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...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:Europe-Asia studies Ročník 55; číslo 8; s. 1323 - 1329
Hlavní autor: Harrison, Mark
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: Abingdon Taylor & Francis Ltd 01.12.2003
Témata:
Command guidance
Commands
Economic development
Economic growth
Economic growth rate
Economic growth theories
Economic performance
Economic planning
Economic policy
Economic systems
Economic theory
Factor costs
Gross domestic product
International relations
Market economies
Per capita income
Political economy
Post-war history
Regional studies
Riddles
Russian Federation
Soviet Union
Statistical analysis
Statistics
U.S.S.R
Washington Consensus
Russia
ISSN:0966-8136, 1465-3427
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí: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.
Bibliografie: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