战略与国际研究中心-PONARS-Working-Paper-017_19页_149kb

报告摘要

Summary of the Political Economy of Growth in Russia

Core Content

This paper by Vladimir Popov explores the political economy of growth in Russia, focusing on the role of institutions and the challenges of economic reform. It challenges the common belief that liberalization alone is the key to economic recovery and instead emphasizes the importance of institutional strength in fostering sustainable growth.

Main Viewpoints

Economic Growth and Institutional Capacity: The author argues that the success of economic reform and growth in post-communist countries is largely dependent on the strength of institutions rather than the speed or extent of liberalization.
Impact of Institutional Collapse: The collapse of institutions in Russia and other CIS countries has had a severe negative impact on economic performance, particularly in terms of capital productivity and investment.
Institutional Decay and Government Revenue: A significant decline in government revenues as a share of GDP is closely correlated with the expansion of the shadow economy and the deterioration of the business environment.
Role of Rule of Law and Democracy: Countries with strong rule of law and either authoritarian or democratic regimes (such as China, Vietnam, and Central European states) have demonstrated better economic performance, while illiberal democracies (CIS and Balkan states) have performed poorly due to weak institutional frameworks.
Exchange Rate Policy: A undervalued exchange rate is identified as a key policy tool to promote export-oriented growth, which has been effectively used in East Asian countries.

Key Information

Economic Performance and Growth

The Russian economy experienced a significant transformational recession, with GDP reaching nearly half of its 1989 level by 1998.
Even after the 1998 currency crisis, the resumption of growth occurred despite government attempts to maintain an overvalued ruble.
The author suggests that a 5% annual growth rate would take 15 years to recover to the pre-recession GDP level, which is considered optimistic given the historical performance of similar economies.

Capital Productivity and Investment

Capital productivity (MCP) is a crucial determinant of economic growth.
Russian investment in 1999 was 4 times lower than in 1989, and it did not even compensate for capital depreciation.
Investment/GDP ratios in Russia fell below those of many East European and Baltic countries, despite similar levels of restructuring.

Institutional Capacity

The quality of governance is strongly correlated with the ability of the state to enforce rules and regulations.
The share of government revenues in GDP is a key indicator of institutional strength.
Countries like China and Vietnam managed to maintain relatively high government revenues, which helped preserve institutional capacity and support growth.

Rule of Law and Democracy

Strong authoritarian regimes (China, Vietnam) and strong democratic regimes (Central Europe) have shown better economic performance.
Weak democratic regimes (CIS and Balkan states) have struggled with institutional decay, leading to poor economic outcomes.
The combination of weak rule of law and democracy (illiberal democracies) results in the worst institutional performance and economic outcomes.

Policy Recommendations

Exchange Rate Policy: Maintaining an undervalued exchange rate can stimulate exports and industrial restructuring, as seen in East Asian economies.
Industrial Policy: Focus on export-oriented and competitive industries, while phasing out subsidies for inefficient sectors.
Government Expenditure Restructuring: Re-evaluate and restructure government spending to ensure financial sustainability and efficiency, particularly in areas such as agriculture, housing, and pensions.

Conclusion

The paper concludes that institutional strength is the main determinant of economic performance in transition economies.
The collapse of institutions in Russia has significantly hindered capital productivity and investment, leading to prolonged economic stagnation.
The debate on the speed of liberalization (shock therapy vs. gradualism) is misplaced; instead, the focus should be on rebuilding strong institutional frameworks.
The best economic performance is associated with low pre-transition distortions and strong institutions, while the worst is linked to high distortions and weak institutions.

Figures and Data

Figure 1: Illustrates the time required for Russia to recover to pre-recession GDP levels.
Figure 2: Compares the institutional development and GDP growth in Russia and China.
Figure 3: Shows three major patterns of change in government expenditure during transition.
Figure 4: Demonstrates the inverse relationship between government revenue and the shadow economy.
Figure 5: Highlights the correlation between government revenue decline and economic performance.
Figure 6: Compares the stability of government revenue in different transition economies.
Figure 7: Links government revenue share and capital productivity.
Figure 8: Illustrates the quadrant of rule of law and democracy.
Figure 9: Demonstrates the relationship between rule of law, democracy, and economic performance.