Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:17:08.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Privatization and elite reproduction in Eastern Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Paul Windolf
Paul Windolf
Affiliation:
Universität Trier(Trier).
Get access

Abstract

This analysis concentrates on die different privatization methods which have been applied in Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and East Germany. It is argued that the different privatization methods had a considerable impact upon the unequal distribution of ownership and control in former state-owned enterprises. The reproduction rate of the former nomenclature is relatively high in all four countries regardless of the privatization method. In post-socialist countries a particular type of capitalism is evolving which can be characterized by its specific ideology and the governance structure of the privatized firms. The outcome of shock therapy which has been applied in some post-socialist countries has been paradoxical: it did not destroy the power basis of the nomenclature, but radier stabilized it. In most firms there is no clear-cut separation of ownership and control (manager capitalism), but rather a balance of power between managers (nomendature) and the new owners.

Comparaison a été faite des méthodes de privatisation mises en œcuvre respectivement en Pologne, Hongrie, République tchèque et AUemagne (ex RDA). On voit que le choix de la méthode a eu un impact considérable sur l'inégalité dans les distributions de la propriété et du pouvoir au sein des entreprises anciennement étatiques. Le taux de reproduction de l'ancienne nomenklatura est relativement élevé dans les 4 pays et done assez peu dépendant des voies de privatisation. Dans les pays post-socialistes un type particulier de capitalisme se met en place qui se signale par une idéologic et une structure de gouvernement de la firme spécifiques. Le résultat de la thérapie de choc appliquée dans certains pays a été paradoxal: renforcement du pouvoir de la nomenklatura. Dans la plupart des firmes il n'y a pas de séparation daire entre propriété et pouvoir mais plutôt un équilibre entre managers et nouveaux propriétaires.

Die Analyse konzentriert sich auf die unterschiedlichen Privatisierungsmedioden, die in Polen, Ungarn, der Tschechischen Republik und in Ostdeutschland angewandt wurden. Es wird argumentiert, daΒ die unterschiedlichen Privatisie-rungsmethoden einen erheblichen EinfluΒ auf die ungleiche Verteilung des Eigentums und der Kontrolle über die früheren staatseigenen Betriebe gehabt haben. Ungeachtet der unter-schiedlichen Privatisierungsmethoden war die Höhe der Reproduktionsrate der ökonomischen Elite in alien Ländern relativ hoch. In den ehemaligen sozialisrischen Ländern hat sich ein besonderer Typus des Kapitalismus entwickelt, der sich durch eine spezifische Ideologie und Unternehmensstruktur auszeichnet. Das Ergebnis der Schocktherapie, die in einigen sozialistischen Landern angewandt wurde, ist paradox: Die Machtbasis der früheren Nomenklatura wurde stabilisiert, anstatt untergraben. In den meisten Unternehmen gibt es keine klare Trennung von Eigentum und Kontrolle (Manager-Kapitalismus), sondern eher ein Machtgleichgewicht zwischen Managern und den neuen Eigentümern.

Type
Actualité Européenne
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , November 1998 , pp. 335 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © Archives Européenes de Sociology 1998

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

Adam, Jan (1994), The Transition to a Market Economy in Poland, Cambridge Journal of Economics 18:607–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albach, Horst (1993), Zerrissene Netze: Eine Netzwerkanalyse des ostdeutschen Transformationsprozesses (Berlin: Sigma).Google Scholar
Balcerowicz, Leszek (1994), Transition to the Market Economy: Poland, 1989–93 in Comparative Perspective, Economic Policy 19: 72–97.Google Scholar
Balcerowicz, Leszek (1995), Socialism, Capitalism, Transformation (Budapest: Central European University Press).Google Scholar
Bendix, Reinhard (1956), Work and Authority. Ideologies of Management in the Course of Industrialization (New York: Wiley).Google Scholar
Blm, Alexander (1996), Ownership and Control of Russian Enterprises and Strategies of Shareholders, Communist Economics and Economic Transformation 8: 471–502.Google Scholar
Blazyca, George and Dabrowski, Janusz (1995), Monitoring Economic Transition (Aldershot: Avebury).Google Scholar
Blejer, Mario and Coricelli, Fabrizio (1995). The Making of Economic Reform in Eastern Europe: Conversations with Leading Reformers in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic (Aldershot: Elgar Publishing).Google Scholar
Boltho, Andrea et al. (1997), Will East Germany Become a New Mezzogiorno? Journal of Comparative Economics 24: 241–264.Google Scholar
Boycko, Maxim, Shleifer, Andrei and Vishny, Robert (1995), Privatizing Russia (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Brabant, Jozef Van (1993), Lessons from the Wholesale Transformations in the East, Comparative Economic Studies 35: 73–102.Google Scholar
Brom, Karla and Orenstein, Mitchell (1994), The Privatised Sector in the Czech Republic: Government and Bank Control in a Transitional Economy, Europe-Asia Studies 46: 893–928.Google Scholar
Brücker, Herbert (1995), Die Privatisierungs-und Sanierungsstrategie der Treuhandanstalt, Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 64: 444–460.Google Scholar
Carlin, Wendy and Aghion, Philippe (1996), Restructuring Outcomes and the Evolution of Ownership Patterns in Central and Eastern Europe, Economics of Transition 4: 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claessens, Stijn et al. (1997), Ownership and Corporate Governance—Evidence From the Czech Republic (Washington: World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 1737).Google Scholar
Clark, Ed and Soulsby, Anna (1996), The Re-formation of the Managerial Elite in the Czech Republic, Europe-Asia Studies 48: 285–303.Google Scholar
Coffee, John (1996), Institutional Investors in Transitional Economies: Lessons from the Czech Experience, in Frydman, Roman et al. (eds), Corporate Governance in Central Europe and Russia, Vol. 1 Banks, Funds, and Foreign Investors (Budapest and London: Central European University Press), 111–186.Google Scholar
Cozian, Maurice and Viandier, Alain (1994), Droit des sociétés (Paris: Litec).Google Scholar
Crozier, Michel (1963), Le phénomène bureaucratique (Paris: Seuil).Google Scholar
Czapinski, Janusz (1995), Money Isn't Everything: On the Various Social Costs of Transformation, Polish Sociological Review 112: 289–302.Google Scholar
Davis, Lance and North, Douglass (1971), Institutional Change and American Economic Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demsetz, Harold (1967), Toward a Theory of Property Rights, American Economic Review 57: 347–359.Google Scholar
Dlouhy, Vladimir and Mládek, Jan (1994), Czech Privatization, Economic Policy 19: 156–170.Google Scholar
Dornbusch, Rudiger, and Wolf, Holger (1994), East German Economic Reconstruction, in Blanchard, Olivier J. et al. (eds), The Transition in Eastern Europe, Vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 155–190.Google Scholar
Earle, John and Estrin, Saul (1996), Employee Ownership in Transition, in Roman, Frydman et al. (eds), Corporate Governance in Central Europe and Russia, Vol. 2 (Budapest and London: Central European University Press), 1–61.Google Scholar
Estrin, Saul et al. (1995), Restructuring and Privatization in Central Eastern Europe: Case Studies of Firms in Transition (New York: Sharpe).Google Scholar
Flassbeck, Heiner (1995), Die deutsche Vereinigung: Ein Transferproblem, DIW-Vierteljahresheft zur Wirtschaftsforschung 64: 404–412.Google Scholar
Frydman, Roman and Rapaczynski, Andrzej (1994), Privatization in Eastern Europe: Is the State Withering Away? (Budapest and London: Central European University Press).Google Scholar
Fukuyama, Francis (1995), Trust (New York: Free Press).Google Scholar
Gaidar, Yegor (1995), Russian Reform, in Gaidar, Yegor and Pöhl, Karl Otto, Russian Reform/International Money. The Lionel Robbins Lectures (Cambridge: MIT Press), 3–54.Google Scholar
Glasman, Maurice (1994), The Great Deformation: Polanyi, Poland and the Terrors of Planned Spontaneity, New Left Review 205: 59–86.Google Scholar
Graskamp, Rainer et al. (1996), Die strukturelle Erneuerung in Ostdeutschland, RWI-Mitteilungen 47: 53–80.Google Scholar
Gutman, Herbert (1977), Work, Culture, and Society in Industrializing America (New York: Vintage).Google Scholar
Hardy, Jane and Rainnie, Al (1996), Restructuring Krakow: Desperately Seeking Capitalism (London: Mansell).Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. (1963), Kinds of Order in Society, New Individualist Review 3: 3–12.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. (1973). Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Volume I: Rules and Order (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. (1976), Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Vol. II: The Mirage of Social Justice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. (1978), New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert (1982), Rival Interpretations of Market Society: Civilizing, Destructive, or Feeble? Journal of Economic Literature 20: 1463–1484.Google Scholar
Hoen, Herman (1996), ‘Shock versus Gradualism’ in Central Europe Reconsidered, Comparative Economic Studies 38: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooley, Graham et al. (1996), Foreign Direct Investment in Hungary, Journal of International Business Studies 27: 693–710.Google Scholar
Jarosz, Maria (1996), Polish Employee-Owned Companies in 1995 (Warsaw: Polish Academy of Science).Google Scholar
Jensen, Michael (1989), Eclipse of the Public Corporation, Harvard Business Review 89, 09/Oct.: 61–74.Google Scholar
Kenway, Peter and Klvacová, Eva (1996), The Web of Cross-Ownership Among Czech Financial Intermediaries, Europe-Asia Studies 48:797–809.Google Scholar
Kenway, Peter and Chlumsky, Jiri (1997), The Influence of Owners on Voucher Privatized Firms in the Czech Republic, Economics of Transition 5: 185–193.Google Scholar
King, Lawrence (1997), Strategies of Transition in Eastern European Capitalism: The Transformation of Property in Hungary and the Czech Republic.Paper presented at the meeting of the American Sociological Association,Toronto.Google Scholar
Klaus, Václav (1997), Transformation of a Former Communist Country: Seven Years After. Deutsche Bundesbank, Auszüge aus Presseartikeln, 35: 17–18.Google Scholar
Konrad, Gyorgy and Szelényi, Ivan (1979). The Intellectuals on the Road to Class Power (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich).Google Scholar
Korbonski, Andrzej (1996), How Much is Enough? Excessive Pluralism as the Cause of Poland's Socio-economic Crisis, International Political Science Review 17: 307–317.Google Scholar
Kornai, János (1980), Economics of Shortage (Amsterdam: Elsevier).Google Scholar
Kornai, János (1996), Paying the Bill for Goulash Communism: Hungarian Development and Macro Stabilization in a Political-Economy Perspective, Social Research 63: 943–1040.Google Scholar
Kowalik, Tadeusz (1994), Privatization in Poland: Social Process or Another Shock?, in United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Privatization in the Transition Process (New York: UN Publications), 141–161.Google Scholar
Leblanc-Wohrer, Marion (1996), Poland, in Pannier, Dominique (ed.), Corporate Governance of Public Enterprises in Transitional Economies (Washington: The World Bank), Technical Paper No. 323, 37–44.Google Scholar
McDonald, Jason (1993), Transition to Utopia: A Reinterpretation of Economics, Ideas, and Politics in Hungary, 1984 to 1990, East European Politics and Societies 7: 203–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macpherson, C.B. (1962), The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Makó, Csaba and Simonyi, Ágnes (1997), Inheritance, Imitation and Genuine Solutions: Institution Building in Hungarian Labour Relations, Europe-Asia Studies 49: 221–243.Google Scholar
Mendell, Marguerite and Salée, Daniel (eds) (1991), The Legacy of Karl Polanyi (New York: St. Martins Press).Google Scholar
Mihályi, Peter (1996), Privatisation in Hungary: Now Comes the ‘Hard Core’, Communist Economics and Economic Transformation 8: 205–216.Google Scholar
Murrell, Peter (1993), What is Shock Therapy? What Did it Do in Poland and Russia? Post-Soviet Affairs 9: 11–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murrell, Peter (1995), The Transition According to Cambridge, Mass, Journal of Economic Literature 33: 164–178.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn and Kuzes, Irina (1994), Evaluating the Russian Voucher Privatization Program, Comparative Economic Studies 36: 56–67.Google Scholar
North, Douglas (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Orrù, Marco et al. (1997), The Economic Organisation of East Asian Capitalism (London: Sage).Google Scholar
Palda, Kristian (1997), Czech Privatization and Corporate Governance, Communist and Post-Communist Studies 30: 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pareto, Vilfredo (1923), Trattato di Sociologia Generate, Vol. III (Firenze: Barbèra).Google Scholar
Pater, Krzysztof (1995), Privatization in Poland 1994, in Böhm, Andreja (ed.), Privatization in Central and Eastern Europe 1994 (Ljubljana: Central and Eastern European Privatization Network), 301–323.Google Scholar
Pejovitch, Svetozar (1990), The Economics of Property Rights (Dordrecht: Kluwer).Google Scholar
Plckel, Andreas (1997), The Jump-Started Economy and the Ready-made State: A Theoretical Reconsideration of the East German Case, Comparative Political Studies 30: 211–241.Google Scholar
Pickel, Andreas and Wiesenthal, Helmut (1997), The Grand Experiment. Debating Shock Therapy, Transition Theory, and the East German Experience (Boulder: Westview).Google Scholar
Pinto, Brian et al. (1993), Transforming State Enterprises in Poland, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity no. 1: 213–270.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Karl ([1957] 1944), The Great Transformation (Boston: Beacon Press).Google Scholar
Popper, Karl (1970), The Poverty of Historicism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
Rutland, Peter (1994), Privatisation in Russia, Europe-Asia Studies 46: 1109–1131.Google Scholar
Schmitthoff, Clive (1982), Palmer's Company Law (London, Stevens).Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph (1950), Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper). Slmmel, Georg (1955), Conflict (New York: The Free Press).Google Scholar
Stark, David (1996), Recombinant Property in East European Capitalism, American Journal of Sociology 101: 993–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sticlitz, Joseph (1995), Whither Socialism? (Cambridge: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Szelényi, Iván (1988), Socialist Entrepreneurs: Embourgeoisement in Rural Hungary (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
Szelényi, Iván (1991), Karl Polanyi and the Theory of a Socialist Mixed Economy, in Mendell, Marguerite and Salée, Daniel (eds), The Legacy of Karl Polanyi (New York: St. Martins Press), 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szelényi, Szonja et al. (1995), The Making of the Hungarian Postcommunist Elite, Theory and Society 24: 697–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szelényi, Szonja et al. (1996), Interests and Symbols in Post-Communist Political Culture: The Case of Hungary, American Sociological Review 61: 466–477.Google Scholar
Szomburg, Jan (1995), The Political Constraints on Polish Privatization, in George, Blazyca and Dabrowski, Janusz (eds), Monitoring Economic Transition (Aldershot: Avebury), 75–85.Google Scholar
Tittenbrun, Jacek (1995), The Managerial Revolution Revisited: The Case of Privatisation in Poland, Capital and Class 55: 21–32.Google Scholar
Török, Ádám (1995), Corporate Governance in the Transition: The Case of Hungary (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences/Institute of Economics), Discussion Paper No. 35.Google Scholar
Tworzecki, Hubert (1994), The Polish Parliamentary Elections of 1993, Electoral Studies 13: 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voszka, Éva (1994), From Renationalization to Redistribution?, in United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Privatization in the Transition Process (New York: UN Publications), 349–362.Google Scholar
Walicki, Andrzej (1990), The Three Traditions in Polish Patriotism, in Gomulka, Stanislaw and Polonsky, Antony (eds), Polish Paradoxes (London: Routledge), 21–39.Google Scholar
Wasilewski, Jacek and Wnuk-Lipinksi, Edmund (1995), Poland: Winding Road from the Communist to the Post-Solidarity Elite, Theory and Society 24: 669–696.Google Scholar
Webb, W.L. (1992), The Polish General Election of 1991, Electoral Studies 11: 166–170.Google Scholar
Windolf, Paul (1998), The Integration of the East German Firms into the Western Market Economy, in Immerfall, Stefan (ed.), Territoriality in the Globalizing Society: One Place or None? (Heidelberg: Springer), 65–90.Google Scholar
Windolf, Paul and Beyer, Jürgen (1996), Co-operative Capitalism: Corporate Networks in Germany and Britain, British Journal of Sociology 47: 205–231.Google Scholar
Winiecki, Jan (1995), Polish Mass Privatisation Programme: The Unloved Child in a Suspect Family, in OECD/Centre for Co-operation with the Economics in Transition (eds), Mass Privatisation: An Initial Assessment (Paris: OECD), 47–57.Google Scholar
Winiecki, Jan (1996), The Superiority of Eliminating Barriers to Entrepreneurship over Privatization Activism of the State, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review 198: 313–331.Google Scholar
World Bank (1996), World Development Report 1996: From Plan to Market (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
WERI (World Economic Research Institute) (1994), Transforming the Polish Economy (Warszawa: Warsaw School of Economics).Google Scholar
Wright, Erik O. (1997), Class Counts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar