Post-war Russian economic growth: not a riddle
In a recent article Steven Rosefielde (2003) has advanced three propositions. He suggests that according to the best available statistics the post-war growth of the Russian economy under the command system was surprisingly good; in fact, he argues that it was too good. The standard for this judgemen...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Europe-Asia studies Jg. 55; H. 8; S. 1323 - 1329 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Abingdon
Taylor & Francis Ltd
01.12.2003
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| ISSN: | 0966-8136, 1465-3427 |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Zusammenfassung: | In a recent article Steven Rosefielde (2003) has advanced three propositions. He suggests that according to the best available statistics the post-war growth of the Russian economy under the command system was surprisingly good; in fact, he argues that it was too good. The standard for this judgement is economic theory, which holds that non-market systems must fail by comparison with market economies; Rosefielde associates specifically this view with the 'Washington consensus'. He concludes that it is the statistics that are at fault: they 'lied and were misconstrued' by Western 'statistically oriented comparativists' in a way that was unduly favourable to the command system.
In this comment I argue that Rosefielde has misread both the facts and the theory. There is no riddle in the statistics. His conclusion, therefore, must fall. |
|---|---|
| Bibliographie: | SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 14 ObjectType-Article-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 |
| ISSN: | 0966-8136 1465-3427 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/0966813032000141132 |