<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>The systemic transformation of post-socialist countries from central planning to a market economy was a very complex and unprecedented undertaking. In this study we critically examine three influential classifications proposed by Coates [2000, 2006], Hall and Soskice [2001], and Amable [2003], within the “comparative capitalisms” literature stream, and argue that they are unsuitable for evaluating the progress made by transition economies since 1990. The basis of the criticism stems from timing: these theoretical frameworks were developed primarily to evaluate the growth of advanced and mature capitalist countries. Thus, they fail to capture the unique features of transition economies and the complexity of the transformation process that led to the emergence of different market-based systems. From this vantage point, we discusses and also critique a recent classification developed by Myant and Drahokoupil [2011, 2015], who distinguish five ideal models (i.e. “varieties of capitalism”) that have evolved within transition countries. In our conclusion we point to areas within the field that may be explored by future research.</p></abstract>

The systemic transformation of post-socialist countries from central planning to a market economy was a very complex and unprecedented undertaking. In this study we critically examine three influential classifications proposed by Coates [2000, 2006], Hall and Soskice [2001], and Amable [2003], within the “comparative capitalisms” literature stream, and argue that they are unsuitable for evaluating the progress made by transition economies since 1990. The basis of the criticism stems from timing: these theoretical frameworks were developed primarily to evaluate the growth of advanced and mature capitalist countries. Thus, they fail to capture the unique features of transition economies and the complexity of the transformation process that led to the emergence of different market-based systems. From this vantage point, we discusses and also critique a recent classification developed by Myant and Drahokoupil [2011, 2015], who distinguish five ideal models (i.e. “varieties of capitalism”) that have evolved within transition countries. In our conclusion we point to areas within the field that may be explored by future research.

Emerging Varieties of Capitalism in Transition Countries: Literature Review

International Journal of Management and Economics

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

{"article-title":"Emerging Varieties of Capitalism in Transition Countries: Literature Review"}

The systemic transformation of post-socialist countries from central planning to a market economy was a very complex and unprecedented undertaking. In this...

Emerging Varieties of Capitalism in Transition Countries: Literature Review

Online veröffentlicht: 29. Feb. 2016

Seitenbereich: 101 - 124

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijme-2015-0037

Schlüsselwörter
comparative capitalism, international integration, systemic transformation, transition countries, varieties of capitalism

© 2015 Dariusz Leszczyński, published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Emerging Varieties of Capitalism in Transition Countries: Literature Review

Online veröffentlicht: 29. Feb. 2016

Seitenbereich: 101 - 124

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijme-2015-0037

Schlüsselwörtercomparative capitalism, international integration, systemic transformation, transition countries, varieties of capitalism

© 2015 Dariusz Leszczyński, published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Schlüsselwörter
comparative capitalism, international integration, systemic transformation, transition countries, varieties of capitalism