Privatization and the Consolidation of Democratic Regimes: an Analysis and an Alternative
Zhiyuan Cui
1997-01-01
Journal of International Affairs
Abstract:What is the relationship between privatization and democratization in the post-communist countries? Will privatization hinder or promote the consolidation of these infant democracies? In to answer these questions, I will first develop a typology of privatization strategies and then explore their effects on the transition to democracy and the consolidation of democracy. My thesis is two-fold: first, privatization has eased the transition to democracy, in the sense that power is shifting from the old political elite into a new economic elite; second, privatization, as practiced so far in Russia and Eastern Europe, makes the consolidation of democratic regimes difficult. To solve this dilemma between transition and consolidation, we need an alternative strategy of economic transformation in the post-communist countries. A sketch of this alternative concludes this paper. Though my focus is on Russia and Eastern Europe, the conclusion of this paper will hopefully have broader implications for countries in Latin America and other parts of the world where political economies are experiencing the same kind of fundamental transformation. A Typology of Privatization Strategies Privatization has been topping the agenda of economic transformation in Eastern Europe and Russia for several years. Soon after they came to power, almost all post-communist governments in the region announced major programs for privatizing their state-owned enterprises. These privatization strategies can be classified along two dimensions: whether a given strategy advocates a rapid or privatization process, and whether a given strategy advocates privatization from below (spontaneous privatization) or from above (centrally directed privatization). This is illustrated in the following figure. Although arbitrary, this typology enables us to focus on two crucial dimensions of the privatization debate and its relationship to the consolidation of democracy. The first dimension is the timing and pace of privatization, indicated in Figure 1 as slow versus rapid. Democratic institutions vary in levels of efficiency; for example, resolutions are reached more quickly if all that is required is a presidential decree rather than a debate in parliament. A more rapid privatization strategy would require a more efficient state decision-making apparatus, and this could have important implications for the transition to a democratic regime. When the objective is to privatize as rapidly as possible, it can be argued that presidential decree power is needed to circumvent the obstacle of prolonged parliamentary discussion. The second dimension has to do with the types of privatization programs, indicated in Figure 1 as versus directed. The concept of spontaneous order was introduced by Friedrich Hayek, one of the most influential Western economic thinkers in Eastern Europe, who considered a free-market economy without government intervention to be the most efficient. His theory has been invoked to counter any attempts to guide the privatization process through policy intervention from above, except in the form of general laws enabling the private sector to grow spontaneously and eventually outgrow the state sector. In contrast, a centrally directed strategy of privatization usually requires the government's privatization agency to sell state assets on a case-by-case basis or distribute free vouchers to the population. Figure 1: Typology of Privatization Strategies Slow Rapid Spontaneous Private Sector Growing Nomenklatura/ Out of State Sector Worker Buyout Centrally Directed Case-by-Case Sales Free Vouchers Actual privatizations are almost always a mixture of these pure strategy types. For example, between 1992 and 1994 the Russian privatization program was a combination of insider buyout and free voucher distribution. …