight the importance of understanding this new geopolitical investment which has created special relations between State Capitalism and the free market. They also raise the question of the need for updating national economic security concerns in the context of globalization. As the value of Sovereign Funds reaches several trillion dollars, the controversy surrounding these Funds is evolving. For many, these Funds do not necessarily always look for maximizing business performance, but are sometimes also accompanied by political and strategic ambitions of the respective states from where they originate. The phenomenon of State Capitalism has gained prominence in recent years especially in several emerging markets. It appeared, firstly, because of multiple government interventions in the economy,and secondly, emphasis given to the globalization of their SOEs / economic organizations in international markets (China, Russia, Brazil, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, India, Korea, etc.). In January 2012, The Economist published another special article on State Capitalism and wondered if the new balance of power that is being built-up with the emergence of market oriented SOEs will pose a challenge to the liberal capitalist model. The objectives of this conference are manifold: to examine the characteristics of State Capitalism in the world economy, especially in emerging countries, to assess its real impact on economic development, to identify its scope to other developing countries, and also to explore the major challenges that it poses to the liberal capitalist model in the world of free-markets.
The paper contextualises the philosophy of Adam Smith and analyses the pre-history of political economy as being in large parts determined by notions of patriarchalism, i. e. the notion that the role of a head of state is analogous to the head of a private household. It is shown how this notion migrates from political philosophy proper (Bodin, Hobbes) into mercantilist discourses and that it is a fundamental part of Locke's economic theory. Adam Smith denies the validity of this analogy: his cosmopolitanism, his views on the divison of labour, and his arguments against interventionism are all directed against patriarchalist misunderstandings of the relationship between the economy and the state.
Partisan governments play an impor tant role in the elaborat ion of macroeconomic policies of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries: they manage ﬁscal policy and coordinate with a Central Bank that conducts monetary policy. Ideology is a crucial parameter of the ruling coalition. This study focuses on the inﬂuence of the ideology of the ruling coalition on macroeconomic policies of the OECD countries. Using statistical methods, the analysis examines the relationship between the “rightism” of the ruling coalition and such characteristics of budgetary policy as budget balancing, state expenditures and tax collection. The ﬁndings show that the inﬂuence of ideology is determined by a set of social and economic factors, so the nature of the inﬂuence that ideology wields may work in diﬀerent directions depending on the conditions.
Energy security has become a central concern for all the countries in the Asian region and the search for sufficient sources of energy to fuel economic growth has drastically influenced relations among the South Asian countries as well as their respective relations with their neighbours China, Myanmar, Iran, and Afghanistan. The recent nuclear deal between India and the US is also indicative of how energy and power politics are linked and how these new inter-linkages underlie relations between states. This book aims to give a South Asian perspective on the geopolitics of energy, with a central focus on India. The chapters address show India's global and regional foreign policy making has changed in light of India's search for energy and how this is affecting the relationship on a global level between India and the US, as well as on a regional level between India and the other Asian countries. The book also offers views from Pakistan and Bangladesh, as well as how this shifting reality is affecting relations between India and Southeast Asia. © 2009 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. All rights reserved.
The paper consists of three main sections. The first is devoted to a discussion of the "state capitalism" concept and the reasons for the growing interest to this phenomenon. It is proposed here to consider the state capitalism not only in terms of the state ownership in major national industrial enterprises and banks, but also taking into account the efficiency of SOEs. In the second section, the new data on the state involvement in the Russian economy are represented, including the shares of the state in the authorized capital of the largest industrial enterprises and banks. Their economic indicators are compared. Contrary to some assumptions P / E values for national champions are lagging behind the average for emerging markets. The third section examines the hypothesis that one of the major challenges faced by the state capitalism is the development of investment incentives for SOEs and their performance. It is shown that the interests of the state as an owner of business enterprises are often in conflict with the interests of the state as a social institution. A number of examples are demonstrated. In order to solve this problem the state should reduce its stakes in SOEs except for those that are of strategic importance. The output of the analysis is that the state capitalism as a social phenomenon has no a long-term perspective. Most of so called “state capitalist” countries will take in future the path of traditional mixed market economy.