top of page
  • Writer's pictureZalli Foundation

Economic Transition in Post-Soviet States: Challenges, Successes, and Failures

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the beginning of a new era for the countries of the former Eastern Bloc, particularly those in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. One of the most significant and transformative aspects was the transition from centrally planned economies to market-based systems. Here we analyse this economic transition, focusing primarily on Russia, while also drawing parallels to other post-Soviet states. We also assess the challenges, successes, and failures that have marked this journey towards economic liberalization and the implications for these nations.


The major challenge of the transition from a communist economy to a market-based economy was institutional reforms in post-Soviet countries. This transition required the establishment of new institutions, such as legal frameworks, property rights, and financial regulations. This process was complex, and many countries struggled to implement effective institutions promptly. When Soviet countries were transitioning from a communist economy to a market-based economy, post-Soviet governments struggled to create clear and fair rules for property rights. The most considerable issue in this area was the privatisation of government businesses.


The absence of privatization laws led to widespread corruption and the rise of wealthy oligarchs who acquired valuable assets at significantly reduced prices. In 1993, over two-thirds of Russia's privatized and privatizing firms were controlled by insiders (McFaul, 2011). This consolidation of wealth among a select few contributed to income inequality and undermined public trust in the new systems. Conversely, there were limited corporate restructurings within these enterprises, and the establishment of new market institutions was rare. Furthermore, due to the weak legal framework for safeguarding property rights, individuals were hesitant to develop businesses and invest in new projects because of uncertainties surrounding the protection of their businesses and investments.


Another obstacle arose from the excessive inflation and economic chaos that afflicted numerous post-Soviet countries during the initial stages of their transition. The sudden deregulation of prices and withdrawal of subsidies resulted in skyrocketing inflation, currency devaluation, and economic turbulence. In the 12-month period ending in December 1991, the wholesale price index for industrial output surged by 264%, and the retail price index reached 203% (Bradshaw, Filatochev, 2007). The primary cause of this hyperinflation was the swift shift toward market-driven pricing of goods by the post-Soviet governments. In the communist economy, the Soviet Union had been responsible for setting and maintaining low prices for goods, so when prices were suddenly liberalized, it resulted in significant inflation. Additionally, the government reduced subsidies for certain goods and services, causing further inflation. This triggered economic uncertainty and undermined trust in the national currency. People sought to protect their assets and savings by exchanging their currency for more stable alternatives, leading to the devaluation of the national currency. This devaluation made imported goods more expensive, exacerbating inflation and contributing to economic instability in the post-Soviet countries.


However, the shift from a communist economy to a market-oriented economy also brought about certain benefits for the post-Soviet nations. Despite the initial hurdles, many post-Soviet states have made significant advancements in opening up their markets when they opted for market liberalization. They have adopted the principles of supply and demand, liberalized trade, and fostered an environment conducive to entrepreneurship. Given that entrepreneurship was previously constrained due to the absence of property rights, the financial reforms in post-Soviet countries encouraged entrepreneurs to establish new businesses. This, in turn, contributed to the generation of wealth and economic advancement in these nations. With the market-based economy offering opportunities for individuals to establish their own businesses while implementing their entrepreneurial ideas, small-scale entrepreneurial initiatives played an important role in driving the economic transition of the post-Soviet countries (Berkowitz, DeJong, 2011).


Another achievement in this transition was the ability of post-Soviet countries to attract foreign investments, which subsequently contributed to their economic growth. Driven by the promise of emerging markets, abundant natural resources, and a skilled workforce, foreign investors displayed a keen interest in the post-Soviet nations. This influx of foreign capital, technology, and expertise proved instrumental. Moreover, foreign investments prompted the internationalization of domestic companies in post-Soviet countries, introducing foreign investors' knowledge of various markets and fostering a more globalized outlook in business operations (Shaw, Hardy, 2010). Notably, in 1996, Russia received slightly over 2 billion dollars in foreign direct investment (FDI), Azerbaijan attracted 600 million dollars, and Ukraine secured 500 million dollars, all of which played a significant role in the economic growth of these nations (Lankes, Stern, Blumenthal, Weigl, 1999).


Conversely, post-Soviet countries diversified their economies and reduced their reliance on a single industry or export. Several countries in the region, including Russia, have experienced periods of robust economic growth due to the limited scope of industries in their economies. The transition to a market-based economy has made post-Soviet states more active in this regard.


The economic transition in post-Soviet states, notably Russia, has been marked by both successes and failures. Political stability emerged as a success, stemming from the collapse of the Soviet Union due to ethnic and national conflicts (Lapidus, 2011). Income inequality and the rise of oligarchic elites posed significant challenges, leading to social unrest. Corruption remains pervasive, hampering economic development and eroding public trust, with the offshore wealth of Russian elites surpassing official foreign reserves (Novokmet, Piketty, Zucman, 2018). Incomplete and uneven reforms created uncertainty for businesses and investors, slowing the transition process. Social dislocation resulted from dismantling the old social order without adequate social safety nets, driven in part by migration (Mansoor, Quillin, 2006).


The journey from communism to capitalism in post-Soviet states underscores the need for well-planned reforms, social safety nets, and anti-corruption measures. It remains an ongoing and vital area of study and policy consideration, offering valuable lessons for nations undergoing similar transformations.


This article is written by Erdem Chavushoglu, Kings College London.



References:


1. Berkowitz, D., & DeJong, D. N. (2011). Growth in Post-Soviet Russia: A Tale of Two Transitions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 79(1-2), 133–143. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.06.017


2. Filatotchev, I., & Bradshaw, R. (1992). The Soviet Hyperinflation: Its Origins and Impact throughout the Former Republics. Soviet Studies, 44(5), 739–759. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09668139208412045. Accessed 21 Aug. 2020.


3. Lankes, H., et al. (1999). Capital Flows to Eastern Europe. In ISBN (pp. 0–226). [Online] Available at: www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9797/c9797.pdf


4. Lapidus, G. W. (1984). Ethnonationalism and Political Stability: The Soviet Case. World Politics, 36(4), 555–580. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2010186. Accessed 21 Apr. 2019.


5. Mansoor, A. M., & Quillin, B. (2006). Migration and Remittances: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. World Bank Publications. [Online] Available at: books.google.co.uk/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=hLGUitb7NhIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=social+dislocation+post+Soviet+Union&ots=4DUWdrR7OD&sig=0qw1HnCyPvNJXV5m2hpjhBlEKqw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=social%20dislocation%20post%20Soviet%20Union&f=false.


6. McFaul, M. (1995). State Power, Institutional Change, and the Politics of Privatization in Russia. World Politics, 47(2), 210–243. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887100016087.


7. Novokmet, F., et al. (2018). From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 16(2), 189–223. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-018-9383-0.


8. Shaw, A. S., & Hardy, J. (1998). Globalization, Institutions, Foreign Investment and the Reintegration of East and Central Europe and the Former Soviet Union with the World Economy. Regional Studies, 32(7), 587–590. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409850119481.


Comments


bottom of page