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 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.
Barbara Roszkowska-Mądra, Renata Przygodzka and Adam Sadowski
The aim of this paper was to analyze reasons and a range of changes in agricultural land areas due to allocation them for non-agricultural purposes across a period of 1990-2015 in Poland. This phenomena has not been sufficiently considered till now. Lack of this knowledge does not allow effective reduction of the decline of agricultural land by appropriate legislation and administrative action, especially on urban areas. In Poland, a significant proportion of agricultural land is allocated annually for non-agricultural purposes, which is connected with their permanent withdrawal from agricultural production. The permanent decline in the area of agricultural land in the country has been observed since the beginning of the systemic transformation. The dominant direction of the land withdrawal for non-agricultural purposes is their allocation to housing construction. In 1995 the Law on the protection of agricultural and forest land was introduced. This law includes strengthened economic tools for the protection of agricultural land in the form of mandatory charges for the withdrawal of agricultural land showing the best soil quality. This has led to a significant reduction in agricultural land use withdrawal. However, accelerated regional development following the accession of Poland to the EU and, then, the need to expand technical infrastructure resulted in several amendments to the 1995 Act, significantly weakened the protection of agricultural and forest land. It seems that the land as the unrepeatable good should be strictly covered by more respect and protection than ever before, especially in areas with the highest production value.
, made 2 years earlier by Hall 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
Cosmin-Marius Grozav, Țuțu Pişleag and Aurelian Raţiu
We need a brief assessment of the international security environment in order to have a more realistic picture of the world we live in, having the perspective of threats, risks and vulnerabilities. The current and future security environment is characterized, among other things, by its complexity of actors, dynamism of threats as a result of the rethinking of the political-military postures of some states with military potential ore emerging states and non-state actors. In the foreseeable future, the security environment will continue to be influenced by multiple challenges, risks and threats, caused by the globalization phenomenon and political, economic, military and technological interdependencies which can provoke strategic surprises. The European area is in a continuous process of transformation with strategic implications. The systemic transformation will affect the European states and their adjacent regions visibly but distinctly, but the impact on European and Romanian security will be differentiated in the long run.
Mateusz Smolarski, Wojciech Jurkowski and Andrzej Raczyk
kolejowego w Polsce – część II. Przegląd Geograficzny, 83(2): 205–231.
TAYLOR, Z., CIECHAŃSKI, A. (2017): Deregulacja i przekształcenia własnościowe przedsiębiorstw transportu lądowego w Polsce na tle polityki spójności UE. Prace Geograficzne Nr. 257.Warszawa, PAN.
TAYLOR, Z., CIECHAŃSKI, A. (2018): Systemictransformation and changes in surface transport companies in Poland: A synthesis twenty years on. Journal of Transport Geography, 70: 114–122.
THÉVENIN, T., SCHWARTZ, R., SAPET, L. (2013): Mapping the Distortions in Time and Space: The French Railway
’ systemictransformation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation, and Development (OECD) context. They measured government activities and economic performance with six indicators. They identified the well-known Nordic, liberal, Mediterranean, and continental models. The CEE countries form two clusters termed as CEE liberal market economies (Baltic states, Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia) and CEE coordinated market economies (Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia).
The third line of research, represented by Farkas [2011 , 2016 ], Próchniak et al
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