成长还是不成长:白俄罗斯和立陶宛。

IF 1.5 Q2 ECONOMICS Comparative Economic Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1057/s41294-022-00188-1
Thorvaldur Gylfason, Eduard Hochreiter
{"title":"成长还是不成长:白俄罗斯和立陶宛。","authors":"Thorvaldur Gylfason,&nbsp;Eduard Hochreiter","doi":"10.1057/s41294-022-00188-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We compare the economic growth performance of Belarus and Lithuania since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Our interest in this country pair is driven by the two countries' interwoven history as well as by the fact that Belarus remains autocratic and strongly tied to Russia, while Lithuania has reinvented herself as a democratic market economy fully integrated into the EU. Our aim is to understand better the extent to which the growth differential between the two countries can be traced to increased efficiency, i.e., total factor productivity, in the use of capital and other resources <i>via</i>, <i>inter alia</i>, better institutions (intensive growth) as opposed to sheer accumulation of capital (extensive growth), the hallmark of Soviet economic growth. To this end, we compare the development of some key determinants of growth in the two countries since the 1990s. Employing a simple growth accounting model we find that institutional reforms, open and transparent governance, and good education play a more important role for output and efficiency than crude capital accumulation. Hence Lithuania does better than Belarus, which remains marred by problems related to weak governance as well as autocratic rule. As in Estonia and Latvia we find that the EU perspective made a significant contribution to growth in Lithuania. The Russian connection has done less for Belarus. At last, we also touch upon the impact of the corona virus on the economies of the two countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":46161,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Economic Studies","volume":"65 1","pages":"137-167"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8968247/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To Grow or Not to Grow: Belarus and Lithuania.\",\"authors\":\"Thorvaldur Gylfason,&nbsp;Eduard Hochreiter\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41294-022-00188-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We compare the economic growth performance of Belarus and Lithuania since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Our interest in this country pair is driven by the two countries' interwoven history as well as by the fact that Belarus remains autocratic and strongly tied to Russia, while Lithuania has reinvented herself as a democratic market economy fully integrated into the EU. Our aim is to understand better the extent to which the growth differential between the two countries can be traced to increased efficiency, i.e., total factor productivity, in the use of capital and other resources <i>via</i>, <i>inter alia</i>, better institutions (intensive growth) as opposed to sheer accumulation of capital (extensive growth), the hallmark of Soviet economic growth. To this end, we compare the development of some key determinants of growth in the two countries since the 1990s. Employing a simple growth accounting model we find that institutional reforms, open and transparent governance, and good education play a more important role for output and efficiency than crude capital accumulation. Hence Lithuania does better than Belarus, which remains marred by problems related to weak governance as well as autocratic rule. As in Estonia and Latvia we find that the EU perspective made a significant contribution to growth in Lithuania. The Russian connection has done less for Belarus. At last, we also touch upon the impact of the corona virus on the economies of the two countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Economic Studies\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"137-167\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8968247/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Economic Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41294-022-00188-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Economic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41294-022-00188-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们比较了白俄罗斯和立陶宛自1991年苏联解体以来的经济增长表现。我们对这对国家的兴趣是由两国相互交织的历史以及白俄罗斯仍然专制并与俄罗斯紧密联系的事实所驱动的,而立陶宛则将自己重塑为一个完全融入欧盟的民主市场经济。我们的目标是更好地理解两国之间的增长差异在多大程度上可以追溯到效率的提高,即全要素生产率,在资本和其他资源的使用中,通过更好的制度(集约型增长)而不是纯粹的资本积累(粗放型增长),这是苏联经济增长的标志。为此,我们比较了自20世纪90年代以来两国经济增长的一些关键决定因素的发展。采用简单的增长核算模型,我们发现制度改革、公开透明的治理和良好的教育对产出和效率的作用比原始资本积累更重要。因此,立陶宛比白俄罗斯做得更好,白俄罗斯仍然受到与软弱治理和专制统治有关的问题的损害。与爱沙尼亚和拉脱维亚一样,我们发现欧盟的观点对立陶宛的增长作出了重大贡献。与俄罗斯的关系对白俄罗斯的帮助就少了。最后,我们还谈到了冠状病毒对两国经济的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
To Grow or Not to Grow: Belarus and Lithuania.

We compare the economic growth performance of Belarus and Lithuania since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Our interest in this country pair is driven by the two countries' interwoven history as well as by the fact that Belarus remains autocratic and strongly tied to Russia, while Lithuania has reinvented herself as a democratic market economy fully integrated into the EU. Our aim is to understand better the extent to which the growth differential between the two countries can be traced to increased efficiency, i.e., total factor productivity, in the use of capital and other resources via, inter alia, better institutions (intensive growth) as opposed to sheer accumulation of capital (extensive growth), the hallmark of Soviet economic growth. To this end, we compare the development of some key determinants of growth in the two countries since the 1990s. Employing a simple growth accounting model we find that institutional reforms, open and transparent governance, and good education play a more important role for output and efficiency than crude capital accumulation. Hence Lithuania does better than Belarus, which remains marred by problems related to weak governance as well as autocratic rule. As in Estonia and Latvia we find that the EU perspective made a significant contribution to growth in Lithuania. The Russian connection has done less for Belarus. At last, we also touch upon the impact of the corona virus on the economies of the two countries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Comparative Economic Studies is a journal of the Association for Comparative Economic Studies (ACES). It aims to publish papers that address several objectives: that provide original political economy analysis from a comparative perspective, that are an accessible source for state-of-the-art comparative economics thinking, that encourage cross-fertilization of ideas, that debate directions for future research in comparative economics, and that can provide materials and insights that are relevant for teaching, public policy debate and the media. Comparative Economic Studies welcome both submissions that are explicitly comparative and case studies of single countries or regions. The journal is interested in papers that investigate how economic systems respond to economic transitions, crises and to structural change, brought about by globalization, demographics, institutions, technology, politics, and the environment. While maintaining its position as an important outlet for work on Central Europe and the Former Soviet Union, the scope of Comparative Economic Studies encompasses other areas as well (European Union, Asia, Latin America, and Africa).
期刊最新文献
Editorial for the Special Issue of Comparative Economic Studies: 50 Years After the End of Bretton Woods—The Experiences of Small Open Economies Made in Frankfurt? The Monetary Policy of the Swiss National Bank Since 1973 Norway’s Road to Inflation Targeting: Overcoming the Fear of Floating A Systematic Literature Review of Income Inequality in Central–Eastern European Countries Exchange Rate Regime Choices in Small Open Economies from Bretton Woods to Inflation Targeting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1