In 2004, the "Diplomatic Quarterly" published an article "A Normal Country", written by scholars Andrei Shleifer and Daniel Triesman. In response to the Western media, scholars and politicians who described the situation in Russia as dark at the time, they tried to argue that although the situation in Russia was not that good, it was actually not that bad and that it was a "normal country" with a "medium-level economy and makeshift politics." . The reason why so many people speak ill of Russia is probably because, firstly, many people still focus on the years when Russia first started to transform, and secondly, because of the historical status of the Soviet Union, people’s expectations for Russia are too high and cannot be regarded as " Treat it with a normal mind.
It is not just Western countries that cannot look at Russia - and even the Central and Eastern European region after its transformation - with a "normal mind". For a long time, Chinese media and academic circles have talked about the former Soviet Union after its transformation. The Eastern region also reflexively associates it with words such as "chaos", "collapse", "recession", "turmoil", and "lesson", so that in the minds of many Chinese people, because of Soviet Union and Dong's Through experience, "transformation" became the "wolf" in "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
Jin Yan’s new book "From "Eastern Europe" to "New Europe" is an attempt to help us take off colored glasses and "use a development perspective" to observe and understand a normalized Central and Eastern Europe. In other words, this is a book that challenges myths and dispels stereotypes.
One of the stereotypes is that after the transformation, the economies of Central and Eastern European countries are on the verge of collapse and the people are in dire straits. Due to the huge changes in the economic system and the reorganization of the trade system, many Central and Eastern European countries did experience economic depression and soaring inflation in the early stages of transition. However, the pain of transition gradually gave way to normal development after the mid-1990s. In fact, in the past decade or so, except for certain countries during the financial crisis, most Central and Eastern European countries have experienced relatively rapid growth. For example, in terms of GDP per capita purchasing power, World Bank data shows that the Czech Republic’s GDP rose from 11,209 US dollars in 1990 to 25,232 US dollars in 2010; Hungary rose from 8,778 US dollars to 19,764 US dollars; Poland rose from 5,473 US dollars to 19,059 US dollars; and Russia rose from 9,119 US dollars. is 18,963 U.S. dollars; even Serbia, which has experienced war, has seen its per capita purchasing power GDP rise from 6,407 U.S. dollars in 1997 (the earliest available data) to 11,719 U.S. dollars... In other words, in the past 20 years, the lives of people in most Central and Eastern European countries have The level has basically doubled. China's economic growth is certainly faster due to its low starting point, but even so, China's GDP per capita purchasing power in 2010 was still only US$6,828, which is far from enough to proudly "see all the mountains."
More importantly, the economic development of Central and Eastern Europe has not brought about a sharp differentiation between rich and poor. Judging from the Gini index that measures the gap between rich and poor, China's Gini index has reached around 0.48 in recent years. However, in comparison, the Gini index of the Czech Republic is 0.26 (2005), Hungary is 0.25 (2009), and Poland is 0.35 (2005). , Romania 0.32 (2008), Serbia 0.26 (2008)... It can be said that, except for the "special case" of Russia (reaching 0.43 in 2009), Central and Eastern Europe is still one of the most equal regions on earth despite market transformation.
The second stereotype is that after the transformation, parliamentary politics will be "noisy", with frequent changes in political parties and social unrest. Yes, after moving towards parliamentary politics, Central and Eastern European countries moved towards multi-party politics. Almost all Central and Eastern European countries have experienced several changes of power between different political parties. But will multi-party politics inevitably lead to excessive social mobilization and social unrest? not necessarily. Of course, with parliamentary politics, there will be more indecent images of MPs quarreling or even fighting in the media, but if there are contradictions in a society, then putting the contradictions in the "container" of parliament allows officials to help the people fight "agents" War" may actually be better than letting conflicts bloom everywhere. After all, it is better for members to brag and glare at each other in parliament than for people to pour gasoline on themselves to express their interests today and go to the police station with knives to kill people tomorrow.
The third stereotype is our unreasonable criticism of "shock therapy" and our unreasonable embrace of "gradual reform" for many years. For a long time, when mentioning the Soviet-Eastern reforms, we think of shock therapy, and when mentioning shock therapy, we shake our heads and sigh. Jin Yan tells us with insightful analysis: Estonia's reform is very "shock", but it develops very well; Belarus's reform is very "gradual", but it develops much slower; Ukraine has never been "shocked", But its transformation can almost be said to be the most failed economically; Russia is regarded as a typical example of "shock", but it has only applied the shock policy for less than a year...The complexity and diversity of reality make it difficult for us to "shock" Or gradual” to identify the success or failure of reform. In Jin Yan's analysis, each country's historical legacy and original state of reform are often more explanatory than analyzing its reform speed.
In fact, in most Central and Eastern European countries, Jin Yan pointed out that due to the democratic political framework, it is difficult to introduce and implement real shock therapy. Strong trade union power and democratic bargaining processes have made the reform process of most Central and Eastern European countries "steady".
The privatization of the Gdansk Shipyard in Poland has been discussed for five years, and the privatization of the Riu Valley Coal Mine in Romania has been discussed for 12 years. Klaus of the Czech Republic is said to be a standard neoliberal, but during his time in power he could only implement high-level policies. High taxation and welfare, anti-merger and anti-bankruptcy policies. Therefore, after 20 years of reform, most Central and Eastern European countries have not changed into "capitalist countries" in the traditional sense, but have changed into "welfare states." In contrast, in some places in China, a mayor or factory director can sell a company or industry with just one shot, which actually seems more "shocky".
It is not easy to take off colored glasses to observe other countries, because our minds are full of all kinds of "taken for granted". Perhaps the key to the problem is not how we view other countries, but how we view ourselves. In fact, there are definitely still many problems in Central and Eastern European countries: advanced welfare policies may lead to a financial crisis where the economy is highly dependent on foreign countries, making it particularly vulnerable to financial crises. The rise of far-right parties in some countries raises concerns about racism. The recovery and electoral disputes in some countries have made people worry about whether democracy has been stable in the region... However, any "normal" country has various problems. If its progress and development are ignored because of the problems of Central and Eastern European countries, , or even using it as an excuse to remain stubborn on one's own reforms is not only unfair to other countries, but also irresponsible to oneself. Perhaps starting from the book "From Eastern Europe to New Europe", when we think about the transformation of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, we should not only think about its "lessons", but also its "experience".