2016年-PIIE彼得森国际经济研究所_The_Eurasian_Growth_Paradox_21页_363kb

The Eurasian Growth Paradox Summary

Core Content

This paper, The Eurasian Growth Paradox by Anders Åslund and Nazgul Jenish, analyzes the divergent economic growth trajectories of postcommunist countries in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) between 1989 and 2004. It challenges the initial assumption that more radical market reforms led to faster and more vigorous growth, as was observed in Central Europe and the Baltics during the early postcommunist transition. From 1999 onward, the CIS countries outperformed their Central European counterparts, with an average annual growth rate of 7.8% compared to 3.6% in the Visegrad Group.

The paper explores the reasons behind this "growth paradox" and concludes that reducing public expenditures is the most effective factor in stimulating economic growth among postcommunist countries. It also highlights the role of oil exports and the distance from the European Union (EU) in contributing to growth differences, while noting that the effects of corruption, investment, and the "laggard effect" are less significant.

Main Points and Key Findings

• Initial Transition Period (1989–1998):

  • Market reforms led to sharp declines in output across postcommunist countries.
  • The more radical the reforms, the faster the return to growth.
  • Central Europe and the Baltics experienced faster and more robust growth than CIS countries.
  • The "laggard effect" (growth of less developed countries) was not sufficient to explain the large growth gap.

• Post-1998 Shift (1999–2004):

  • CIS countries experienced a dramatic growth surge, often more than double that of Central Europe.
  • The Russian financial crisis of 1998 acted as a turning point, forcing CIS governments to cut public expenditures and implement tax reforms.
  • This shift led to more market-oriented economies, with reduced public spending and increased private sector participation.

• Key Growth Drivers Identified:

  • Reducing public expenditures had the most significant and positive effect on growth.
  • Oil exports were also positively correlated with growth.
  • Distance from the EU had a positive impact on growth, suggesting that proximity to the EU may have been a drag.
  • Corruption had a negative effect on growth, though only marginally significant.

• Role of Economic Freedom:

  • CIS countries showed greater economic freedom, particularly in labor markets and tax policies, compared to Central Europe.
  • The EBRD transition indicators failed to capture this shift, suggesting that they may not be fully reflective of actual structural changes.

• Democracy and Growth:

  • In the 1990s, democracy was positively correlated with growth.
  • After 1998, the correlation reversed, with CIS countries (often authoritarian) outperforming Central European democracies.
  • This may be due to the EU's regulatory burden, such as the Common Agricultural Policy, which may have hindered growth in Central Europe.

Regression Analysis Overview

• Model Specification:

  • A panel data regression model was used to analyze the relationship between growth and various factors.
  • The model included variables such as government expenditure as a share of GDP, oil exports, corruption index, and a CIS dummy.

• Data Sources:

  • GDP per capita (PPP) data from the World Bank.
  • Annual GDP growth and government expenditure data from the EBRD Transition Report.
  • Investment data from UNECE databases.
  • Corruption perception index from Transparency International.

• Estimation Methods:

  • Fixed-effects and GMM (Generalized Method of Moments) procedures were used.
  • GMM is preferred as it accounts for potential endogeneity and omitted-variables bias.

• Results:

  • Government spending had a strong, negative, and statistically significant impact on growth.
  • Oil exports were positively and significantly correlated with growth.
  • Distance from the EU (captured by the CIS dummy) also had a positive effect on growth.
  • Corruption had a negative but marginally significant effect.
  • The laggard effect and investment were found to be statistically insignificant.
  • Spillovers from neighboring countries were not found to be statistically significant.

Conclusion

The paper concludes that, among postcommunist countries, reducing public expenditures is the most critical factor in promoting economic growth. While oil exports and distance from the EU also play a role, the effect of corruption and investment is less pronounced. The shift in growth patterns after 1998 highlights the importance of fiscal discipline and market-oriented reforms in driving economic recovery, especially in CIS countries. The EBRD transition indicators may not fully capture these changes, suggesting a need for more nuanced economic measurement tools.