On the Results of Transformation of Central and Eastern European Countries (a Theoretical and Econometric Approach)

The presented study analyzes the results of transformation in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and membership of these countries in the European Union. Many Southern and Eastern European countries regard the path of the CEE countries into the EU market as exemplary, making the analysis of the results of such transformation highly relevant. The practical significance of this study consists in the relevance of the experience of the CEE countries for the countries that have chosen to integrate into the EU, a whole number of them being former Soviet republics. Aim. The study aims to assess the efficiency of the transformation model of the Central and Eastern European countries and the mixed results of such transformation. Tasks. · to examine theoretical approaches to the transformation of administrative planning management systems, including by adopting the market and democratic institutions of the developed Western countries; · to analyze the process of institutional adaptation of the CEE countries to EU norms and standards; · to examine the major directions of integration of the CEE countries into the EU; · to assess the effects of economic and social integration and to determine the contribution of integration and transformation to the economic growth of the CEE countries. Methods. This study uses econometric, theoretical, and comparative analysis, observation, synthesis, generalization, description, and graphical modeling. Results. The conducted analysis shows that the results of economic transformation in the CEE countries are mixed. For instance, the volume of imports of the CEE countries after EU integration has had an adverse effect on economic growth. Additionally, the inflow of direct foreign investments in 2004-2015 had a negative impact on the GDP per capita of the CEE countries, with the corresponding coefficient at -122.0. This means that a one-point change in this coefficient led to GDP being reduced by 122.0 US dollars. The gross fixed capital formation ratio was also negative. The obtained coefficients of dummy variables indicate that EU membership has had mixed consequences for the Central and Eastern European countries. These indicators also vary from country to country, which leads to increasing heterogeneity of the European post-socialist space. Conclusions. The countries of the Central and Eastern Europe have taken a transformational path based on the transplantation of the developed Western European institutions. The process was strictly controlled and financed by the EU, which made it more successful than in Russia and other post-soviet countries. However, the transformational model has proven to be unstable in the face of external shocks. The process of transformation coincided with the preparation of the CEE for EU membership in terms of time period and major directions. The countries fully adopted the legislation, norms, and standards of the European Union. Economic integration into the EU market was accompanied by a rapid reorientation of the foreign economic relations of the CEE countries towards the European market, intensification of investment activities, and movement of labor.

Центрально-Восточная Европа, трансформация, теория переходных процессов, Европейский союз, Central Eastern Europe, transformation, theory of transient processes, European Union

1. Экономика переходного периода. Очерки экономической политики посткоммунистической России. 1998-2002 / под ред. Е. Т. Гайдара. М.: Дело, 2003. 832 с.

2. Глинкина С. П. Методология многоуровневого анализа посткоммунистических трансформаций: науч. докл. М.: Изд-во Ин-та экономики Рос. акад. наук, 2008. 28 с.

3. Глинкина С. П., Куликова Н. В. Трансформация и ее социально-экономические эффекты в Центральной и Восточной Европе // Белорусский экономический журнал. 2013. № 3. С. 4-17.

4. Sikulova I., Frank K. Transition to Market Economy in the Central and Eastern European Countries: Comparative Analysis // European Scientific Journal SPECIAL. 2014. Special Edition Vol. 1. P. 532-542.

5. Полтерович В. М. Трансплантация экономических институтов // Экономическая наука современной России. 2001. № 3. С. 24-50.

6. Полтерович В. М. К руководству для реформаторов: некоторые выводы из теории экономических реформ // Экономическая наука современной России. 2005. № 1 (28). С. 7-24.

7. UNCTADstat. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://unctadstat.unctad.org/EN/ (дата обращения: 13.12.2018).

8. Share of trade with the EU28 // Eurostat Database. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=tet00036&language=en (дата обращения: 13.12.2018).

9. Bussière M., Fidrmuc J., Schnatz B. Trade Integration of Central and Eastern European Countries: Lessons from a Gravity Model // ECB Working Paper Series. 2005. No 545. 41 p.

10. Кришталь И. С. Роль прямых иностранных инвестиций для стран Вышеградской группы на рубеже тысячелетий // Экономические науки. 2010. № 63. С. 337-341.

11. Яковлев А. А., Голубкин А. В. К вопросу об экономическом сотрудничестве Китая со странами Центрально-Восточной Европы // Экономика и управление. 2017. № 9 (143). С. 13-19.

12. Geršl A., Rubene I., Zumer T. Foreign Direct Investment and Productivity Spillovers: Updated Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe // CNB Working Paper Series. 2007. No. 8. P. 5-8.