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.
, 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
’ 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