transitional economy- this is an economic system that exists during the period of transition from one system of the socio-economic system to another.
During this period, social and economic systems will radically change and transform, there is a general transformation of relations in matters of ownership, mechanisms and tools in the management sphere are changing, both means and ends are completely changing. economic development.
In the case of Russia, as well as the countries of the post-Soviet space, the term transition economy is applicable in the period of transition from the model of centralized management of the economy to a new market-type economy.
Read more about the transition economy at ANSWR
In modern classical economic theory, the market economy is studied as a stable, orderly and balanced system, which is in a state of progressive development.
At the end of the twentieth century, during the transition of an industrial society to a post-industrial one, a new science of transitology was formed, which studies theoretical basis economic transformations. Thus, transitology is the science of the economy in transition. The subject of this science is the problematic issues of the transformation of the economic system.
The subject of transitology research is the economic system of a particular country (or countries) which is in a state of transition, from one qualitative level to another.
The peculiarity of the transitional economy is that, in fact, at the same time the economic system has character traits two, often diametrically opposed, systems at once. These features of the transitional economy make it something more than a process of reforming some parts and elements, it is a process of changing the entire existing system economic relations.
In the process of analyzing the history of economic processes, it turned out that in the process of development there are several types of transitional economies that differ from each other in scale, as well as in the characteristics of the processes.
By scale, it is customary to divide economic processes into:
According to this classification, a local transitional economy exists in some separate area, region or country.
At its core, the local economy in transition contains specific economic processes that are inherent in this region and make the economy this region unique and distinct from the economies of other countries and regions. In terms of scale, the local transition economy is an economy of the original type.
The global transition economy is understood as a general process of changes taking place on the scale of the world economy or even the entire civilization, as a rule, experts separate Eastern and Western civilizations.
Naturally, global processes, by definition, are not possible without the inclusion of local economic changes in them, and it is thanks to these local changes that large-scale shifts of a global nature take place.
However, global processes can also develop as a result of certain global factors, such as, for example, the global division of labor. Global change processes have always taken place throughout the existence of human society.
For example, we can take the process of division of human civilization into Western and Eastern civilizations in the 1st millennium BC. At this stage in the development of our society, there are all preconditions for the unification of these two civilizations to take place soon.
According to how the processes proceed, two types of transition economy are also distinguished:
The first type occurs during the natural course of history, the second - when it arises in society, often in the case of revolutionary cardinal processes, programs and directions for the development of society, including in the economic sphere. One of the examples of the second type of transitional economy can be considered the experience of implementing L. Erhard's program in Germany after the end of the Second World War.
Some economic schools believe that these types of transitional economies are rare in their pure form. In most cases, they are intertwined, in fact, this is the transitional system of the economy. It is clear that any reform will accelerate (or slow down) the course of natural economic evolution.
As an example, consider the reform of 1861 in Russia, which was aimed at accelerating the transition from the traditional way of the economy to a new capitalist economy, that is, a market type. Stolypin's reforms can be considered a logical continuation of these reforms.
In fact, these reforms in the economic plane can be compared with the socio-political revolutions that took place in Russia.
The end of the 20th century was marked by a massive transition from an administrative-command economic system to a market one in many countries of the world. In general, the ways of making these transitions can be divided into two types.
This is a transition through the creation of special economic institutions (this was done by China, as well as Hungary in Europe), or the path of "shock" therapy (this type is typical for most countries of Eastern Europe, including for Russia).
The classic form of such a transition was demonstrated by Poland in the 1990s.
The difference between these options is not only in the terms for which the changes were made, but also in the volume of regulated sectors, selected measures stabilization, the degree of coverage of industries.
Contrary to popular belief that the choice of the transition path depends on the political will of the country's leadership, economists consider the choice of one path or another to be determined by a whole range of social, political and economic factors.
Most often, the shock option is due to the prevailing difficult circumstances in the country's economy, financial imbalances, commodity shortages and structural violations in sectors of the economy that have remained from the previous system of economic relations.
A transitional economy is a normal evolutionary state of an economic system, when the economy operates during the period of transition from one stage of the evolution of society to another, often this is a period of economic, political and social changes. Based on this, the features of the transitional economy distinguish it from the "ordinary" economic system. Among these specific features can be distinguished:
Often these features are identified as the main problems of the transition economy.
The first feature (inertia) is explained by the fact that, due to constant looking back at the previous stage, a quick replacement is not possible, no matter how much you would like it. economic forms and new relationships.
It is this phenomenon that explains the persistence of the remnants of the old economic relations over a sufficiently long period of time.
But since the process of evolution cannot be stopped, new forms and new relationships will arise and develop. New economic institutions develop especially intensively if there is a planned program of reforms.
The effectiveness of reforms increases if they are not carried out spontaneously, but are based on economic laws.
During this period, the role of subjective factors increases, ultimately determining the ways of implementing reforms and their practical significance.
In economic theory, the main features of the transition economy are distinguished, there are at least five of them.
The economy in transition is distinguished by its volatility, which upsets the equilibrium. This feature is inherent in any type of transitional economy; it ensures both the dynamism of the development of the process and the uncertainty of the prospects for the development of the economic system.
The features of the transitional economy are manifested in the interweaving of new and old forms of farming, they are a litmus test for the fact that the process has really begun, it is underway and, in the opinion of many experts, indicates the irreversibility of the process.
It is a factor in the multivariance of the development of events and indicates the possibility of choosing the most favorable development option.
This feature concerns not so much the functioning of the economy as the emerging contradictions between the strata of society and the economic entities behind them. The aggravation of contradictions is so strong that it can lead to revolutionary upheavals and social cataclysms.
The transitional economy itself has a historical character, which, of course, depends on the characteristics of the region. This means that the same patterns of economic processes are manifested differently in each country.
It is quite obvious that when formulating economic development programs, one should take into account the main features of a transitional economy in order to avoid possible mistakes and miscalculations.
Despite the fact that economic processes in Russia follow the same pattern as in most countries of the world, Russia's transitional economy has a number of unique features of its own. There are also problems of the transitional economy characteristic only for Russia.
This term means that the transition to a market economy does not come from the traditional way, but from a specific type of “socialist” economy that has been developing for 70 years.
The Russian transitional economy, as an economic and social system, undoubtedly leaves its mark on the course of transformations. Moreover, the course of the process is not completely predictable, since there are simply no analogues in world history.
Russia again, as after 1917, acts as a pioneer.
The fact is that the basic concepts of a market economy are not entirely alien to Russia. Many concepts were simply "etched" from the minds of people by the Soviet ideology and way of life. Today there is a return to the lost values.
Features of the transitional economy are enhanced by the processes of globalization. World processes simply cannot but influence Russia, the transition processes themselves and the main guidelines. Therefore, the Russian transitional economy is a unique intertwining of local trends and directions of development.
The transitional economy of Russia is connected with the geographical position, as a link connecting the economies of Western and Eastern civilization. This feature leaves its mark not only on the styles of management, but also on the mentality of the inhabitants.
The transition to a new economic system is a difficult process and requires clearly defined tasks:
Stay up to date with all important United Traders events - subscribe to our telegram channel
Definition 1
Transitional economy is the evolutionary process of changing the state of the economic system, which occurs through the transition from one stage of the evolution of society to another. Such a period is accompanied not only by economic changes, but also by political and social ones.
Accordingly, the transitional economy has its own distinctive features. AT different countries the transitional economy has its own characteristics.
In Russia, the main processes also proceed according to the standard scheme, as in other countries of the world, but nevertheless, the transitional economy taking place in Russia has some unique features that are unique to our country. In addition to the peculiarities, there are some problems of the transitional economy, which are also typical only for Russia.
The transformation process taking place in the former socialist countries that emerged after the collapse of the USSR should be characterized as a process of transition to a new economic system.
Such a transition economy has some distinctive features from those varieties of transition economies when the transition is carried out within the same system.
In the case of Russia, there is a transformation of all economic foundations.
Nothing is clear?
Try asking teachers for help.
The starting point of society in the period of the transitional economy was some kind of socialism. The name of this type of socialism is by far the most common and it sounds like an administrative-command system. The final points in the transition of the economy from the administrative-command system was the capitalist market, mixed economy.
A centrally planned economy is characterized by some features:
The main way to organize the production of socially significant goods and distribute the entire volume of resources due to dense state intervention in all the main volumes of resources was the systematic management of economic activity directive and command nature, which is considered the complete opposite of the competition inherent in the capitalist system of the economy.
The formed planning bodies, which determine and evaluate the volume of resources and the volume of social needs of a larger number of subjects of economic relations and the population, were engaged in planning and distributing resources, as well as manufactured products between enterprises and industries. At the same time, the issuance of mandatory direct assignments was organized, which were established to a greater extent according to political criteria, rather than economic needs.
The existing state monopoly on foreign trade and most of the domestic market also extended to banking.
The almost complete absence of the labor market also characterized the administrative-command system of Russia in the initial state of the transition economy.
The process of reproduction of the labor force took place to a greater extent through public consumption funds.
The labor market was distributed mainly by sectors and regions, not in accordance with the cost of labor, and even more so not at the will of its carriers, that is, citizens of the country, but mainly through planning bodies, through specific social methods: the so-called “calls”, the meaning of which was that the labor force was sent to certain areas of work, there was a mobilization of the labor force, based on the ideological impact on the entire population.
The results of the centrally planned economy were the actual growing lag of countries with a socialist way of life from groups of countries with a bourgeois developed system, which were superior in production efficiency, the totality of successfully operating economic, social and political freedoms, and a higher standard of living of the population. It is these reasons, which characterize the economic inefficiency of this system, that served as the impetus for the fall of this economic system in most countries.
Remark 1
The idea of the transition economy was to move away from the inefficient centrally planned economy, which was to be transformed into the most efficient market economy.
Introduction
Chapter 1. Functions and goals of the development of the national economy in transition
1.1 The concept of a transitional economy and its main features:
1.2 Patterns of functioning of the transitional economy
1.3 The main goals and objectives of the transition period and ways to solve them:
Chapter 2. World Trends and Development of the Transition Economy
2.1. Trends in the development of the national economy in the transition period
2.2 Models of transition economy by example foreign countries
Chapter 3. Transition Economy in Russia
Conclusion
List of sources used
Introduction
The need to reform the economies of the former socialist countries has been brewing for a long time. It was due to the inability of the administrative- command economy ensure sustainable economic development. The situation became more complicated as extensive and ongoing attempts to use intensive growth factors were exhausted.
The inefficiency of the functioning of the administrative-command system is due to at least two essential prerequisites.
First, the inflexibility, the inability of this system to quickly adapt to economic changes.
The formal existence of commodity-money relations undermined the healthy competition of producers, and centralized, directive planning suppressed economic initiative.
Secondly, the command economy is characterized by low labor productivity.
The planned nature of economic management, which showed its positive features in the first years of Soviet power, later, as the economy became more complex, began to falter and, as a result, proved unable to effectively implement the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution.
As a result, countries with planned economies lagged behind countries with developed market economies in technical and technological terms. All this necessitated the reform of the administrative-command economy, its transformation into a market economy.
The formation of a modern market economy is a rather complicated matter, since it is necessary to radically transform the administrative-command system that has developed over decades.
The market system operates on fundamentally different mechanisms of economic development than the administrative-command system, so it is impossible to form it in a short time.
It is impossible to quickly change the existing socio-economic structure of society and transform property relations, create a market structure and an appropriate legal framework, and finally form a new worldview among business entities.
Consequently, the transition from one socio-economic system to another is a very complex process of reform, transformation and development.
On the one hand, this is a process of gradual “undermining” of the fundamental socio-economic relations of the former system and the emergence and development in its depths of new ones, contradictoryly connecting with the first.
On the other hand, the economy will gradually develop and strengthen the relations and elements of the modern market economy and weaken the relations and elements of the administrative-command system.
Thus, the process of establishing a modern market economy requires a rather long period of time during which the so-called transitional economic system or transitional economy will exist, which is a mixture of relations and elements of the administrative-command and modern market systems.
The transitional economy characterizes, as it were, the “intermediate” state of society, when the former system of socio-economic relations and institutions is being destroyed and reformed, and the new one is just being formed.
The changes taking place in a transitional economy are predominantly developmental rather than functioning, as is typical for the current system.
Target term paper– to analyze the features and specifics of the functioning of the transitional economy.
Objectives of the course work:
to determine the essence, main features and peculiarities of the functioning of the transitional economy.
to consider models of transitional economy on the example of foreign countries;
study the historical stages of transition to market relations;
identify problems and ways of solving the transitional economy.
Consider Russia's transitional economy.
The theme I have chosen is relevant enough. After analyzing the literature on this topic, we can say with confidence that there are enough materials for both theoretical aspects, and in practical terms, i.e. with consideration of the development of individual states. Lots of data and statistics.
Chapter 1. Functions and objectives of the development of the national economy in transition
The transitional economy is such a special state of the economic system when it functions during the transition of society from one established historical system to another.
The transition period is a period of time during which society carries out fundamental economic, political and social transformations, and the country's economy is moving into a new, qualitatively different state in connection with fundamental reforms of the economic system.
This transition for the post-socialist countries has one chosen direction - a socially oriented market economy. The transitional economy is characterized by the following main features that distinguish it from other established systems.
First, it is an intersystem formation. Therefore, the essence of the transitional economy is a mixture, a combination of administrative-command and modern market systems with their often contradictory functioning elements.
Secondly, while command and market economies are characterized by a certain integrity and sustainability of development, the transitional economy is characterized by instability of the state, violation of integrity.
Such a situation, which is a crisis for the current economic system, can be regarded as normal for a transforming economy. Preservation and reproduction for a relatively long time of instability, disequilibrium of the system have their own reason: a change in purpose.
If in an ordinary, stable system such a goal is its self-preservation, then for a transitional economy it is transformation into another system.
Thirdly, the transitional economy is characterized by a quantitative and qualitative change in the composition of elements. It "inherited" the structural elements of the previous system: state enterprises, collective farms, production cooperatives, households and the state.
But these elements function in a qualitatively different, transforming economic system, and therefore change both their content and their “functions associated with the emergence of a market economy.
At the same time, new elements that are not characteristic of the old system appear in the transitional economy: entrepreneurial structures of various forms of ownership, non-state enterprises, stock exchanges, commercial banks, non-state pension, insurance and other funds, farms.
Fourth, a qualitative change in systemic connections and relations is observed in the transitional economy. The old planning and directive ties between the subjects of the economy disintegrated and disappeared, clearing the space for the formation of new market ties.
However, the latter are still of a “transitional” unstable nature and manifest themselves in such a deformed form as “barter” settlements between enterprises, mutual non-payments between business entities are characterized by frequent failures and crisis manifestations.
It should be noted that the concept of "transitional economy" is not new in the history of the development of our country. It existed in the 20s of our century and consisted of 5 socio-economic structures:
- private capitalist
- state-capitalist,
– small-scale
- patriarchal.
- socialist.
However, its goals and the direction of the transformation processes were directly opposite to the modern transitional economy.
Then the main task consisted in the transition from a multi-structural economy to a single-structural - socialist.
Now, however, there is a directly opposite task - to replace the one-structured economy of state socialism with a multi-structured national economy, which is the basis of the modern market economy.
m same transitional economy is the creation of market relations, the reform of economic policy and methods of management, the transformation of socio-economic relations in the direction of democratization and liberalization.
The goal of the ongoing transformations in the CIS countries, as noted, is a socially oriented model of a market economy. It differs from other models in that it is based on a broad pluralism of forms of ownership, with the public sector occupying a significant place in the economy.
The main difficulty of the transition period is the creation of market economy institutions.
Institutions in a broad sense are the rules of economic behavior and the mechanisms that ensure their implementation, as well as economic organizations, business entities.
During the transition period, institutions are being formed, without which a market economy cannot function normally: private property, economic freedom and responsibility of business entities, competition, market infrastructure, etc.
A characteristic feature of a transitional economy is institutional incompleteness, the absence or embryonic state of individual market institutions. In most CIS countries, this is, first of all, the lack of a land market, the weak development of the stock market and the entire market infrastructure as a whole.
Significantly slow down the market reforms ineffectiveness of the laws of insolvency and bankruptcy of enterprises. The objective reasons for this are deep economic crisis characteristic of the first stage of market transformations. It caused massive financial insolvency and mutual non-payments of enterprises.
Enactment of the bankruptcy law in such conditions, without taking into account objective reasons, will lead to the closure of most enterprises and cause mass unemployment.
A distinctive feature of the transitional economy is the scale and depth of the ongoing transformations. They capture the foundations of the existing order; property relations, political and legal systems of society, public consciousness.
Thus, the transition to a market economy requires profound changes in the institutional structure of society, institutional transformation: the transformation of property relations (privatization) and the introduction of the institution of private property, the liberalization of the economy, the creation of a package of market laws and limiting the role of the state, the formation of new business entities (commercial banks, various exchanges, investment and pension funds and etc.) .
An essential feature of the transitional economy is the socio-economic crisis. Arose as a result of the collapse of the command-administrative system, this crisis is characterized by a massive decline in production volumes, a decline in the living standards of the population, bankruptcy of enterprises, and increasing unemployment.
It was promoted by such factors as the deformation of the structure National economy(first of all, the predominance of the production of means of production over the production of consumer goods), the massive depreciation of fixed assets that coincided with the transformation of the economy, and the catastrophically slow introduction of the achievements of scientific and technical progress into production.
In a transitional economy of any type, it is obligatory to carry out reproductive process. Its general features compared with "reproduction" in a pure system could be called the specific laws of the functioning of a transitional economy. Among them should be attributed the inertia of reproduction and the intensive predominant development of new forms and relations.
The inertia of reproduction is associated with the continuity of the reproduction process, which excludes development according to the principle of the initial “destruction to the ground” of everything old, and then the creation of everything new on this basis.
This continuity predetermines the impossibility of a quick replacement existing forms others desirable. Such actions inevitably bring chaos into the production process, deform it, and lead to a decline in production.
The inertia of reproduction in this sense presupposes the preservation in the transitional economy - and for a sufficiently long period - of the old economic forms.
This, first of all, is manifested in the preservation for some time of the structure of production, the transformation of which requires a relatively long time. The existing socio-economic structure of society cannot change quickly.
The inertia of the reproduction process gives rise to a number of consequences that are important to keep in mind in economic policy.
First, it determines the deep continuity of the transition economy with the initial state of transition. Secondly, it determines relatively long terms transitional economy. Thirdly, inertia enhances the preservation of the social mentality that has developed in the past.
Ignoring the inertia of the reproduction process is an underestimation of the objective nature of social evolution, worship of the supposedly special role of the conscious principle in the development of society.
The term "transitional economy" was first introduced into literature by Marx and Engels in the middle of the 19th century and characterized the transformation from capitalism to socialism. The term used today belongs to recent history and characterizes economic condition transformation from command-and-control to market system. The problems of the transitional economy, otherwise the transformational economy, is studied by the science of transitology. The term "transitology" itself was proposed in 1992 by M. Baravua.
In general, the transformational (transitional) economy is a set of social economic relations that have arisen in the environment of the evolutionary historical process of transition from the old to the new social system.
The transition period is a period of time during which society carries out fundamental economic, political and social transformations, and the country's economy is moving into a new, qualitatively different state in connection with fundamental reforms of the economic system.
The transitional period can be caused by objective and subjective reasons. To the objective The reasons include the evolutionary development of the economy and society, scientific progress, historical movement, inconsistency with other systems (environment, etc.), which create natural contradictions that require an ideological and material reorganization of the surrounding system. subjective the reasons are the political, economic intervention of the state, large private companies, trade unions, the church or other forces in the development of society. This intervention may not correspond to the natural course of events and be accompanied by revolutions and wars. Obviously, only objective reasons can justify the existence of a transitional period.
By specialization causes that cause transient period may be:
The transition period includes three stages:
Thus, the transition from one socio-economic system to another is a very complex process of reform, transformation and development, which requires a rather long period. On the one hand, this is a process of gradual "undermining" of the fundamental socio-economic relations of the former system and the emergence and development in its depths of new ones, contradictoryly connecting with the first ones inside old system. On the other hand, the economy will gradually develop and strengthen relations and elements new system and weakening the relationships and elements of the old system.
Based on this, the following main features of the transitional economy can be distinguished, which distinguish it from other established systems:
A characteristic feature of a transitional economy is also institutional incompleteness, the absence or embryonic state of individual market institutions (land market, stock market, etc.). Let us consider these phenomena on the example of the transition from an administrative-command to a market economy. The main difficulty of the transition period is the creation of market economy institutions. Institutions in a broad sense are the rules of economic behavior and the mechanisms that ensure their implementation, as well as economic organizations, business entities. During the transition period, institutions are being formed, without which a market economy cannot function normally: private property, economic freedom and responsibility of business entities, competition, market infrastructure, etc.
Among the many changes taking place during the transition period, some are necessary, inevitable and therefore can be considered as regularities. Visually, the general patterns can be presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 J General patterns of transition to a market economy
Thus, the transition to a market economy requires profound changes in the institutional structure of society, institutional transformation: the transformation of property relations (privatization) and the introduction of the institution of private property, the liberalization of the economy, the creation of a package of market laws and limiting the role of the state, the formation of new business entities (commercial banks, various exchanges, investment and pension funds, etc.). Let us consider the main tasks of the transitional economy and ways to solve them.
Characteristics of the transition economy
Definition 1
transitional economy- an economy that makes a transition from one state to another, during which a radical transformation of the entire socio-economic system takes place, property relations, institutions and management tools, goals and means of economic development are transformed. As applied to Russia and other post-Soviet (post-socialist) states, the transition economy corresponds to the transition from the centrally controlled Soviet economy to a market economy.
In modern classical economic theory, the market economy is studied as a stable, orderly and balanced system, which is in a state of progressive development. At the end of the $XX$ century, during the transition of an industrial society to a post-industrial one, a new science of transitology was formed, which studies the theoretical foundations of economic transformations. Thus, transitology is the science of the economy in transition. The subject of this science is the problematic issues of the transformation of the economic system. The subject of transitology research is the economic system of a particular country (or countries) which is in a state of transition, from one qualitative level to another.
Picture 1.
Feature of the transition economy in that, in fact, at the same time the economic system has the characteristic features of two, often diametrically opposed, systems at once. These features of the transitional economy make it something more than a process of reforming some parts and elements, it is a process of changing the entire existing system of economic relations.
In the process of analyzing the history of economic processes, it turned out that in the process of development there are several types of transitional economies that differ from each other in scale, as well as in the characteristics of the processes.
By scale, it is customary to divide economic processes into:
According to this classification local transitional economy exists in some particular area, region or country. At its core, the local economy in transition contains specific economic processes that are inherent in this region and make the economy of this region unique and different from the economies of other countries and regions. In terms of scale, the local transition economy is an economy of the original type.
Under the global transition imply a general process of change taking place on the scale of the world economy or even the entire civilization, as a rule, experts separate Eastern and Western civilizations. Naturally, global processes, by definition, are not possible without the inclusion of local economic changes in them, and it is thanks to these local changes that large-scale shifts of a global nature take place. However, global processes can also develop as a result of certain global factors, such as, for example, the global division of labor. Global change processes have always taken place throughout the existence of human society. For example, we can take the process of division of human civilization into Western and Eastern civilizations in the $I$ millennium BC. At this stage in the development of our society, there are all prerequisites for the unification of these two civilizations to take place soon.
According to how the processes proceed, two types of transition economy are also distinguished:
The first type occurs during the natural course of history, the second - when it arises in society, often in the case of revolutionary cardinal processes, programs and directions for the development of society, including in the economic sphere. One of the examples of the second type of transitional economy can be considered the experience of implementing L. Erhard's program in Germany after the end of the Second World War.
Some economic schools believe that these types of transitional economies are rare in their pure form. In most cases, they are intertwined, in fact, this is the transitional system of the economy. It is clear that any reform will accelerate (or slow down) the course of natural economic evolution. As an example, consider the $1861 reform in Russia, which was aimed at accelerating the transition from the traditional way of the economy to a new capitalist economy, that is, a market type.
Stolypin's reforms can be considered a logical continuation of these reforms. In fact, these reforms in the economic plane can be compared with the socio-political revolutions that took place in Russia.
Remark 1
The end of the $XX$ century was marked by a massive transition from an administrative-command economic system to a market one in many countries of the world. In general, the ways of making these transitions can be divided into two types. This is a transition through the creation of special economic institutions (this was done by China, as well as Hungary in Europe), or the path of “shock” therapy (this type is typical for most countries of Eastern Europe, including Russia). The classic form of such a transition was demonstrated by Poland in the $90s.
transitional economy- this is a normal evolutionary state of the economic system, when the economy operates during the transition from one stage of the evolution of society to another, often this is a period of economic, political and social changes. Based on this, the features of the transitional economy distinguish it from the "ordinary" economic system. These specific features include:
Often these features are identified as the main problems of the transition economy. The first feature (inertia) is explained by the fact that, due to constant looking back at the previous stage, it is not possible to quickly, no matter how much we would like it, to replace economic forms and relations with new ones. It is this phenomenon that explains the persistence of the remnants of the old economic relations over a sufficiently long period of time.
In economic theory, the main features of the transition economy are distinguished, there are at least five of them.
Variability.
The economy in transition is distinguished by its volatility, which upsets the equilibrium. This feature is inherent in any type of transitional economy; it ensures both the dynamism of the development of the process and the uncertainty of the prospects for the development of the economic system.
A mixture of new and old.
The features of the transitional economy are manifested in the interweaving of new and old forms of farming, they are a litmus test for the fact that the process has really begun, it is ongoing and, according to many experts, indicates the irreversibility of the process.
Alternative.
It is a factor in the multivariance of the development of events and indicates the possibility of choosing the most favorable development option.
Inconsistency.
This feature concerns not so much the functioning of the economy as the emerging contradictions between the strata of society and the economic entities behind them. The aggravation of contradictions is so strong that it can lead to revolutionary upheavals and social cataclysms.
Historicity.
The transitional economy itself has a historical character, which, of course, depends on the characteristics of the region. This means that the same patterns of economic processes are manifested differently in each country.
It is quite obvious that when formulating economic development programs, one should take into account the main features of a transitional economy in order to avoid possible mistakes and miscalculations.
3.10.1. Essence, patterns and main features of the transition economy.
3.10.2. Ownership and privatization.
3.10.3. Shadow economy.
3.10.4. Social justice and social inequality.
3.10.1. The essence and patterns of the transition economy
transitional economy- an economy that makes a transition from one state to another, in the process of which radical transformation of the entire socio-economic system, property relations, institutions and management tools, goals and means of economic development are being transformed.
The transitional economy is an intermediate state as a result of socio-economic transformations. As applied to Russia, the transitional economy corresponds to the transition from the administrative-command Soviet economy to the market economy system.
patterns:
inertia of the reproductive process;
intensive development of new forms, relations, institutions;
the role of the subjective factor.
The main features of the transition economy:
variability, instability;
the emergence of special transitional economic forms - a mixture of old and new;
alternative nature of the development of the transitional economy;
the special nature of the contradictions of development;
the historicity of the transitional economy.
Specificity transitional economy in Russia:
the historical unprecedentedness of the transition;
an extremely high degree of nationalization of the economy;
long stay in the conditions of the administrative-command economy;
deep structural deformation of the economy;
low quality of many types of domestic products;
high degree of monopolization;
complete absence of market institutions.
Main tasks transitional economy:
liberalization of the economy (transition to free pricing);
privatization of state enterprises;
implementation of institutional reforms;
demonopolization of the economy and creation of a competitive environment;
structural transformations of the national economy;
transition to an open economy (liberalization of foreign trade);
limiting direct government intervention in the economy.
3.10.2. Ownership and privatization
Forms of ownership
On the basis of assignment:
individual- personal ownership of consumer goods, personal subsidiary farming, individual labor activity;
collective- cooperatives, collective, rental enterprises, partnerships, joint-stock enterprises, etc.;
state: national, regional and municipal.
By legal grounds
: private property (of citizens and legal entities), state, mixed (joint).
Property objects: goods, labor, land, natural resources, residential buildings, securities, capital.
Subjects of ownership: citizens, collectives, the state.
Denationalization is a set of measures to transform state property, aimed at eliminating the excessive role of the state in the economy.
Privatization- a special form of property transformation is:
the process of transferring state property to private hands (denationalization) and transferring service management from the state to the private sector. The reverse process is called nationalization. The goals of privatization may be different (Figure 49).
Introduction
1. Transitional economy: concept, features, varieties, features, functions
2. Transformational recession as a phenomenon of transitional economy
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
Since 1992, Russia has been undergoing profound changes. In some other countries, mainly in Eastern Europe, the change started even a little earlier.
The transition period in the economy is a historically short period of time during which the dismantling of the administrative-command system is completed and the system of basic market institutions is being formed. This period of time is often called the period of post-socialist transformation.
Naturally, economic transformation is part of deep, usually fundamental changes in society - in the political and state-administrative structure, in the social sphere, in ideology, in domestic and foreign policy.
Change of order can proceed in different ways. In our country, the change of power in 1991 occurred after dramatic events - the suppression of the August coup, the collapse of the USSR, the self-dissolution of the Supreme Soviet and the forced resignation of the President of the USSR.
Let us consider in more detail what is a transitional economy?
1. Transitional economy: concept, features, varieties, features, functions
A transitional economy is a transitional state from one economic system to another economic system. As a result of this transition, a fundamental transformation of the foundations of this system is carried out, which determine the genesis and development of both new features of the transition economy and its features.
The following main features of the transitional economy are distinguished.
1. The transitional economy will have to create the basis of a new economic system, while past economy reproduced on its basis. The term "basis" in economic theory is the key and includes: the type of ownership of the means and products of production; forms of economic relations; type of coordination of activities between economic entities.
With the creation of the basis of the new economy, the transitional state of the economic system is completed and it acquires a new quality.
2. An important feature of the transitional economy is its diversity. An economic structure is understood as a type of economic relations that allows the simultaneous coexistence in a given country of not only various forms, but also types of property. Thus, the transition economy is characterized by the presence of an old and a new basis, as well as the coexistence of various types of regulation of economic relations between economic entities.
3. Unsustainable development is characteristic of a transitional economy, since old relations are constantly being transformed in the absence of new institutions and rules, as a result of which! there is a conflict of old and new economic interests.
4. Transformations in the transitional economy take a rather long period, which is explained by a number of factors:
The complexity and inconsistency of transformations;
natural factors;
The impossibility of simultaneously carrying out a revolution in the technological basis, modifying the economy, and forming new economic institutions.
A transitional economy and a mixed economy have common features:
Combination of the market and state regulation;
Combination of capitalist forms and social orientation of economic development, etc.
At the same time, qualitative differences are also inherent in these types of economy. Let's note some of them.
First, a mixed economy is a modern economic system that combines market and state regulation.
Secondly, the mixed economy as a modern economic system is dominant in most developed countries.
As for the transitional economy, it:
It is not reproduced on its own economic basis, but is transferred from one economic system to another;
In contrast, a mixed economy is characterized by instability;
It covers a relatively short time period, while a mixed economy is characterized by an unchanged state of the economic system.
The transitional economy has several varieties:
1. The economy of the transition period from capitalism to socialism (in our country it covered the period from the Great October socialist revolution 1917 to 30s XX century).
2. A fundamental change in the methods of coordination within the same economic system, but they concern its basis and economic policy. This kind of transitional economy implies the inevitable replacement of old institutions, the development of new methods of regulation and the choice of new theories of socio-economic development.
3. The economic system of individual countries requires changes due to the change in the place of a particular country in the system of international economic and political relations. These changes are due to the need to eliminate deformations in the economies of the former colonial countries.
4.Overcoming a long period of unstable economic development of states. An example of this variety is, for example, the countries of Latin America, which have experienced low economic growth rates for more than two decades, increasing external debt, a sharp contrast in incomes of the population, high inflation, etc.
5. Transition economy of the former Soviet republics of the USSR and other post-socialist countries. She wears an intersystem transition. The peculiarity of this transitional economy lies in the fact that there is a transition from a socialist economic system to a capitalist economic system, i.e., a reversal, or, more precisely, a transition from a “pure” economic system to a mixed one.
In a modern mixed economy, the state should perform the following functions:
1. Ensuring the institutional and legal basis for the activities of economic entities (definition of rights and forms of ownership, conditions for concluding and executing contracts, relationships between trade unions and employers, general principles of external economic activity etc.).
2. Elimination or compensation of the negative effects of market behavior and satisfaction of people's needs for public goods that the market cannot produce: addressing issues of national defense, ecology, education, science, healthcare, etc.
3. Pursuing an economic policy aimed at:
Maintaining the normal functioning of the market mechanism;
Smoothing of cyclic fluctuations;
Overcoming the consequences of economic shocks;
Providing prerequisites for long-term economic growth(especially through fiscal, monetary and structural policies).
4.Implementation of an active and principled antimonopoly policy.
5. Maintaining a sustainable social climate in society through the redistribution of available income.
6. Pursuing a stabilization policy of the state aimed at restoring and maintaining macroeconomic equilibrium (in particular, full employment, a stable price level). Distinguish between formal and real stabilization. Formal stabilization is the achievement of a steady state in terms of one macroeconomic indicator (inflation, unemployment, and changes in gross domestic income). Real stabilization means not only, for example, a reduction in unemployment, but the existence of conditions for economic growth. The transition to real stabilization presupposes the need for an increase in state demand, investment, and strict control over prices and incomes.
2. Transformational recession as a phenomenon of transitional economy
Throughout the 1990s, until 1999, the Russian economy was in a state of protracted economic recession, which reached its highest point in the crisis year of 1998. The economic recession was preceded by the stagnation of the Soviet economy in the 1980s, to overcome which the concept of accelerating development, developed during the years of perestroika, was aimed in its time. However, the development potential of socialism was by that time completely exhausted, which was reflected in its inability to ensure further economic growth. The hopelessness of the situation doomed the attempt to resuscitate socialism, which ended in its death, to failure. Since 1990, economic growth has stopped even according to official data. A protracted transformational recession began.
The term "transformational recession" was introduced into scientific circulation by the Hungarian scientist J. Kornai. He argued that during the transition from the administrative-command system to the market, the economy is going through a deep crisis caused by the transitional, transformational state of the economic system. It is expressed in the fact that the former, planned mechanisms for organizing economic coordination have already been destroyed, and new ones market mechanisms still weak or non-existent.
The transitional economy is no longer planned, but not yet a market economy. Between different types of economy, between different economic systems, there is a long period of transition, which, by definition, is not capable of providing an immediate economic upsurge already as a result of a radical transformation of the entire system of economic and other relations. Therefore, it is inevitable in any transitional economy. There were many transitional periods in the centuries-old history of mankind, when there was a change in economic, and consequently, in all other social relations.
The transitional period from a planned to a market economy, from socialism to capitalism, is no exception. None of the post-socialist countries managed to avoid the transformational decline, although the scale of the decline in production was different.
The PRC was an exception, but Chinese reformers deliberately do not classify their country as a post-socialist one.
The depth and duration of the transformational decline in all post-socialist countries turned out to be different. In this sense, Russia is among the "record holders" both in terms of its duration and its destructive power, yielding the palm to only a few of the CIS countries.
What are the reasons that give rise to a transformational recession in the transition economy? It seems appropriate to distinguish two groups of them. The first includes those that are generated by the previous development, the second - the circumstances of the transitional period itself as such.
Let's take a look at the first group. The inevitability of a transformational decline is due to the need for partial destruction of the macroeconomic structure inherited from the past due to the following circumstances:
Changes in the criterion of balance due to the change of economic systems;
The need to overcome the contradictions of socialism, the materialization of which this structure is, which is most clearly seen in the structural and technological imbalances inherent in it.
In connection with the change in the criterion of macroeconomic balance, the problem of global restructuring is put forward, aimed at overcoming imbalances inherited from the past, which were not treated as such in the Soviet period.
As already noted, the structural imbalance manifests itself in the presence of excess production capacities for the new system of economic relations in heavy industries, in the military-industrial complex, in particular, which is associated with the end of the Cold War in the 1980s in connection with the end of the global confrontation. The elimination of excess capacity was achieved in various ways, including the conversion of military-industrial complex industries, re-profiling, restructuring, and even bankruptcy of unprofitable and unpromising enterprises of the first division. The inevitable consequence of these processes was the deindustrialization of the inherited scientific and production potential, since it was in the production capacities to be reduced (and these are primarily the branches of the military-industrial complex and mainly working for it) that high-tech science-intensive production was concentrated. In the civilian complex, on the contrary, there was clearly not enough capacity to meet internal needs. But the paradox was that the branches of this complex were the most ruined. The reason was their technological backwardness, which was fully revealed in connection with the liberalization of foreign economic activity, which put them in a relationship of disastrous competition for them with the outside world.
As a result, there was a general decline industrial production, which to the least affected only the fuel and energy sector, whose products over the past decades have remained invariably in demand in foreign markets, which is supported high level prices for it. All these circumstances have led to an increase specific gravity extractive industries, though not as significant given the higher decline in manufacturing. Nevertheless, we can talk about the degradation of the macroeconomic structure, if we approach it from the standpoint of modern standards for the ratio of extractive and manufacturing industries, demonstrated by developed countries. So far, only the first steps have been taken in the transformation of the inherited structure of the national economy, which made it possible to begin to eliminate the most obvious imbalances. But this is also important for ensuring the conditions for the revival of economic growth.
No less significant are the circumstances that contributed to the transformational decline, generated by the transition period itself.
Among them, we note the most significant:
The disintegration crisis that accompanied the death of socialism, and this is the collapse of the world socialist system, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) and even a number of countries (USSR, Czechoslovakia, SFRY);
Duration of the process of formation of a new class of owners as subjects of investment;
The absence of money capital, the accumulation of which, already in the transitional period, lengthened the formation of industrial capital;
Mass outflow of money capital accumulated in the country abroad;
Widespread general criminalization of economic activity.
The disintegration crisis was expressed in the collapse of the world socialist system and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, and at the same time the traditional economic ties that have developed over decades within these entities, which could not but become a factor in the decline in growth rates in the countries that were part of them. However, the most devastating in its consequences was the collapse of the USSR, and with it - a single national economic complex, formed over three quarters of a century, a single economic space. Thus, according to expert estimates, this circumstance accounts for one third of the decline in the Russian economy.
Suspension of economic growth is also inevitable as a result of a radical transformation of state property relations. With the destruction of the old system of economic relations, the class of former owners leaves the historical arena, while a new one is by no means born instantly. Meanwhile, as is known, investment activity, which ensures economic growth, forms the function of the owner of objects in the real sector of the economy, which allows him to maintain his social status by multiplying and improving these objects qualitatively, using various sources available to him for this purpose. investment funds, own and borrowed, internal and external. The formation of a class of owners takes place in the process of primary capital formation. At the same time, historically and logically, the initial form of capital is monetary. Money capital not only, by definition, could not appear in the Soviet period, but also the forced savings of the population, calculated on the eve of the market transformation in billions of rubles, did not have time to take the form of money capital. This was due to their complete depreciation in the conditions of hyperinflation, which was the result of price liberalization in January 1992 in the chronically scarce and super-monopolized Soviet economy. But without monetary capital, participation in the monetary stage of privatization is excluded, especially since in the industrial, and, moreover, extremely rich natural resources country it was about appropriation on a huge scale. Thus, the national wealth of the USSR in 1985 amounted to an astronomical sum of 3.6 trillion. rub. - without the cost of land, subsoil, forests. The cost of fixed production assets, among other things, amounted to 2.34 trillion. rub.
The division and redistribution of such wealth in themselves require not only considerable time, but also the availability of a comparable amount of money capital. The absence of such at the starting point was one of the main economic reasons for the first stage free privatization, although it was by no means the largest and not the best part of state property. But soon after it was followed by money. In addition, the post-black redistribution of property began almost immediately, participation in which is also unthinkable without monetary capital. The acute and urgent need for money capital to a large extent fed the criminal ways of fighting competitors for objects of appropriation.
It should be noted that, from this point of view, spontaneous privatization was also forced, especially since it was carried out - even before the official proclamation of market reforms - on one scale or another in all post-socialist countries. There was no money capital as such, but at the same time it was possible to use the administrative resource in full and with impunity in the conditions of the beginning chaos. Therefore, it is quite understandable that its subjects were primarily representatives of the ruling nomenklatura, as well as representatives of large shadow businesses, who by that time had received the opportunity to legalize their capital on the basis of the essentially pro-market laws newly adopted at that time.
So, it takes a long time for the emergence of new owners. In addition, the first of them, which appeared in the years voucher privatization, very often turned out to be temporary workers who, for one reason or another, lost the acquired objects in the course of the post-black redistribution of property that had begun. It took time for the accumulation of money capital. And although the victory at auctions and tenders was ensured not only by money, but also by many attendant circumstances, such as the degree of proximity of applicants to government structures, bribing government officials at various levels, the ability to successfully lobby for conflict deals, etc., nevertheless, their participants had to lay out hundreds of millions of dollars, and at the beginning of the new century, the bill went to billions. But they had to be accumulated, starting essentially from scratch. Diverse methods of such accumulation have been worked out by the history of the formation of capitalism and greatly multiplied by the Russian practice of primary capital formation in the dashing 90s. But in any case, a time lag is inevitable between the formation of monetary and industrial capital, which in itself acts as a factor in the transformational decline.
The duration of the transformational recession increases even more if the money capital accumulated in the country rushes abroad. And this is quite natural in the conditions of economic, political and other instability inherent in any transitional economy, in conditions when a favorable investment climate has long been formed behind transparent and easily overcome borders. According to expert estimates, in the 1990s, about 200-300 billion dollars of capital accumulated in the country were taken out of Russia, not to mention the damage caused to the economy by the so-called brain drain, the losses from which are no less significant.
As we can see, many circumstances inherent in the transitional economy not only limit economic growth, but also give rise to the opposite phenomenon - a transformational recession of different duration and destructive force, depending on the specific historical conditions of a particular post-socialist country. The transition from recession to growth occurs as capital masters the real sector of the economy, as a favorable investment climate is formed in the country, which not only stops the outflow of domestic capital abroad, but also stimulates the inflow of foreign capital. Such a process was clearly outlined in the Russian economy in last years, starting from 1999. At the same time, any aggravation of relations between the authorities and the largest Russian companies without convincing reasons for representatives of big business is fraught with the danger of a deterioration in the situation for the national economy in terms of the inflow of foreign capital and the outflow of domestic capital. And in any case, the transition from recovery economic growth to investment growth is being held back.
All these processes and phenomena that give rise to and feed the transformational recession are clearly visible not only in the transitional Russian economy, but also in the economies of other post-socialist countries, although due to the specifics of each of them, they proceed differently in them. But in any case, as a critical mass of true owners appears who are able to move from the original, that is, non-reproductive, accumulation of capital to reproductive, the transformational footprint becomes the starting point of economic growth.
Various countries with economies in transition are characterized by extremely uneven dynamics of macroeconomic indicators. They can be roughly divided into the following types:
1) countries for which a kind of "macroeconomic hole" was characteristic at the first stage of transformation: a significant (crisis) decline in production and GDP in 1990-92. followed by a sharp slowdown in the decline and exit in 1993-1994. (and in Poland already in 1992) onto a growth trajectory. This group includes Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, with a somewhat less confident way out of the "pit" - Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Armenia. In Bulgaria in 1996-97. economic growth again gave way to a catastrophic decline, in Albania the most severe political crisis led to the complete collapse of statehood, in Latvia and Romania, growth remained very slow and unstable.
2) countries whose economies are in a state of continuous non-uniformly slowing down recession.
The states of Eastern Europe went through the “bottom” of the economic downturn in the first half of the 1990s. In the mid 90s. almost all of them entered the growth stage, except for Bulgaria, where in 1996-1997. economic situation worsened again. In the late 90s. Eastern Europe as a whole, and especially those states where market reforms were vigorously and consistently carried out, approached and even surpassed the pre-crisis level (Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). The Polish economy is developing at a particularly high pace, which has already significantly exceeded the level of the late 1980s.
In contrast to Russia, where the enterprises of the extractive complex turned out to be the most stable, in Eastern Europe those industries that occupy the “middle” position in the technological chain showed the greatest viability. These are industries that produce products with low added value: textile, food, woodworking, printing, etc. They do not require large investments, are mainly focused on consumer demand, which has already stabilized by the mid-1990s, and have a comparative advantage in costs in the world market.
Growth is almost entirely provided by the expansion of the “new private sector”, i.e. private firms created in recent years “from scratch” and not burdened by the typical problems of state-owned and privatized enterprises (outdated equipment, surplus labor, the presence of social facilities, etc.). d.). Private enterprises quickly appeared precisely in the above sectors, which demonstrated relative stability in the difficult conditions of the transition period.
For example, in Poland in the early 1990s, when the country was undergoing "shock therapy", the private sector was the only growing sector of the economy. In 1993, production in this sector, including companies with foreign participation, according to official data, increased by 35%, while production at state-owned enterprises decreased by 6%. For a long time, private enterprises accounted for more than 50% of Poland's GDP, and we are talking about the "new private sector", because there was actually no privatization in Poland at that time. In fact, the share of the private sector was even higher, because the results of its activities are not fully reflected in the statistics. In Hungary, the share of the private sector in 1993 was estimated at 30% of GDP.
Production is also rapidly increasing at new enterprises built by foreign companies (they usually prefer new construction to the acquisition of old plants that require expensive modernization, settlement of relations with other owners and settlement of labor conflicts).
It is noteworthy that economic policy Eastern European countries is very pragmatic and has little connection with the political ideology of the new governments that replaced the radical liberals in 1993-1995. To strengthen monetary system, the development of market institutions and the solution of the most acute budgetary problems, new leaders are usually forced to cut government spending and privatize state property no less vigorously than the reformers of the early 90s.
This situation is especially typical for Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland. It was the "left" governments of these countries in the mid-90s. started the "privatization" of the social security system and blocked attempts by orthodox political groups to restore elements of the administrative-command economy (in Bulgaria - through the re-establishment of agrarian cooperatives, in Poland - through the renationalization of banks).
The experience of Eastern Europe has shown that, despite fast development"new private sector" and the influx of foreign capital, the dynamics of economic growth depends to a large extent on the state of the bulk of state-owned and privatized enterprises. This relationship manifests itself in two ways:
firstly, without an improvement in the financial situation of the bulk of enterprises, one cannot expect an expansion in the production of ordinary, mass and standard products for the domestic market;
secondly, the crisis in the real sector deprives the state tax revenue and, on the contrary, forces it to divert huge funds for subsidies, price subsidies, unemployment benefits and other forms of support for enterprises and workers. Because of this, the state is unable to fulfill its budgetary obligations for other items of expenditure, which results in a budget deficit and rising inflation.
The budget deficit, as in Russia, was initially covered by the issuance of government securities. This led to a well-known phenomenon - the “crowding out effect”, i.e., the diversion of scarce financial resources from the real sector. Banks preferred to invest not in production, but in reliable securities issued by the state. This led to an even greater "investment hunger" and a decline in production.
To break this "vicious circle", Eastern European countries have launched extensive campaigns of bank resolution and enterprise restructuring.
In Yugoslavia, the dynamics of GDP was initially similar to the dynamics of the GDP of the republics of the Transcaucasus (increasingly deepening recession). But then there is a sudden shift from a 27.7% decline to economic growth. Unlike other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia ensured economic growth not 2-4 years after the start of the financial stabilization program, but almost immediately after it began.
By the beginning of the transition period, the Russian economy had the most "favorable" conditions for a deep transformational crisis in terms of all the above parameters. The production structure was sharply skewed towards the high share of the first division, group "A" in the industry with a significant development of the military-industrial complex. The service sector was underdeveloped. In the field of engineering and technology, the economy occupied leading positions only in a number of industries (space, military equipment), in general, it had weak competitiveness in world markets, and was weighed down by a mass of obsolete equipment. The task of reforming in the field of market relations was especially difficult: it was necessary to recreate market institutions "out of nothing". The development of production for the sake of production determined the relatively low standard of living of the population, which meant the absence of a certain “margin of safety” in society that favored its radical reform. Deep penetration into society of the socialist mentality has become one of the reasons for the sharpness of the struggle of political forces in the process of transformation, the weakness of democratic forces. Unfounded, unjustifiably optimistic statements by the country's leadership about overcoming difficulties in a year or a year and a half gave rise to the corresponding expectations of the population and, all the more, deep disappointment when they were not realized.
At the beginning of the transition period, many assumed that Russia would develop a liberal-type economy, similar, for example, to the US economic system. However, practice has shown that the question of the ultimate goal of transformation is much more complicated. The peculiarities of Russia's historical experience cannot be set aside. Russia cannot be like the US, or Germany, or any other country. Remaining original, it must take everything positive from world experience.
One thing is clear: Russia must develop along the path of a market and democratic state. The market is deeply connected with democracy. This connection is due, firstly, to the fact that the private owner should see the state not as an adversary, but as an ally and patron capable of protecting his property rights. Confidence in the inviolability of their economic and political rights allows the owner to develop his business on the basis of a long-term and well-thought-out strategy. Secondly, democracy ensures that important government decisions are made in the interests of the majority and, therefore, favor those areas and areas of economic activity that are most promising at any given time.
The historical path of our country, combined with universal socio-economic trends (megatrends), indicates that the ultimate goal of the transition period should be a social market economy.
Future mixed model Russian economy, which will be the result of the transition period, should have the following main features:
Organic unity and interaction between the market and the state, in which private property and market mechanisms for the distribution of resources are combined with reliable state protection of competition and other “rules of the game”, active participation of the state in the production of “public goods” and in the development of the social sphere;
The presence of developed market institutions that form an integral interconnected system and are able to provide fast growth due to the mobility of all factors of production and their efficient use;
The social orientation of the economy that meets the high modern requirements for the quality of the workforce, creative motivation of labor and entrepreneurial activity, humanization of relations in production, the state of education, science, health, culture, environment;
Social partnership based on developed institutions of civil society and democratic government.
Conclusion
The transition period is a historically short period of time during which the dismantling of the administrative-command system is completed and the system of basic market institutions is being formed. One of the relatively simple forms of dismantling is the liberalization of the economy. But market behavior economic entities can rely only on market institutions. Therefore, institutional transformation is primary in relation to other areas of reform.
At an early stage of reforms, the central task was to suppress inflation, ensure macroeconomic stabilization and liberalize the economy. In the course of the reforms, most countries were forced to take drastic and painful “shock therapy” measures for the national economy and population. Successful financial stabilization, along with the formation of market institutions, makes it possible to move on to the stage of economic growth. At the third and final stage of the reforms, a modern structure economy.
The theory and practice of transformation allow us to identify several patterns of the transition period. This is a change in the role of the state, macroeconomic stabilization, privatization, transformational recession and integration into world economy. The historical path of our country, combined with universal socio-economic trends, indicates that the ultimate goal of post-socialist transformation for Russia is a social market economy.
Economics / ed. A.I. Arkhipova, A.K. Bolshakova - M., 2008.- P.627
Economics / ed. A.I. Arkhipova, A.K. Bolshakova - M., 2008.- P.537
