Capitalism is more than just non-communism or private property, in the '90s the eastern bloc had to disassemble the old one and build capitalist institutions from scratch. The coercive mechanism of the command economy were disassembled, but there was nothing there to replace it. Some kind of "transformational recession" was unavoidable, there was a drop in output potential output as unprofitable enterprises shut down, their employees were laid off, and the capital stock was rearranged into a productive configuration by market incentives.
In '90s Russia the old planning system was taken away, but there were no function institutions (trust in markets, function legal system and contract enforcement, business expertise, etc.) to replace it. Previously economic planning had submitted for coercion to some degree, so output in a situation that still had undeveloped institutions - planning was lower than before. It took time but Russia has definitely filled the gap, Russian GDP per capita and life expectancy have surpassed their 1989 levels by now.
(Source: Are Command Economies Unstable? Why did the Soviet Economy Collapse?)
Another factor was whether or not the ex-communists where in charge. In Poland there was large dissident movement ready to take over with a consensus in favor of reform, but in places like Russia and Ukraine there was no substantial dissident movement ready to take over. The ex-communists elites were divided as to the pace and form of reforms, and in places like Ukraine there was a shortage of qualified people with knowledge or experience of what a market economy should look like.
Poland was more of a success than Russia success because of its more developed non-communist leadership and its earlier economic crisis. Once Solidarity took over, the leadership had in support of shock therapy/The Balcerowicz Plan. Communist Poland was the Greece of the 1980s, it had run up so much debt that it depended on IMF loans in exchange for rapid privatization and reforms. If it hadn't ripped off the band-aid, so to speak, and scarified long-term growth to avoid short-term pain, it would look more like Ukraine. Jeffrey Sachs was an economic advisor to both Poland and Russia in the '90s, he's written a memoir on his experience.
It's also worth remembering how much variety there is within the post communist transitions, the year when GDP started growing again differed dramatically, so it's easier to go into detail on a country by country basis. After the Cold War ended, the countries that had been part of a united communist drifted apart to become more like their neighbors. Central Asia started to look like the middle east, the Baltics started to look like Scandinavia, etc. The two exceptions to this heuristic are Belarus, a dictatorship in the middle of Europe, and Mongolia, a capitalist democracy wedged between Russia and China.
This graph of GDP per capita show a massive gap between the Baltics, Russia, and the rest of the countries.
(Data from Post-Soviet States and Economy of the Soviet Union)
In '90s Russia the old planning system was taken away, but there were no function institutions (trust in markets, function legal system and contract enforcement, business expertise, etc.) to replace it. Previously economic planning had submitted for coercion to some degree, so output in a situation that still had undeveloped institutions - planning was lower than before. It took time but Russia has definitely filled the gap, Russian GDP per capita and life expectancy have surpassed their 1989 levels by now.
Another factor was whether or not the ex-communists where in charge. In Poland there was large dissident movement ready to take over with a consensus in favor of reform, but in places like Russia and Ukraine there was no substantial dissident movement ready to take over. The ex-communists elites were divided as to the pace and form of reforms, and in places like Ukraine there was a shortage of qualified people with knowledge or experience of what a market economy should look like.
Poland was more of a success than Russia success because of its more developed non-communist leadership and its earlier economic crisis. Once Solidarity took over, the leadership had in support of shock therapy/The Balcerowicz Plan. Communist Poland was the Greece of the 1980s, it had run up so much debt that it depended on IMF loans in exchange for rapid privatization and reforms. If it hadn't ripped off the band-aid, so to speak, and scarified long-term growth to avoid short-term pain, it would look more like Ukraine. Jeffrey Sachs was an economic advisor to both Poland and Russia in the '90s, he's written a memoir on his experience.
It's also worth remembering how much variety there is within the post communist transitions, the year when GDP started growing again differed dramatically, so it's easier to go into detail on a country by country basis. After the Cold War ended, the countries that had been part of a united communist drifted apart to become more like their neighbors. Central Asia started to look like the middle east, the Baltics started to look like Scandinavia, etc. The two exceptions to this heuristic are Belarus, a dictatorship in the middle of Europe, and Mongolia, a capitalist democracy wedged between Russia and China.
(Data from Post-Soviet States and Economy of the Soviet Union)
Last edited: