The systemic transformation of post-socialist countries from central planning to a market economy was a very complex and unprecedented undertaking. In this study we critically examine three influential classifications proposed by Coates [2000, 2006], Hall and Soskice , and Amable , within the “comparative capitalisms” literature stream, and argue that they are unsuitable for evaluating the progress made by transition economies since 1990. The basis of the criticism stems from timing: these theoretical frameworks were developed primarily to evaluate the growth of advanced and mature capitalist countries. Thus, they fail to capture the unique features of transition economies and the complexity of the transformation process that led to the emergence of different market-based systems. From this vantage point, we discusses and also critique a recent classification developed by Myant and Drahokoupil [2011, 2015], who distinguish five ideal models (i.e. “varieties of capitalism”) that have evolved within transition countries. In our conclusion we point to areas within the field that may be explored by future research.
The premises of the development of the private sector in Poland - some conclusions
Processes of transformation in companies or more broadly the economic transformation is a part if a wider process of the systemic transformation. Within this process, a special place is held by the political system, although it should be remembered that these are changes in the economic system which will ultimately determine a success or failure of occurring changes. Parallel, there must be taking place changes in the social structure. These must both consolidate new structures or force out a slowdown in the speed of occurring changes, as well as demand a restoration of old solutions. In a longer time perspective, the preserving of political power will depend on the remodeling of economic system in accordance with the assumed conception, because any significant changes in this system may pave the way for the strengthening of political system. Hence, the speed of occurring transformations plays also an important role here.
All this shows that the speed of changes. in the economy must be particularly well balanced and adapted to a concrete situation. Changes in social structures will be taking place at a similar speed enlarging various groups of persons interested in transformation processes. The transformation process will be successful if the main part of the society accepts the system of values corresponding to the new social system. The success of the deep restructuring of economic relations in our economy depends primarily on the effectiveness of the reform aimed to restructuring of ownership in all sectors. This requires a new approach to the prospects of private property growth, i.e. an approach unbiased by any doctrinal prejudices, as well as suggestions glorifying private property as a panacea to cure Poland's economy. The Polish economy is characterised both by objective and subjective premises in the development of the private sector and a strong motivation of individuals to launch their own business activities in this sector.
Instability: Evidence from African Countries. The American Economist . 34(2), pp.55-59 TUBILEWICZ, C. (2007). Europe in Taiwan's Post-Cold War Foreign Relations. Diplomacy & Statecraft . 18, pp.415-443. DOI: 10.1080/09592290701322606. WEF (2012). The Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013 . Geneva: World Economic Forum. WESTERNHAGEN, N. (2002). SystemicTransformation, Trade and Economic Growth: Developments, Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Results . Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
1 Introduction The post-socialist transformation in Myanmar/ Burma began, as in Central and Eastern Europe, in the late 1980s. Nevertheless, the first stage of reforms (1988–2011) did not result in the creation of an open free market economy. In addition, there was no political liberalisation. The dynamics of changes – political and economic – increased in 2011. In the period 2011–2015, there was a significant acceleration of systemictransformation. In November 2015, partly free parliamentary elections were held and one of the leaders of the democratic
and Soskice  . For more details, see Rapacki et al. . to the former socialist countries undergoing systemictransformation from a centrally planned economy toward a market-driven economy, with an end to explain and better understand the nature of the emerging postcommunist capitalism there. Simultaneously, based on the original methodology, some attempts have also been made to take account of institutional peculiarities inherent in the postcommunist transition and to extend the existing standard classifications with derivative categories that would
essential feature of the institutional arrangement of liberal market economies that it provides firms with better abilities for radical innovation. The innovation systems of CEE countries are very far from radical innovation. Their bank-based financial system is also different from the liberal ideal type. If one accepts the original concept of VoC theory, the model of liberal market economy means much more than conducting liberal economic policies in some fields. Ahlborn et al.  applied an extended VoC framework to examine the CEE countries’ systemictransformation
postcommunist transformation was considered primarily as a transplantation of Western institutions and “modernization through integration” with the EU. This was perceived as similar to the process of “modernization through internationalization”, occurring in Latin America [ Przeworski, 1995 ]. At the same time, a tendency emerged to treat Western societies in an idealized and homogeneous way, blurring significant institutional differences among them [ McMenamin 2004 , p. 265]. Systemictransformation and accession of some CEE countries to the EU, economic integration with
The systemic transformation in Poland, aimed, among others, at activating market mechanisms, has resulted in a change in the ownership structure and privatization that has accompanied it. Privatization processes are commonly considered to be principally motivated by an increase in efficiency of the economy based on the assumption that efficiency of private enterprises is higher than that of public sector ones. The main aim of the article is to verify the above hypothesis. An analysis of efficiency of public and private sector enterprises, taking into account their organizational and legal forms, made on the basis of Central Statistical Office information, confirmed the above hypothesis. Private enterprises use their assets better and take advantage of the financial leverage mechanism to a larger extent. It should be emphasized, however, that private enterprises are more adversely affected by economic fluctuations caused by the crisis.