Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:33:18.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Wants To Revise Privatization? The Complementarity of Market Skills and Institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

IRINA DENISOVA ,
MARKUS ELLER ,
TIMOTHY FRYE  and
EKATERINA ZHURAVSKAYA
IRINA DENISOVA*
Affiliation:
Centre for Economic and Financial Research
MARKUS ELLER*
Affiliation:
Oesterreichische Nationalbank
TIMOTHY FRYE*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
EKATERINA ZHURAVSKAYA*
Affiliation:
New Economic School
*
Irina Denisova is Lead Economist, Centre for Economic and Financial Research, New Economic School, Nakhimovsky prospect 47, 117418 Moscow, Russia ([email protected]).
Markus Eller is Economist, Oesterreichische Nationalbank, Otto-Wagner-Platz 3, 1090, Vienna, Austria ([email protected]).
Timothy Frye is Marshall D. Shulman Professor of Post-Soviet Foreign Policy, Department of Political Science, Columbia University, and Member, Harriman Institute, 7th Floor, 420 W. 118th Street, New York, NY 10027 ([email protected]).
Ekaterina Zhuravskaya is Hans Rausing Professor of Economics, New Economic School, and Academic Director, Center for Economic and Financial Research, Nakhimovsky prospect 47, 117418 Moscow, Russia ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using survey data from 28 transition countries, we test for the complementarity and substitutability of market-relevant skills and institutions. We show that democracy and good governance complement market skills in transition economies. Under autocracy and weak governance institutions, there is no significant difference in support for revising privatization between high- and low-skilled respondents. As the level of democracy and the quality of governance increases, the difference in the level of support for revising privatization between the high and low skilled grows dramatically. This finding contributes to our understanding of microfoundations of the politics of economic reform.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 103 , Issue 2 , May 2009 , pp. 284 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Acemoglu, Daron, and Robinson, James A.. 2006. The Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Rodrik, Dani. 1994. “Distributive Politics and Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 109 (2): 465–90.Google Scholar
Anderson, Christopher, and Tverdova, Yuliya V.. 2003. “Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes toward Government in Contemporary Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (1): 91–109.Google Scholar
Appel, Hilary. 2004. A New Capitalist Order: Privatization and Ideology in Russia and Eastern Europe. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Andy. 2003. “Why Is Trade Reform So Popular in Latin America: A Consumption-Based Theory of Preferences.” World Politics 55 (3): 423–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 2005. “Multilevel Analyses of Comparative Data: A Comment.” Political Analysis, 13 (4): 365–86.Google Scholar
Boix, Charles. 2005. “Privatization and Public Discontent in Latin America.” Paper prepared for Inter-American Development Bank, Sustainable Development Department.Google Scholar
Borjas, George, and Sueyoshi, Glenn T.. 1994. “A Two-Stage Estimator for Probit Models with Structural Group Effects.” Journal of Econometrics 64 (1–2): 165–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boycko, Maxim, Shleifer, Andrei, and Vishny, Robert W.. 1995. Privatizing Russia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brainerd, Elizabeth. 1998. “Winners and Losers in Russia's Economic Transition.” American Economic Review 88 (5): 1094–116.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74 (1): 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colton, Timothy. 2000. Transitional Citizens: Voters and What Influences Them in the New Russia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Denisova, Irina, Eller, Markus, and Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina. 2007. “What Russians Think about Transition: Evidence from RLMS Survey.” CEFIR/NES Working Papers No. 113. Moscow: Centre for Economic and Financial Research.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M. 1993. “Tolerating Economic Reform: Popular Support for Transition to a Free Market in the Former Soviet Union.” American Political Science Review 87 (3): 590–608.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., and Stevenson, Randy. 2005. “Context and the Economic Vote: A Multilevel Analysis.” Political Analysis 13 (4): 387–409.Google Scholar
Earle, John, and Sakova, Zuzana. 2000. “Business Start-Ups or Disguised Unemployment? Evidence on the Character of Self-Employment from Transition Economies.” Labor Economics 7 (5): 575–601.Google Scholar
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 2007a. “Life in Transition: A Survey of People's Experiences and Attitudes.” London: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.Google Scholar
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). 2007b. Transition Reports. London: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.Google Scholar
Fernandez, Raquel, and Rodrik, Dani. 1991. “Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty.”American Economic Review 81 (5): 1146–55.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Frye, Timothy. 2006. “Original Sin, Good Works, and Property Rights in Russia.” World Politics 58 (4): 479–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frye, Timothy. 2007. “Property Rights and Property Wrongs: Evidence from a Survey-Based Experiment in Russia.” Presented at the American Economics Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. New York. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1996. “Political and Economic Markets: Changes in the Connections Between Attitudes toward Political Democracy and a Market Economy within the Mass Culture of Russia and Ukraine.” Journal of Politics 58 (4): 954–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Carol, and Sukhtankar, Sandip. 2004. “Does Economic Crisis Reduce Support for Markets and Democracy in Latin America? Some Evidence from Surveys of Public Opinion and Well Being.” Journal of Latin American Studies 36: 349–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, Pauline, and Senik, Claudia. 2008a. “Democracy, Market Liberalization and Political Preferences.” University of California Berkeley and Paris School of Economics. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Grosjean, Pauline, and Senik, Claudia. 2008b. “How Populist Democracy Promotes Market Liberalization.” University of California Berkeley and Paris School of Economics. Manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guriev, Sergei, and Megginson, William L.. 2007. “Privatization: What Have We Learned?” In Beyond Transition. Proceedings of the 18th ABCDE, World Bank. eds. Francois Bourguignon and Boris Pleskovic. Washington DC: World Bank, 249–95.Google Scholar
Guriev, Sergei, and Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina. 2009. “(Un)happiness in Transition.” Journal of Economic Perspectives.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscox, Michael J. 2002. International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hoff, Karla, and Stiglitz, Joseph E.. 2008. “Exiting Lawlessness.” Economic Journal 118 (531): 1474–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D., Kernell, Georgia, and Leoni, Eduardo. 2005. “Institutional Context, Cognitive Resources and Party Attachments Across Democracies.” Political Analysis 13 (4): 365–86.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben, and Soskice, David. 2001. “An Asset Theory of Social Preferences.” American Political Science Review 95 (4): 875–93.Google Scholar
Kaltenthaler, Karl C., Ceccoli, Stephen J., and Michta, Andrew. 2006. “Explaining Individual-Level Support for Privatization in European Post-Soviet Economies.” European Journal of Political Research 45: 1–29.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Daniel, Kraay, Aart, and Mastruzzi, Massimo. 2006. “Governance Matters V: Updated Indicators for 1996–2005.” World Bank Institute Working Paper.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 347–61.Google Scholar
Leoni, Eduardo. 2009. “Analyzing Multiple Surveys: Results from Monte Carlo Experiments.” Columbia University. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Lora, Eduardo, and Panizza, Ugo. 2003. “The Future of Structural Reform.” Journal of Democracy 14 (2): 123–37.Google Scholar
Mares, Isabela. 2003. The Politics of Social Risk: Business and Welfare State Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McKenzie, David, and Mookherjee, Dilip. 2003. “Distributive Impact of Privatization in Latin America: An Overview of Evidence from Four Countries.” Economia 3 (2): 161–218.Google Scholar
Megginson, William L. 2005. The Financial Economics of Privatization. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Megginson, William L., and Netter, Jeffrey M.. 2001. “From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization.” Journal of Economic Literature 39: 321–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, A. H., and Richards, S. F.. 1981. “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government.” Journal of Political Economy 89: 914–27.Google Scholar
Milanovic, Branko. 1999. “Explaining the Increase in Inequality during Transition.” Economics of Transition 7 (2): 299–341.Google Scholar
Panizza, Ugo, and Yanez, Monica. 2005. “Why Are Latin Americans So Unhappy about Reforms?” Journal of Applied Economics 8 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia, and Skrondal, Anders. 2008 Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata (2nd ed). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Roland, Gérard. 2000. Transition and Economics: Politics, Markets, and Firms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shleifer, Andrei, and Treisman, Daniel. 2000. Without a Map: Political Tactics and Economic Reform in Russia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Singer, Eleanor. 2002. “Introduction: Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (5): 637–45.Google Scholar
Steenbergen, Marco, and Jones, Bradford. 2002. “Modelling Multilevel Data Structures.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 218–37.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan, ed. 2001. Public Support for Market Reforms in New Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Svejnar, Jan. 1999. “Labor Markets in the Transitional Central and Eastern European Economies.” In Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3B. Ashenfelter, O. and Card, D., eds. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Jackman, Simon. 2008. “Democracy as a Latent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 201–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Joshua. 2006. Regional Economic Voting: Russia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, Joshua A., Pacek, Alexander C., and Berinsky, Adam J.. 2002. “Transitional Winner and Loser: Attitudes toward EU Membership in Post-Communist Countries.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 557–71.Google Scholar
Zinnes, Clifford, Eilat, Yair, and Sachs, Jeffrey. 2001. “The Gains from Privatization in Transition Economies: Is ‘Change of Ownership’ Enough?” IMF Staff Papers Special Issue 48: 146–70.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.