Transition economy: essence and features. Features of the transition economy Which characteristic does not apply to the transition economy

There is a transitional economic system, characteristic of countries that are freed from the shortcomings of the command-administrative system.

The transitional economy is such a special state of the economic system when it functions during the transition of society from one established historical system to another. The transition period is a period of time during which society carries out fundamental economic, political and social transformations, and the country's economy is moving into a new, qualitatively different state in connection with fundamental reforms of the economic system. This transition for Belarus, as well as for other post-socialist countries, has one chosen direction - a socially oriented market economy.

The transitional economy is characterized by the following main features that distinguish it from other established systems.

First, it is an intersystem formation. Therefore, the essence of the transitional economy is a mixture, a combination of administrative-command and modern market systems with their often contradictory functioning elements.

Secondly, while command and market economies are characterized by a certain integrity and sustainability of development, the transitional economy is characterized by instability of the state, violation of integrity. Such a situation, which is a crisis for the current economic system, can be regarded as normal for a transforming economy. Preservation and reproduction for a relatively long time of instability, disequilibrium of the system have their own reason: a change in purpose. If in an ordinary, stable system such a goal is its self-preservation, then for a transitional economy it is transformation into another system.

Thirdly, the transitional economy is characterized by a quantitative and qualitative change in the composition of elements. It "inherited" the structural elements of the previous system: state enterprises, collective farms, production cooperatives, households and the state. But these elements function in a qualitatively different, transforming economic system, and therefore change both their content and their “functions associated with the emergence of a market economy. At the same time, new elements that are not characteristic of the old system appear in the transition economy: entrepreneurial structures of various forms property, non-state enterprises, exchanges, commercial banks, non-state pension, insurance and other funds, farms.

Fourth, a qualitative change in systemic connections and relations is observed in the transitional economy. The old planning and directive ties between the subjects of the economy disintegrated and disappeared, clearing the space for the formation of new market ties. However, the latter are still of a "transitional" unstable nature and manifest themselves in such a deformed form as "barter" settlements between enterprises, mutual non-payments between business entities are characterized by frequent failures and crisis manifestations.

It should be noted that the concept of "transitional economy" is not new in the history of the development of our country. It existed in the 20s of our century and consisted of 5 socio-economic structures: socialist, private-capitalist, state-capitalist, small-scale commodity and patriarchal. However, its goals and the direction of the transformation processes were directly opposite to the modern transitional economy. At that time, the main task was to move from a multi-structural economy to a single-structural socialist economy. Now, however, there is a directly opposite task - to replace the one-structured economy of state socialism with a multi-structured national economy, which is the basis of the modern market economy.

The main difficulty of the transition period is the creation of market economy institutions. Institutions in a broad sense are the rules of economic behavior and the mechanisms that ensure their implementation, as well as economic organizations, business entities. During the transition period, institutions are being formed, without which a market economy cannot function normally: private property, economic freedom and responsibility of business entities, competition, market infrastructure, etc.

A characteristic feature of a transitional economy is institutional incompleteness, the absence or embryonic state of individual market institutions. In most CIS countries, this is, first of all, the lack of a land market, the weak development of the stock market and the entire market infrastructure as a whole. The ineffectiveness of the laws on “insolvency and bankruptcy of enterprises” significantly slows down market transformations. The objective reasons for this are the deep economic crisis characteristic of the first stage of market transformations. It led to massive financial insolvency and mutual non-payments of enterprises. objective reasons, will lead to the closure of most enterprises and cause massive unemployment.

A distinctive feature of the transitional economy is the scale and depth of the ongoing transformations. They capture the foundations of the existing order; property relations, political and legal systems of society, public consciousness. Thus, the transition to a market economy requires profound changes in the institutional structure of society, institutional transformation: the transformation of property relations (privatization) and the introduction of the institution of private property, the liberalization of the economy, the creation of a package of market laws and limiting the role of the state, the formation of new business entities (commercial banks, various exchanges, investment and pension funds, etc.).

An essential feature of the transitional economy is the socio-economic crisis. Arose as a result of the collapse of the command-administrative system, this crisis is characterized by a massive decline in production volumes, a decline in the living standards of the population, bankruptcy of enterprises, and increasing unemployment. It was facilitated by such factors as the deformation of the structure of the national economy (first of all, the predominance of the production of means of production over the production of consumer goods), the massive depreciation of fixed assets that coincided with the transformation of the economy, and the catastrophically slow introduction of the achievements of scientific and technical progress into production.

Each economic system goes through stages of formation and development, a mature state and decline, when the formation of a new system takes place. Since the end of the 1980s, in the socialist countries, there has been a transition to a radical transformation of the relations inherent in the former type of economy. The economic system established in the USSR and in other socialist countries was distinguished by a number of stable features from all previous and parallel systems existing in the world.

Firstly, this system developed on the basis of public ownership of the means of production, and from here its fundamental differences from capitalism stemmed.

Secondly, economic life was oriented towards the principles of the "single factory", and a planned-directive approach was established in management. The state sought to directly manage the vital activity of labor collectives, determined their functional orientation, brought to them long-term and current plans for all the main indicators. The enterprise was actually deprived of the ability to make decisions on the introduction of farms.

Thirdly, a system of developed socialist guarantees was formed at the expense of the state. Nationalization deformed the appropriation process. The vast majority of the surplus product was concentrated in the hands of the state with its subsequent redistribution outside the self-supporting interests of the main sectors of the economy. A kind of dependency has become customary, in which, due to highly profitable industries, the vital activity of poorly working teams was ensured.

The economic system based on public property made it possible to concentrate the material and human resources of society in the most important areas and to ensure powerful breakthroughs in the decisive areas of economic activity. However, historically this system was doomed to failure. The normal functioning of the increasingly complex economy came into conflict with centralized directive management. The USSR was not able to fully master the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution in its second part, and the country's economy entered the stage of extinction. There was a need to change property relations as the basis of the entire system of economic relations. Thus, the fiasco of the Soviet command-administrative system of economic management was the objective reason for the need to transform the newly emerged sovereign states into market economies.

The market system assumes:

variety of forms of ownership;

personal initiative and freedom of enterprise;

developed competition;

availability of a legislative framework adequate to a market economy;

availability of developed markets for the main factors of production or prerequisites for them;

the availability of entrepreneurial staff and experience in the interaction of government agencies with risk;

the presence of economic and legislative barriers to the monopolies' striving for undivided dominance.

A transitional economy characterizes, as it were, an "intermediate" state of society, when the former system of socio-economic relations and institutions is being destroyed and reformed, while a new one is only being formed. The changes taking place in a transitional economy are predominantly developmental rather than functioning, as is typical for the current system. There is no exact definition of the transition economy today, however, based on its main features, we can say that the transition economy is a type of economic system in which the transformation of the management mechanism from administrative-command principles to market ones takes place.

The transitional economy is characterized by the following features:

First, the transitional economy is characterized by volatility and instability, which are "irrevocable" in nature. They do not just temporarily disrupt the stability of the system, so that it then returns to an equilibrium state, but weaken it, it gradually gives way to another economic system. This instability, the instability of the state of the transition economy, on the one hand, causes a special dynamism of its development and the corresponding nature of changes - irreversibility, non-repeatability, and on the other hand, an increase in the uncertainty of the results of the development of the transition economy, options for the formation of a new system.

Secondly, the transitional economy, which is a mixture of the old and the new, is characterized by the existence of special transitional economic forms.

Thirdly, the transitional economy is characterized by a special nature of contradictions. These are the contradictions of the new and the old, the contradictions of the various strata of society standing behind one or another subject of relations. The changes taking place in the transitional economy ultimately lead to a change in the economic system, and in the socio-political sense, transitional eras are often accompanied by a sharp aggravation of contradictions, leading to socio-political upheavals.

Fourth, a characteristic feature of the transitional economy is its historicity, which is due to the peculiarities of the economic development of individual countries. The problems faced by the Eastern European countries and the newly independent states that were part of the former USSR are more complex than, for example, the problems of Latin American countries, where some market institutions already existed, and the number of state enterprises subject to privatization was in the hundreds, not thousands. In addition, the specific levels of development of each country determine the specifics of the course of transition processes. Regularities common to the transitional economy acquire different forms of manifestation in different conditions. All this must be taken into account when developing programs for reforming the economic system in the transition period.

The process of transformation of the economic system of the state from the command-administrative mechanism of management to the market one is usually called transitional.

The transitional period is a special period in the evolution of the economy, when one system leaves the historical arena, and another, new one, is simultaneously born and approved. Therefore, the development of the transitional economy is of a special nature, significantly different from the usual, normal economic development. Indeed, in the transitional economy, the old economic forms and relations are still preserved and function for quite a considerable time, while the emergence and establishment of new economic forms and relations. In addition, neither of these forms and connections operate in full force, since some are undermined and gradually decline, while others are born and gradually assert themselves. Moreover, the situation is becoming more and more aggravated, because the ratio between the new and the old is constantly changing. This applies to any transitional economy.

The transitional period from a command to a market economic system is characterized by great originality. The current developed countries were moving from a traditional, agrarian economy to a market economy, and this transition was accompanied by an industrial revolution, the emergence of industry, and, above all, the production of means of production, which became the material basis for the transformation of production and society as a whole.

The transition period is a transition from a planned economy, which was based on peculiar foundations, and therefore it has its own features and patterns. Thus, the formation of the industrial basis of capitalist society led to intensive processes of the socialization of production and labor, the growth of the scale of private property, the development of such forms of ownership as joint-stock, monopoly and state. The administrative-command system was based on the absolute dominance of state property, and one of the main tasks of the transition period is the denationalization and privatization of state property. Instead of state ownership, diverse forms of ownership (collective, private, cooperative, state, etc.) should be established. In the transition to a market economy, the objective regularity is the restructuring of the organizational and economic structure of the economy through its demonopolization, deconcentration of production and decentralization of management, and the widespread development of small and medium-sized businesses.

The transformation of property relations and the organizational and economic structure of the economy means the formation of new production relations. To move to a market economy, it is necessary to rebuild the production and technological structure of the economy, but this is not a simple change in the ratio of its various industries and areas, but technical re-equipment, a transition to a qualitatively new level of productive forces. When one type of economic relations changes to a fundamentally different one, the administrative-command type of management is forced to collapse, and the task of survival of producers inevitably comes to the fore, which depends on the ability to manage processes.

The specificity of the socio-economic processes that began in the late 1990s. and currently taking place, lies in the fact that the principles of functioning of all subsystems of the economic formation of society are radically changing: public administration (the role of the state in the economy), the social sphere, property rights, the structure of the economy (its individual branches, complexes), since it is supposed to change the actual economic system.

The economic system is a combination of the public and private sectors of the economy. The economic basis of its transformation is the evolutionary development of property relations and, accordingly, types of management, which manifests itself as an increase in the diversity of forms and directions of development. Inevitably, the economic functions of the state become more complex, efficient, combine economic and social aspects, thereby creating a favorable environment for the development of a modern market economy with strong legal protection.

So, the transition process is characterized by gradualness, the impossibility of quickly replacing existing forms with new ones, and even more so - the impossibility of such an approach, according to which everything old must first be destroyed, and then a new one must be created. In other words, in the conditions of the transitional period, the old forms are preserved for quite a long time, and at the same time, new forms and relations are growing. This means that in the gradualness of changes in the economy, continuity and inheritance in socio-economic development are realized.

Features of the transitional economy in Russia

In accordance with the criteria of experts from the European Union, since mid-1994 Russia has been classified as a country with a transitional type of economy. These criteria are mainly reduced to the ratio of centralized and market methods of managing the economy. When it became clear that elements of the market and market infrastructure in Russia emerged and became indestructible, the European Union recognized the transitional nature of the Russian economy.

The first factor: such an economy is an intersystem formation. Therefore, the essence of the transitional economy is a mixture, a combination of administrative-command and modern market systems with their contradictions and differently functioning elements.

The second factor: if the command and market economies are characterized by a certain integrity, development stability, then the transitional economy is characterized by the instability of the state, the violation of integrity. Such a situation, which is a crisis for the current economic system, can be regarded as normal for a transforming economy. Preservation and reproduction for a relatively long time of instability, disequilibrium of the system have their own reason: a change in purpose. If in an ordinary, stable system such a goal is its self-preservation, then for a transitional economy it is transformation into another system.

The third factor: the transitional economy is characterized by a quantitative and qualitative change in the composition of elements. It "inherited" the structural elements of the previous system: state enterprises, collective farms, production cooperatives, households and the state. But these elements function in a qualitatively different, transforming economic system, and therefore change both their content and their “functions associated with the emergence of a market economy. At the same time, new elements that are not characteristic of the old system appear in the transition economy: entrepreneurial structures of various forms property, non-state enterprises, exchanges, commercial banks, non-state pension, insurance and other funds, farms.

The fourth factor: in the transitional economy, there is a qualitative change in systemic ties and relationships. The old planning and directive ties between the subjects of the economy disintegrated and disappeared, clearing the space for the formation of new market ties. However, the latter are still of a "transitional" unstable nature and manifest themselves in such a deformed form as "barter" settlements between enterprises, mutual non-payments between business entities are characterized by frequent failures and crisis manifestations.

It should be noted that the concept of "transitional economy" is not new in the history of the development of our country. It existed in the 20s of our century and consisted of 5 socio-economic structures: socialist, private-capitalist, state-capitalist, small-scale commodity and patriarchal. However, its goals and the direction of the transformation processes were directly opposite to the modern transitional economy. At that time, the main task was to move from a multi-structural economy to a single-structural one - a socialist one. Now, however, there is a directly opposite task - to replace the single-structured economy of state socialism with a multi-structured national economy, which is the basis of the modern market economy.

The purpose of transformations in a transitional economy is a market model of a market economy.

A distinctive feature of the transitional economy is the scale and depth of the ongoing transformations. They capture the foundations of the existing order; property relations, political and legal systems of society, public consciousness. Thus, the transition to a market economy requires profound changes in the institutional structure of society, institutional transformation: the transformation of property relations (privatization) and the introduction of the institution of private property, the liberalization of the economy, the creation of a package of market laws and limiting the role of the state, the formation of new business entities - commercial banks, various exchanges, investment and pension funds and other systems.

The main feature of the economy in the transition period - the inertia of reproduction is associated with the continuity of the reproduction process, which excludes development according to the principle of the initial "destruction to the ground" of everything old, and then the creation of everything new on this basis. This continuity predetermines the impossibility of quickly replacing existing forms with other, desirable ones. Such actions inevitably bring chaos into the production process, deform it, and lead to a decline in production. The inertia of reproduction in this sense presupposes the preservation in the transitional economy - and for a sufficiently long period - of the old economic forms.

This, first of all, is manifested in the preservation for some time of the structure of production, the transformation of which requires a relatively long time. The existing socio-economic structure of society cannot change quickly.

The inertia of the reproduction process gives rise to a number of consequences that are important to keep in mind in economic policy. First, it determines the deep continuity of the transition economy with the initial state of transition. Secondly, it determines the relatively long terms of the transition economy. Thirdly, inertia enhances the preservation of the social mentality that has developed in the past.

Ignoring the inertia of the reproduction process is an underestimation of the objective nature of social evolution, worship of the supposedly special role of the conscious principle in the development of society.

Another feature is the intensive predominant development of new forms and relationships. This feature emphasizes the mechanism of transition from one stage to another. This is a manifestation of the irreversibility of the evolutionary process, as well as its main trends.

Tasks of the Transitional Economy in Russia

The first task of the transitional economy is to combat the features of a centrally controlled economy.

The main features of a centrally controlled economy are as follows:

1. Supermonopolism - a combination of large enterprises and a certain stereotype of economic behavior - the desire to keep high prices, a single policy (collusion) to extort subsidies, loans (preferential), tax benefits.

2. A militarized production structure, the main component of which is the military-industrial complex - the main consumer of resources, skilled labor (the labor aristocracy).

3. Costly pricing system that does not allow for a realistic assessment of economic efficiency.

4. The absence of a mechanism for the economic protection of natural resources, the orientation of production towards the maximum use of resources, and not their rational use, incl. and when exporting.

5. Low standard of living: in the Russian Federation - 2% of the rich, 87% of the poor; in the USA - 2% of the rich, 80% - the middle class.

6. Collectivist psychology that impedes transformation.

The economic basis of the planned economy is state property, the method of its movement is regularity, the banking system is limited to a single state bank, pricing is carried out by a single economic center.

The transition period from a centrally controlled to a market economy will last decades, as it did in Germany and Japan after the war. Today the task is to ensure the effective functioning of the transitional economy.

In determining the causes of the collapse of totalitarian regimes, two opposing positions have developed. The first proceeds from the fact that before the arrival of Gorbachev, the difficulties of the socialist system did not testify to its unviability. Politically and economically, it has been stable since the 1930s; 55 years. The inept policy of perestroika led to its destruction.

From the standpoint of the second point of view, the command economy is not viable, it existed due to the high rate of introduction of new factors of production based on the repressive regime and the low standard of living, its shortcomings are systemic.

Among the external reasons for the fall of the centrally controlled economy are: the US rearmament program, spending and defeat in the Afghan war, falling oil prices, rising living standards in developed countries. In general, it is believed that the socialist system could have survived until 2000 with a 2% increase in national income.

Of course, the creation of a market is not an end in itself, but a means of forming an effective economic system. It is characterized by the following features:

the economic basis is private property in various forms;

form of movement - regulated market;

banking system - commercial banks headed by the Central Bank;

pricing - free with a number of fixed prices.

The main tasks in the period of transitional economy:

1. Overcoming the crisis phenomena that deepened after society entered the transitional economy.

Formation of market relations and market infrastructure.

Reforming property relations as the basis of the economic system.

4. Creation of conditions for economic freedom for all business entities.

5. Creation of a developed system of social protection and social guarantees that protect the population from the severe consequences of economic reform.

Practice shows that in every post-socialist country that has embarked on the path of transition to a market economy, there are their own concepts and programs for solving the main tasks of the transition economy, the formation of market relations. At the same time, several general, "mandatory" directions can be distinguished in them:

1. liberalization of the economy, associated primarily with the release of prices. This is the first step in reforming the economy. It makes it possible to reveal the real correlation between supply and demand, to determine unprofitable types of production, and thereby outline the priority directions for the restructuring of the national economy. Subsequent (and often simultaneous) steps are the liberation from the state dictate of financial relations, as well as domestic and foreign trade;

2. reforming property relations through denationalization and privatization of state property. It is as a result of privatization that a variety of forms of ownership should be established: state, collective and private. They are necessary to overcome the monopoly of the state, the formation of a diversified market economy, the reduction of the scope of state regulation of social production, the creation and development of competitive market relations;

3. stabilization of the economy, which refers to the elimination of sharp fluctuations in freed prices and the formation of stable financial relations;

4. restructuring (structural restructuring) of the economy and individual enterprises, including measures for the rehabilitation of production, bringing the structure of the national economy in line with the requirements of a modern market economy and the needs of the country, restructuring the technical base of enterprises based on advanced, highly efficient technologies;

5. integration of the national economy into the system of world economic relations, the formation of an open economy. To do this, it is necessary to liberalize foreign trade, provide reliable legal and economic protection for foreign investment, and ensure the genuine convertibility of the ruble.

The most important role in the transitional economy is played by such priority measures as large-scale liberalization and gradual stabilization. Liberalization implies free pricing and the end of state control in trade. The significance of liberalization lies in its ability to overcome two fundamental shortcomings of a centralized economy: a distorted system of incentives and limited information. Liberalization forces enterprises to focus on consumer demand and profit in a competitive environment. It contributes to pricing that corresponds to the real supply and demand ratio, giving signal information to the manufacturer about the need for certain goods. Liberalization at the first stage inevitably leads to a jump in prices, and inflation interferes with the normal functioning of the economy. But, despite all the costs, liberalization makes it possible to break the rigid administrative ties between the state and enterprises, to reduce subsidies, thereby creating conditions for stabilizing the economy.

Macroeconomic stabilization of the national economy means the reduction of inflation and the state budget deficit, the cessation of concessional lending and excess money emission. Stabilization includes overcoming disproportions in the national economy and the foreign economic sphere. With all the variety of methods, it usually includes such measures as control over the money supply and its regulation, the introduction of internal convertibility of currencies, the regulation of the discount rate of the exchange rate, and other, tough monetarist methods. However, in those countries where there is high social and political instability, the implementation of such a policy significantly increases social tension and is even fraught with a social explosion. In such conditions, soft methods of financial regulation are more effective.

After the completion of macroeconomic stabilization and liberalization, issues related to the creation of market institutions and fiscal policy become top priority.

Methods for solving problems of the transition period include:

1. Stabilization is an economic policy aimed at limiting inflation and saturating the market, which includes:

Price liberalization;

Minimization of the state budget (commercialization of the activities of state enterprises);

Increase in the cost of credit (up to a maximum of 210% of the Central Bank rate);

Introduction of internal convertibility of the national currency;

Curbing income growth.

2. Transformation of forms of ownership:

Privatization (restitution - the return of property to former owners in a number of European countries);

Removal of restrictions for the development of the private sector.

3. Changing the structure of the economy:

Antimonopoly policy;

Conversion;

Bankruptcy mechanism;

Integration into the world market.

1.2 The main features and contradictions of the economy in transition in Russia

The specificity of the transition economy is manifested in its special features:

1. Permanent reformation, i.e. carrying out economic reform. Economic reform is a consciously carried out transformation aimed at changing existing economic relations. The reasons for economic reforms in different countries are different - a change in objective conditions, political forces in power, the ineffectiveness of previously used tools to achieve economic or social goals. Their need arises regularly, they usually do not affect the deep foundations of the system. Reforms that seek to transform the system as a whole are of a different nature; they are longer.

The first third of the 20th century was characterized by increased state intervention in the economy, the range of forms of which changed from a planned economy in the USSR to Roosevelt's new course. In economic theory, this period is characterized as the Keynesian revolution. Keynes' theory of state intervention dominated in theory and practice for several decades and proceeded from the fact that the market is inefficient, it must be limited. Since the last quarter of the 20th century, a period of economic reforms began, the meaning of which can be described as a renaissance of the market. Since the beginning of the 80s in the USA, England, the USSR, Eastern Europe, Asia, the strengthening of market principles in the economy began.

2. Economic crisis - transformational recession (Kornai), its features:

the crisis is of a general nature, has affected all spheres and sectors of the economy, its level is critical, moreover, the crisis becomes self-deepening;

long-term (nine years);

labor and capital are just beginning to be released from obsolete industries;

its degree does not correspond to the transformational recession, but is the result of a number of deviations of the Russian economic policy from world market standards:

Fear of the corporate market and focus on the formation of the enterprise market (now being corrected through FIGs);

Setting the loan interest at a level below inflationary price growth in order to supply the private sector with funds to buy up the public sector;

Sale of state property at symbolic prices, which blocks investment activity;

Establishment of prices for energy carriers several times higher than the average level of prices (bringing them up to world prices);

The introduction of the internal convertibility of the ruble in the conditions of a gap between the dollar exchange rate and the real purchasing power of the ruble, which gives an inflationary effect;

Instability of the economic and political system.

The stability (stability) of the economic system is determined by:

1. Load - optimal satisfaction of needs through the use of limited resources. The historically established level of consumption is inertial, therefore, in a crisis, the burden on a weakened economic system increases.

2. The structure of the system - i.e. the system of production relations - the old - planned economy is breaking down and a new one - the market economy - is being built.

3. Rigidity - the ability to resist deformation. It characterizes the conservatism of the economic system, its ability to develop within a certain economic mechanism.

4. Imperfections of the system - deviations from the norm, weakening stability, but easily eliminated.

The degree of instability of the transitional economy, as already noted, is objectively high, which is due to the fact that the level of consumption (load) is decreasing (meat consumption has decreased by 42%), but stability is not being restored, since the state of the economic system can be characterized as transcendental. The decline in agricultural production and the income of most Russian families led to a reduction and deterioration in the structure of food consumption. For 1990-1996 only the consumption of potatoes increased, while other products decreased. Moreover, if on the eve of the reform (in 1990) the families of workers and employees (mainly urban families) consumed more milk and especially meat than the families of collective farmers (rural families), then by 1996 the situation changed to the opposite, which is explained by the large role in the food supply of rural families of personal subsidiary plots, the potential of which has increased.

The shortage of domestic food has to be filled by importing food from abroad. The share of food imports, which reached 24% in the USSR in 1980 and dropped to 16% in 1990, began to grow again in Russia. In 1991-1994 it was 28%. In subsequent years, it decreased slightly. The country has to spend significant foreign exchange resources to protect food.

Analyzing the nature of the contradictions of the modern economy in transition, it should be taken into account that the dialectic of duality is being replaced by the dialectic of plurality. Therefore, by analogy with Hegel's dialectic of duality, the main contradiction of an economy in transition to a market should be considered the contradiction between the public and private (private-corporate) sectors, which is resolved in the process of struggle between them. However, abandoning the political concept of struggle, one can say that these sectors of the economy should not struggle to expand their scale, but should occupy an economic niche corresponding to the economic nature of each of these sectors, i.e. cover those branches of production of material goods and services for the normal functioning of which they provide the most favorable conditions.

The main contradictions of the transitional economy are due to the existence of the following main obstacles to the formation of a market economy:

1. The dominance of group interests. In a centrally controlled economy, the ruling elite consisted of directors of enterprises, party and state officials (highest) - 5.9 million people (including clerks and family members). With the liquidation of state property, they lose control over the economy and their resistance is clearly seen in the example of the agrarian reform, which is being hampered in every possible way.

2. Anti-capitalist mentality: the subordination of the individual to the state must be replaced by a new economic psychology, compatible with the principle of free enterprise, deep differentiation of incomes, and faith in personal strength.

3. Lack of trust in the government, in power, which is one of the obstacles to the liberalization of the economy. It is due to constant changes in the economic course (at first they tried to reform the socialist system), the imperfection of legislation. But the main thing is still achieved - private property is constitutionally framed.

4. The syndrome of market socialism, according to which it is considered possible to move to a market (ie efficient) economy without private property, only on the basis of a change in the forms of management. The transition to a regulated market is being promoted, i.e. to market socialism. But the source of all redistribution processes is only production, the increase in taxes on which (that is, on entrepreneurs) undermines production itself. The desire for social justice leads to its violation and the transition to the old distribution of beggarly incomes by the state.

5. Mafia structures and corruption. The number of registered crimes in Russia in the 1990s (socially dangerous acts identified and taken into account by the internal affairs bodies), provided for by criminal law, increased in Russia from 1.8 million in 1990 to 2.8 million in 1992-1993, and then, after a slight decline in 1997-1998, to almost 3.0 million in 1999-2001.

6. Regionalism and separatism - the claims of the regions for all their natural resources (Chechen Republic, Yakutia, Tyumen ...).

Only a territorial entity capable of independent survival in economic, political and military terms can be the owner of all its natural resources. If this is not the case, then the region cannot count on impunity for separatist aspirations (secession, isolation). Economic separatism excludes the organization of a rent taxation system, in which rent from natural resources, of which every citizen of Russia is an equal co-owner, is the optimal source of pension and other social payments to citizens.

Materials used in preparing the article:

1. Anisimov A. The true scale of the decline in production and the change in the model of Russian economic policy // Russian Economic Journal. 2003. No. 9.

2. Aukucionek S.P. The theory of transition to the market. M., 2003.

3. Belokrylova O.S. A course of lectures on the theory of transitional economy Rostov: Russian State University, 2001. Part 1., Topic 1.

4. Belokrylova O.S. Conceptual foundations of the transitional economy // Butkevich V. Between the past and the future // Economy and life. 2005. No. 5.

5. Belokrylova O.S., Volchik V.V., Muradov A.A. Institutional Features of Income Distribution in a Transitional Economy. Rostov n / a: Publishing house Rost. un-ta, 2000.

6. Buzgalin A.V. Transition economy. Lecture course. M., 2006.

7. Grigoriev L.K. new stage of transformation. // Issues of Economics. No. 4. 2006

8. Gaidar E. State and evolution. M., 2005.

9. Kuzyk B. Development strategy: tasks of transition to a geo-economic model // REG. Number 3. 2000.

10. Kulikov V. Social imperatives for continuing economic reform. // REJ. No. 1. 2000.

Introduction

1. Transitional economy: concept, features, varieties, features, functions

2. Transformational recession as a phenomenon of transitional economy

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

Since 1992, Russia has been undergoing profound changes. In some other countries, mainly in Eastern Europe, the change started even a little earlier.

The transitional period in the economy is a historically short period of time during which the dismantling of the administrative-command system is completed and the system of basic market institutions is being formed. This period of time is often called the period of post-socialist transformation.

Naturally, economic transformation is part of deep, usually fundamental changes in society - in the political and state-administrative structure, in the social sphere, in ideology, in domestic and foreign policy.

Change of order can proceed in different ways. In our country, the change of power in 1991 occurred after dramatic events - the suppression of the August coup, the collapse of the USSR, the self-dissolution of the Supreme Soviet and the forced resignation of the President of the USSR.

Let us consider in more detail what is a transitional economy?

1. Transitional economy: concept, features, varieties, features, functions

A transitional economy is a transitional state from one economic system to another economic system. As a result of this transition, a fundamental transformation of the foundations of this system is carried out, which determine the genesis and development of both new features of the transition economy and its features.

The following main features of the transitional economy are distinguished.

1. The transitional economy will have to create the basis of a new economic system, while the past economy was reproduced on its own basis. The term "basis" in economic theory is the key and includes: the type of ownership of the means and products of production; forms of economic relations; type of coordination of activities between economic entities.

With the creation of the basis of the new economy, the transitional state of the economic system is completed and it acquires a new quality.

2. An important feature of the transitional economy is its diversity. An economic structure is understood as a type of economic relations that allows the simultaneous coexistence in a given country of not only various forms, but also types of property. Thus, the transition economy is characterized by the presence of an old and a new basis, as well as the coexistence of various types of regulation of economic relations between economic entities.

3. Unsustainable development is characteristic of a transitional economy, since old relations are constantly being transformed in the absence of new institutions and rules, as a result of which! there is a conflict of old and new economic interests.

4. Transformations in the transitional economy take a rather long period, which is explained by a number of factors:

The complexity and inconsistency of transformations;

natural factors;

The impossibility of simultaneously carrying out a revolution in the technological basis, modifying the economy, and forming new economic institutions.

A transitional economy and a mixed economy have common features:

Combination of the market and state regulation;

Combination of capitalist forms and social orientation of economic development, etc.

At the same time, qualitative differences are also inherent in these types of economy. Let's note some of them.

First, a mixed economy is a modern economic system that combines market and state regulation.

Secondly, the mixed economy as a modern economic system is dominant in most developed countries.

As for the transitional economy, it:

It is not reproduced on its own economic basis, but is transferred from one economic system to another;

In contrast, a mixed economy is characterized by instability;

It covers a relatively short time period, while a mixed economy is characterized by an unchanged state of the economic system.

The transitional economy has several varieties:

1. The economy of the transitional period from capitalism to socialism (in our country it covered the period from the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 to the 1930s).

2. A fundamental change in the methods of coordination within the same economic system, but they concern its basis and economic policy. This kind of transitional economy implies the inevitable replacement of old institutions, the development of new methods of regulation and the choice of new theories of socio-economic development.

3. The economic system of individual countries requires changes due to the change in the place of a particular country in the system of international economic and political relations. These changes are due to the need to eliminate deformations in the economies of the former colonial countries.

4.Overcoming a long period of unstable economic development of states. An example of such a variety is, for example, the countries of Latin America, in which for more than two decades there have been low economic growth rates, growing external debt, a sharp contrast in household incomes, high inflation, etc.

5. Transition economy of the former Soviet republics of the USSR and other post-socialist countries. She wears an intersystem transition. The peculiarity of this transitional economy lies in the fact that there is a transition from a socialist economic system to a capitalist economic system, i.e., a reversal, or, more precisely, a transition from a “pure” economic system to a mixed one.

In a modern mixed economy, the state should perform the following functions:

1. Providing an institutional and legal basis for the activities of economic entities (determination of rights and forms of ownership, conditions for concluding and executing contracts, relationships between trade unions and employers, general principles of foreign economic activity, etc.).

2. Elimination or compensation of the negative effects of market behavior and satisfaction of people's needs for public goods that the market cannot produce: addressing issues of national defense, ecology, education, science, healthcare, etc.

3. Pursuing an economic policy aimed at:

Maintaining the normal functioning of the market mechanism;

Smoothing of cyclic fluctuations;

Overcoming the consequences of economic shocks;

Ensuring the prerequisites for long-term economic growth (especially through fiscal, monetary and structural policies).

4.Implementation of an active and principled antimonopoly policy.

5. Maintaining a sustainable social climate in society through the redistribution of available income.

6. Pursuing a stabilization policy of the state aimed at restoring and maintaining macroeconomic equilibrium (in particular, full employment, a stable price level). Distinguish between formal and real stabilization. Formal stabilization is the achievement of a steady state in terms of one macroeconomic indicator (inflation, unemployment, and changes in gross domestic income). Real stabilization means not only, for example, a reduction in unemployment, but the existence of conditions for economic growth. The transition to real stabilization presupposes the need for an increase in state demand, investment, and strict control over prices and incomes.

2. Transformational recession as a phenomenon of transitional economy

Throughout the 1990s, until 1999, the Russian economy was in a state of protracted economic recession, which reached its highest point in the crisis year of 1998. The economic recession was preceded by the stagnation of the Soviet economy in the 1980s, to overcome which the concept of accelerating development, developed during the years of perestroika, was aimed in its time. However, the development potential of socialism was by that time completely exhausted, which was reflected in its inability to ensure further economic growth. The hopelessness of the situation doomed the attempt to resuscitate socialism, which ended in its death, to failure. Since 1990, economic growth has stopped even according to official data. A protracted transformational recession began.

The term "transformational recession" was introduced into scientific circulation by the Hungarian scientist J. Kornai. He argued that during the transition from the administrative-command system to the market, the economy is going through a deep crisis caused by the transitional, transformational state of the economic system. It is expressed in the fact that the former, planned mechanisms for organizing economic coordination have already been destroyed, while new market mechanisms are still weak or absent altogether.

The transitional economy is no longer planned, but not yet a market economy. Between different types of economy, between different economic systems, there is a long period of transition, which, by definition, is not capable of providing an immediate economic upsurge already as a result of a radical transformation of the entire system of economic and other relations. Therefore, it is inevitable in any transitional economy. There were many transitional periods in the centuries-old history of mankind, when there was a change in economic, and consequently, in all other social relations.

The transitional period from a planned to a market economy, from socialism to capitalism, is no exception. None of the post-socialist countries managed to avoid the transformational decline, although the scale of the decline in production was different.

The PRC was an exception, but Chinese reformers deliberately do not classify their country as a post-socialist one.

The depth and duration of the transformational decline in all post-socialist countries turned out to be different. In this sense, Russia is among the "record holders" both in terms of its duration and its destructive power, yielding the palm to only a few of the CIS countries.

What are the reasons that give rise to a transformational recession in the transition economy? It seems appropriate to distinguish two groups of them. The first includes those that are generated by the previous development, the second - the circumstances of the transitional period itself as such.

Let's take a look at the first group. The inevitability of a transformational decline is due to the need for partial destruction of the macroeconomic structure inherited from the past due to the following circumstances:

Changes in the criterion of balance due to the change of economic systems;

The need to overcome the contradictions of socialism, the materialization of which this structure is, which is most clearly seen in the structural and technological imbalances inherent in it.

In connection with the change in the criterion of macroeconomic balance, the problem of global restructuring is put forward, aimed at overcoming the imbalances inherited from the past, which were not treated as such in the Soviet period.

As already noted, the structural imbalance is manifested in the presence of excess production capacities for the new system of economic relations in heavy industries, in the military-industrial complex, in particular, which is associated with the end of the Cold War in the 1980s in connection with the end of the global confrontation. The elimination of excess capacity was achieved in various ways, including the conversion of branches of the military-industrial complex, re-profiling, restructuring, and even bankruptcy of unprofitable and unpromising enterprises of the first division. The inevitable consequence of these processes was the deindustrialization of the inherited scientific and production potential, since it was precisely in the production capacities to be reduced (and these are, first of all, the branches of the military-industrial complex and mainly working for it), that high-tech science-intensive production was concentrated. In the civilian complex, on the contrary, there was clearly not enough capacity to meet internal needs. But the paradox was that the branches of this particular complex were the most ruined. The reason was their technological backwardness, which was fully revealed in connection with the liberalization of foreign economic activity, which put them in a relationship of disastrous competition for them with the outside world.

As a result, there was a general decline in industrial production, which to the least affected only the fuel and energy sector, whose products over the past decades have remained invariably in demand in foreign markets, which maintains a high level of prices for them. All these circumstances led to an increase in the share of extractive industries, although not so significant, given the higher decline in manufacturing industries. Nevertheless, we can talk about the degradation of the macroeconomic structure, if we approach it from the standpoint of modern standards for the ratio of extractive and manufacturing industries, demonstrated by developed countries. So far, only the first steps have been taken in the transformation of the inherited structure of the national economy, which made it possible to begin to eliminate the most obvious imbalances. But this is also important for ensuring the conditions for the revival of economic growth.

No less significant are the circumstances that contributed to the transformational decline, generated by the transition period itself.

Among them, we note the most significant:

The disintegration crisis that accompanied the death of socialism, and this is the collapse of the world socialist system, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) and even a number of countries (USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia);

Duration of the process of formation of a new class of owners as subjects of investment;

The absence of money capital, the accumulation of which, already in the transitional period, lengthened the formation of industrial capital;

Mass outflow of money capital accumulated in the country abroad;

Widespread general criminalization of economic activity.

The disintegration crisis was expressed in the collapse of the world socialist system and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, and at the same time the traditional economic ties that had developed over decades within these entities, which could not but become a factor in reducing growth rates in their countries. However, the most devastating in its consequences was the collapse of the USSR, and with it - a single national economic complex, formed over three quarters of a century, a single economic space. Thus, according to expert estimates, this circumstance accounts for one third of the decline in the Russian economy.

Suspension of economic growth is also inevitable as a result of a radical transformation of state property relations. With the destruction of the old system of economic relations, the class of former owners leaves the historical arena, while a new one is by no means born instantly. Meanwhile, as is known, investment activity, which ensures economic growth, forms the function of the owner of objects in the real sector of the economy, which allows him to maintain his social status by multiplying and improving these objects qualitatively, using for this purpose various sources of investment funds available to him, own and borrowed, internal and external. The formation of a class of owners takes place in the process of primary capital formation. At the same time, historically and logically, the initial form of capital is monetary. Money capital not only by definition could not appear in the Soviet period, but also the forced savings of the population, calculated on the eve of the market transformation in billions of rubles, did not have time to take the form of money capital. This was due to their complete depreciation in the conditions of hyperinflation, which was the result of price liberalization in January 1992 in the chronically scarce and super-monopolized Soviet economy. But without monetary capital, participation in the monetary stage of privatization is excluded, especially since in an industrial country, which is also extremely rich in natural resources, it was a question of appropriation on a huge scale. Thus, the national wealth of the USSR in 1985 amounted to an astronomical sum of 3.6 trillion. rub. - without the cost of land, subsoil, forests. The cost of fixed production assets, among other things, amounted to 2.34 trillion. rub.

The division and redistribution of such wealth in themselves require not only considerable time, but also the availability of a comparable amount of money capital. The absence of such a starting point was one of the main economic reasons for free privatization at the first stage, although it was by no means the largest and not the best part of state property. But soon after it was followed by money. In addition, the post-black redistribution of property began almost immediately, participation in which is also unthinkable without monetary capital. The acute and urgent need for money capital to a large extent fed the criminal ways of fighting competitors for objects of appropriation.

It should be noted that, from this point of view, spontaneous privatization was also forced, especially since it was carried out - even before the official announcement of market reforms - on one scale or another in all post-socialist countries. There was no money capital as such, but at the same time it was possible to use the administrative resource in full and with impunity in the conditions of the beginning chaos. Therefore, it is quite understandable that its subjects were primarily representatives of the ruling nomenklatura, as well as representatives of large shadow businesses, who by that time had received the opportunity to legalize their capital on the basis of the essentially pro-market laws newly adopted at that time.

So, it takes a long time for the emergence of new owners. In addition, the first of them, which appeared during the years of voucher privatization, very often turned out to be temporary workers who, for one reason or another, lost the acquired objects during the post-voucher redistribution of property that had begun. It took time for the accumulation of money capital. And although the victory at auctions and tenders was ensured not only by money, but also by many attendant circumstances, such as the degree of proximity of applicants to government structures, bribing government officials at various levels, the ability to successfully lobby for conflict transactions, etc., nevertheless, their participants had to lay out hundreds of millions of dollars, and at the beginning of the new century, the bill went to billions. But they had to be accumulated, starting essentially from scratch. Diverse methods of such accumulation have been worked out by the history of the formation of capitalism and greatly multiplied by the Russian practice of primary capital formation in the dashing 90s. But in any case, a time lag is inevitable between the formation of monetary and industrial capital, which in itself acts as a factor in the transformational decline.

The duration of the transformational recession increases even more if the money capital accumulated in the country rushes abroad. And this is quite natural in the conditions of economic, political and other instability inherent in any transitional economy, in conditions when a favorable investment climate has long been formed behind transparent and easily overcome borders. According to expert estimates, during the 1990s, about 200-300 billion dollars of capital accumulated in the country were taken out of Russia, not to mention the damage caused to the economy by the so-called brain drain, the losses from which are no less significant.

As we can see, many circumstances inherent in the transitional economy not only limit economic growth, but also give rise to the opposite phenomenon - a transformational recession of varying duration and destructive force, depending on the specific historical conditions of a particular post-socialist country. The transition from recession to growth occurs as capital masters the real sector of the economy, as a favorable investment climate is formed in the country, which not only stops the outflow of domestic capital abroad, but also stimulates the inflow of foreign capital. Such a process has clearly emerged in the Russian economy in recent years, starting from 1999. At the same time, any aggravation of relations between the authorities and the largest Russian companies without convincing reasons for representatives of big business is fraught with the danger of a deterioration in the situation for the national economy in terms of the inflow of foreign capital and the outflow domestic. And in any case, the transition from recovery economic growth to investment growth is being held back.

All these processes and phenomena that generate and feed the transformational recession are clearly visible not only in the transitional Russian economy, but also in the economies of other post-socialist countries, although due to the specifics of each of them, they proceed differently in them. But in any case, as a critical mass of true owners appears who are able to move from the original, that is, non-reproductive, accumulation of capital to reproductive, the transformational footprint becomes the starting point of economic growth.

Various countries with economies in transition are characterized by extremely uneven dynamics of macroeconomic indicators. They can be roughly divided into the following types:

1) countries for which a kind of "macroeconomic hole" was characteristic at the first stage of transformation: a significant (crisis) decline in production and GDP in 1990-92. followed by a sharp slowdown in the decline and exit in 1993-1994. (and in Poland already in 1992) onto a growth trajectory. This group includes Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, with a somewhat less confident way out of the "pit" - Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Armenia. In Bulgaria in 1996-97. economic growth again gave way to a catastrophic decline, in Albania the most severe political crisis led to the complete collapse of statehood, in Latvia and Romania, growth remained very slow and unstable.

2) countries whose economies are in a state of continuous non-uniformly slowing down recession.

The states of Eastern Europe went through the “bottom” of the economic downturn in the first half of the 1990s. In the mid 90s. almost all of them entered the growth stage, except for Bulgaria, where in 1996-1997. the economic situation again deteriorated sharply. In the late 90s. Eastern Europe as a whole, and especially those states where market reforms were vigorously and consistently carried out, approached the pre-crisis level and even surpassed it (Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). The Polish economy is developing at a particularly high pace, which has already significantly exceeded the level of the late 1980s.

In contrast to Russia, where the enterprises of the extractive complex turned out to be the most stable, in Eastern Europe those industries that occupy the “middle” position in the technological chain showed the greatest viability. These are industries that produce products with low added value: textile, food, woodworking, printing, etc. They do not require large investments, are mainly focused on consumer demand, which has already stabilized by the mid-90s, and have a comparative advantage in costs in the world market.

Growth is almost entirely provided by the expansion of the “new private sector”, i.e. private firms created in recent years “from scratch” and not burdened by the typical problems of state-owned and privatized enterprises (outdated equipment, surplus labor, the presence of social facilities, etc.). d.). Private enterprises quickly emerged precisely in the above sectors, which have demonstrated relative stability in the difficult conditions of the transition period.

For example, in Poland in the early 1990s, when the country was undergoing "shock therapy", the private sector was the only growing sector of the economy. In 1993, production in this sector, including companies with foreign participation, according to official data, increased by 35%, while production at state-owned enterprises decreased by 6%. For a long time, private enterprises accounted for more than 50% of Poland's GDP, and we are talking about the "new private sector", because there was virtually no privatization in Poland at that time. In fact, the share of the private sector was even higher, because the results of its activities are not fully reflected in the statistics. In Hungary, the share of the private sector in 1993 was estimated at 30% of GDP.

Production is also rapidly increasing at new enterprises built by foreign companies (they usually prefer new construction to the acquisition of old plants that require expensive modernization, settlement of relations with other owners and settlement of labor conflicts).

It is noteworthy that the economic policy of the Eastern European countries is very pragmatic and has little connection with the political ideology of the new governments that replaced the radical liberals in 1993-1995. To strengthen the monetary system, develop market institutions, and solve the most acute budgetary problems, new leaders are usually forced to cut government spending and privatize state property no less vigorously than the reformers of the early 1990s.

This situation is especially typical for Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland. It was the "left" governments of these countries in the mid-90s. began to "privatize" the social security system and blocked attempts by orthodox political groups to restore elements of the administrative-command economy (in Bulgaria - through the re-establishment of agrarian cooperatives, in Poland - through the renationalization of banks).

The experience of Eastern Europe has shown that, despite the rapid development of the "new private sector" and the influx of foreign capital, the dynamics of economic growth depends to a large extent on the condition of the bulk of state-owned and privatized enterprises. This relationship manifests itself in two ways:

firstly, without an improvement in the financial situation of the bulk of enterprises, one cannot expect an expansion in the production of ordinary, mass and standard products for the domestic market;

secondly, the crisis in the real sector deprives the state of tax revenues and, on the contrary, forces it to divert huge funds for subsidies, price subsidies, unemployment benefits and other forms of support for enterprises and workers. Because of this, the state is unable to fulfill its budgetary obligations for other items of expenditure, which results in a budget deficit and rising inflation.

The budget deficit, as in Russia, was initially covered by the issuance of government securities. This led to a well-known phenomenon - the “crowding out effect”, i.e., the diversion of scarce financial resources from the real sector. Banks preferred to invest not in production, but in reliable securities issued by the state. This led to an even greater "investment hunger" and a decline in production.

To break this "vicious circle", Eastern European countries have launched extensive campaigns of bank resolution and enterprise restructuring.

In Yugoslavia, the dynamics of GDP was initially similar to the dynamics of the GDP of the republics of the Transcaucasus (increasingly deepening recession). But then there is a sudden shift from a 27.7% decline to economic growth. Unlike other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia ensured economic growth not 2-4 years after the start of the financial stabilization program, but almost immediately after its start.

By the beginning of the transition period, the Russian economy had the most “favorable” conditions for a deep transformational crisis in terms of all the above parameters. The production structure was sharply skewed towards the high share of the first division, group "A" in the industry with a significant development of the military-industrial complex. The service sector was underdeveloped. In the field of engineering and technology, the economy occupied leading positions only in a number of industries (space, military equipment), in general, it had weak competitiveness in world markets, and was weighed down by a mass of obsolete equipment. The task of reforming in the field of market relations was especially difficult: it was necessary to recreate market institutions "out of nothing". The development of production for the sake of production determined the relatively low standard of living of the population, which meant the absence of a certain “margin of safety” in society that favored its radical reform. Deep penetration into society of the socialist mentality has become one of the reasons for the sharpness of the struggle of political forces in the process of transformation, the weakness of democratic forces. Unfounded, unjustifiably optimistic statements by the country's leadership about overcoming difficulties in a year or a year and a half gave rise to the corresponding expectations of the population and, all the more, deep disappointment when they were not realized.

At the beginning of the transition period, many assumed that Russia would develop a liberal-type economy, similar, for example, to the US economic system. However, practice has shown that the question of the ultimate goal of transformation is much more complicated. The peculiarities of Russia's historical experience cannot be set aside. Russia cannot be like the US, or Germany, or any other country. Remaining original, it must take everything positive from world experience.

One thing is clear: Russia must develop along the path of a market and democratic state. The market is deeply connected with democracy. This connection is due, firstly, to the fact that the private owner should see the state not as an adversary, but as an ally and patron capable of protecting his property rights. Confidence in the inviolability of their economic and political rights allows the owner to develop his business on the basis of a long-term and well-thought-out strategy. Secondly, democracy ensures that important government decisions are made in the interests of the majority and, therefore, favor those areas and areas of economic activity that are most promising at any given time.

The historical path of our country, combined with universal socio-economic trends (megatrends), indicates that the ultimate goal of the transition period should be a social market economy.

The future mixed model of the Russian economy, which will be the result of the transition period, should have the following main features:

Organic unity and interaction between the market and the state, in which private property and market mechanisms for the distribution of resources are combined with reliable protection by the state of competition and other "rules of the game", active participation of the state in the production of "public goods" and in the development of the social sphere;

The presence of developed market institutions that form an integral interconnected system and are able to ensure rapid growth due to the mobility of all factors of production and their efficient use;

The social orientation of the economy that meets the high modern requirements for the quality of the workforce, creative motivation for labor and entrepreneurial activity, humanization of relations in production, the state of education, science, health care, culture, and the environment;

Social partnership based on developed institutions of civil society and democratic government.

Conclusion

The transitional period is a historically short period of time during which the dismantling of the administrative-command system is completed and the system of basic market institutions is being formed. One of the relatively simple forms of dismantling is the liberalization of the economy. But the market behavior of economic entities can only be based on market institutions. Therefore, institutional transformation is primary in relation to other areas of reform.

At an early stage of reforms, the central task was to suppress inflation, ensure macroeconomic stabilization and liberalize the economy. In the course of the reforms, most countries were forced to take drastic and painful “shock therapy” measures for the national economy and population. Successful financial stabilization, along with the formation of market institutions, makes it possible to move on to the stage of economic growth. At the third, final stage of the reforms, a modern structure of the economy should take shape.

The theory and practice of transformation allow us to identify several patterns of the transition period. This is a change in the role of the state, macroeconomic stabilization, privatization, transformational recession and integration into the world economy. The historical path of our country, combined with universal socio-economic trends, indicates that the ultimate goal of post-socialist transformation for Russia is a social market economy.

Economics / ed. A.I. Arkhipova, A.K. Bolshakova - M., 2008.- P.627

Economics / ed. A.I. Arkhipova, A.K. Bolshakova - M., 2008.- P.537

Economic development is inevitably associated with the transition of the economy from one state to another. The need for a radical reform of the administrative-command economy was recognized by the majority of the population and political leadership of the former socialist countries, since it became obvious that this system was ineffective. Today, the attention of both Russian and foreign scientists and the general public is attracted by the complex and contradictory transformations taking place in post-socialist countries, including Russia. In this chapter, we will consider the essence of the transition economy, its main features, options for the transition to a market economy, as well as the specifics of reforms in a number of post-socialist countries.

Introduction to the Theory of the Transition Economy

The transitional economy is a special state of the economy when it operates in the era of the transition of society from one historical stage to another. Transitional economic relations are characterized by the fact that economic systems at this moment combine the features of both the old and the new structure of society. The transitional economy is a transformation of the entire system of economic relations, and not just a reform of their individual elements. Transition economy - the intermediate state of the economy as a result of socio-economic transformations; it is a transitional state from one socio-economic system to another.

In the course of socio-economic development, society has encountered various types of transitional economies. Modern economic thought distinguishes between the economy of the transition period, reforming the system of coordination of the economy, the elimination of deformations and overcoming the instability of economic development, intersystem transition. The most striking example of the economy of the transition period from capitalism to socialism was the transformation that began in 1917 after the Great October Socialist Revolution until the end of the 1930s. The peculiarity of this type of transitional economy was that the purpose of the transformation was the creation of a one-way socialist system, the prevention of any other social relations. The guarantor of reforms was the strength of state power.

An example of reforming the system of coordination of the economy was the change in the mechanism and scale of state regulation of the economy in the 1930s. 20th century World economic crisis 1929-1933 ("Great Depression") swept all the capitalist countries and hit the United States most of all. He showed that hopes for a self-regulating market mechanism do not justify themselves. The consequence of this was the recognition of the need for measures of the macroeconomic policy of the state, focused on eliminating the shortcomings of the market system.

The most striking example of the elimination of deformations in the economies of countries is the transformation of the economies of developing countries. The group of developing countries in the world economy was formed mainly on the basis of former colonies. The economic development of the colonies was determined not by the needs of the latter, but by the needs of the metropolises. This fact for a long time determined the socio-economic backwardness and dependence of the developing countries on the former mother countries. After achieving independence, the economic strategy of most of the former colonies was aimed at strengthening their independent position in the world. To this end, developing countries reformed their economic structure and strengthened national independence, including through the annulment of unequal treaties that limited national sovereignty.

An example of overcoming a long period of instability in the development of the economies of states is the economic transformation of the countries of Latin America, where for more than 20 years there have been high inflation rates, low economic growth rates and growing external debt. Since the mid 1970s. in the leading Latin American countries, a transition to a new development strategy was proclaimed - liberal, providing for a sharp reduction in state intervention in the economy. Today, the economic development of the region has become dynamic.

The transformations of the economy taking place today in the post-socialist countries are characterized as a transitional economy. The modern transition economy is an intersystem transition, a transition from an administrative-command (single-structure) to a mixed (multi-structure) economic system. Systemic reforms are transformations that change the type of socio-economic system. The task of transition from an administrative-command economy to a modern market economy arose in history for the first time.

The transitional economy is characterized by a number of specific features. First, the transitional economy is multi-layered. The economic structure is a special type of economic relations. Multiformity - the presence of a number of sectors of the economy, characterized by various forms of production. The main feature of the intersystem transition is that economic relations of both economic systems coexist in society - both the outgoing and the emerging one. Secondly, the instability of development. The transitional economy involves the search for new, more efficient forms of economic relations. On this path, miscalculations, mistakes, and reverse movement are possible. For example, in cases where the application of a particular economic innovation worsens the macroeconomic situation. Thirdly, alternative development. The results of the development of the transitional economy can be variant. Economic reforms are aimed at achieving a certain expected result. However, expectations may not be met. Many economic reforms either did not produce positive results or were too small.

Socio-economic reforms taking place in countries with economies in transition can be called a kind of revolution, since they led to a radical transformation of the former economic system in the shortest possible time. Transition period - a historically short period during which the liquidation or radical transformation of one economic system and the formation of another takes place. According to most economists, the duration of today's transition period should be 10-15, maximum 20 years. These theoretical assumptions, based on forecasts of socio-economic and political development, are confirmed by the results of transformation in the small countries of Eastern Europe. In the most developed of them, economic reforms are completed in about 10 years. In Russia, the transition period is longer and will probably last until the end of the first decade of the 21st century. In the narrow sense of the word, the end of the transition period is marked by the restoration of pre-crisis production volumes and the standard of living of the population. However, in a broad sense, the transition period is considered completed when the majority of the country's population begins to live better and, most importantly, perceives the new economic system as more efficient.