In article book the fundamental concept of "market socialism" was analyzed. In it the idea of preservation of a dominating role of a state ownership in the presence of market coordination was rejected. This position has called irritation supporters of market socialism. The anger of many reformatory adjusted economists has fallen upon me in countries of Eastern Europe and social democrats of "old ferment" in the West.
In the book has received reflexion author's credo - it is necessary to support economic system in which the private property dominates. In this sense the offered approaches differed from the statements sounding in the West a little. But still a number of the important questions remains opened. What best way to such system? What becomes property structure in economy after transition period end? To what type of the capitalism based on a private property, from set of the existing it is necessary to aspire? Let's consider in the compressed kind two "pure" strategy. The most part of detailed practical offers anyhow gravitated to one of them and in the centre of discussions there was a polemic between their supporters. A.Segodnja's strategy I would name its strategy of organic development. Five basic characteristics are inherent in it. 1. The most important problem - creation of favorable conditions for private sector development "from below". As the main stimulus of it mass occurrence of private businessmen serves. In the given purposes it is necessary: to destroy the barriers, stirring to a free admission on the market; to guarantee the private property rights for what the special institutes providing observance of contract obligations are necessary; to take special measures (with demanded care) for assistance to private sector development, for example, in the field of the tax and credit policy. 2. The majority of the companies which are in a state ownership, should be privatised mainly sales. The state ownership needs to be sold basically to outsiders, preferring those who is ready not only to pay for it the fair price but also to invest in the company. If the buyer - the sale price all the same should be reasonable. It is impossible to admit, that insider privatisation has turned to the latent form of free distribution of property. 3. As follows from point 2, it is necessary to avoid any gratuitous distribution of the state property. 4. It is necessary to give preference to such schemes of sales which will allow to generate the structure of the property characterised by following lines: - The company has a dominating proprietor - one businessman, either group of owners, or the private company, managements possessing experience of a private property. Last can belong both to residents, and foreigners. The owner - the strategic investor, ready to support the company by injection in it of the new capital is especially welcomed; - If the form of the company with limited liability is selected, it is not necessary to aspire to avoid "dispersion" of actions. However it is desirable, that each company had a basic strategic shareholder. 5. It is necessary to toughen budgetary restrictions of the companies. Only so it is possible to establish financial discipline without which observance the market economy cannot function. It is necessary to accept a number of new laws, including laws on bankruptcy, book keeping and banks, and to provide their execution. That the transition period was successful, not enough known "triad" - privatisations, liberalisations and stabilisation. Toughening of budgetary restrictions is not less important. It is not necessary to privatise at any cost or is too long artificial to support "afloat" chronically unprofitable state enterprises. In process of toughening of budgetary restrictions among them there is a natural selection. The profitable enterprises can be sold sooner or later. What it is impossible to sell that their market estimation is equal to zero or even it is negative, should be subjected bankruptcy procedure, instead of are given someone free of charge. Privatisation by means of bankruptcy and liquidation - one of the basic ways of change of the proprietor. The private sector share in total manufacture is characterised by the tendency to growth because, on the one hand, there are new private companies, and with another - the public sector is narrowed. The second process occurs in two forms: the state companies can be sold to private owners or are subjected procedure of bankruptcy and liquidated. B.Segodnja's strategy I would name its strategy of the accelerated privatisation. Three major characteristics are inherent in it. 1. The main task - as soon as possible to destroy a state ownership. The basic way of privatisation - property distribution in this or that form, for example, by means of vouchers when the property rights in the state companies, privatizeable, are distributed free of charge and on a basis equal in rights among citizens of the country. Such approach can provide the tolerant relation to transfer of the property in hands of managers or even its stimulation. In many cases the similar mechanism appears the pseudo-repayment as managers pay for the property very low price that is almost equivalent to its reception free of charge. 3. There is no necessity to show hostility to the distributed property. Actually it, probably, it is necessary to prefer. Thus it is necessary to underline, that all citizens will receive the property rights to the former state enterprises and, thus, "national capitalism" is formed. As to two other characteristics considered with reference to strategy And, a position of supporters of strategy here the following. They approvingly concerned private sector development "from below", but did not focus on it attention in the recommendations unlike supporters of strategy And. If supporters of strategy Would ask in due time about necessity of toughening of budgetary restrictions, they basically would agree with it. But requirements on their toughening in their recommendations were as though lost and is not casual. They expected, that privatisation will automatically toughen budgetary restrictions. The most essential distinction between two strategy consists not in a set of characteristics, and in on what of them becomes больший accent. To what it is necessary to concentrate attention of politicians, legislative and administrative efforts, intellectual and research potential? Strategy And puts in the forefront importance of healthy growth of a new private sector while strategy Would give a priority of fast liquidation of public sector. In the book "the Way to free economy" and other jobs of that time I recommended to choose A.Rjad's strategy of scientists also shared this position. Here and more low I mention only western исследователей2. We will name among them V.Andreffa, P.Boltona and J. Роланда, J. ван Brabant, R.Makkinona, P.Mjurrelja and K.Poznanski. Nevertheless the majority of the western scientists of the academic circles supported and popularised (quite often - rather aggressively) strategy of fast privatisation. Ten years later I am assured, that the strategy of L stimulating organic growth of a private sector, was correct. The strategy choice the-accelerated privatisation - at the best was less effective, in the worst - put obvious ущерб3. Before to pass to the analysis of development of four specified countries, we will result small statistical comparison. There is a close relationship of cause and effect between healthy development of a private sector, toughening of the budgetary restrictions, the accelerated re-structuring of the enterprises and as an end result labour productivity growth - last indicator is more important, than gross national product indicator per capita as shows effect of re-structuring is better. In the inheritance from system of the state socialism there was a superfluous employment. According to strategy And, it was supposed to get rid of such heritage, even resorting if necessary to painful and unpopular measures. Strategy Would avoid it. In 1998 labour productivity in Hungary was on 36 % above, than in 1989, and in Poland - on 29 %. The corresponding indicator has increased In Czechia only on 6 %. The Most adverse position has developed in Russia - in 1998 Labour productivity was on 33 % more low, than in 1989 4 Obviously, Hungary followed strategy А5. If to consider all five above described characteristics transients in Hungary to the greatest degree corresponded to a line of organic development of a private sector. The Hungarian experience cannot be idealised in no event. There were many errors, after all they could take place not only at free distribution of the property, but also during privatisation by means of its sale. And though any of loud corruption scandals has not managed really to shake the country, experts and the public are assured, that infringements at privatisation happened often enough. At the same time we will notice, that achievements in economic area rather впечатляющи. Have arisen hundred thousand new small and average companies. Toughening of budgetary restrictions in first half 90th years stimulated process of natural selection in corporate sphere. The financial discipline has considerably become stronger, "fetters" of mutual debts of the companies have been destroyed, the role of private contracts has increased. Consolidation of bank sector has begun. All listed promoted inflow of the foreign capital which has become by the important factor of growth of labour productivity and export to Hungary. In Poland times made the statements which were "making advances" to idea of realisation of strategy, but the economic policy in practice remained A.Segodnja close to strategy many Polish economists recognise, that success of the Polish reforms, besides achievements in the field of macrostabilization, has been caused by mass occurrence of the new companies, powerful development of a private sector "from below" and inflow private capital. In the early nineties heads of the Czech Republic have appeared the first, wished to realise V.Klaus's B.Premer-ministr's strategy defended the voucher scheme of privatisation even in foreign выступлениях7. The corresponding program was realised rather vigorously. Since then in variety of researches its reasons relative неудачи8 were analyzed. At the first stage the property was distributed among millions owners of vouchers, subsequently it has been again concentrated in investment funds. However funds did not have not enough means for upgrade of the backward companies or for real investments. Funds have been connected with large commercial banks in which the state was the main shareholder or the unique proprietor. The similar structure of the property did not allow to provide a strong corporate governance. Re-structuring of the enterprises went is shaky, shakily. Despite sharp, in the spirit of the "Chicago" school of free business, the rhetoric intended for foreign experts, actually budgetary restrictions remained soft. While privatisation by means of sales conducts to natural selection, free cession of rights of the property preserves its existing structure. Results have appeared disappointing. To no small degree it would be promoted by strategy following though it is impossible to dismiss and serious errors in the macroeconomic policy. As probably, most sad example of a failure of strategy Russia Would serve. Here all characteristics of the given strategy were showed in the extreme form: the voucher privatisation imposed to the country together with mass manipulations by transfer of the property to hands of managers and the approached officials. In these conditions there was not having precedents in history "a property reform" in which course country natural resources, especially oil and gas, have been actually expropriated by "oligarchs". It is not necessary to forget and about preservation of soft budgetary restrictions which penetrate all sections of economy and a policy and cause a huge damage. Russia has turned to "a society of non-payments" 10. The companies do not pay to suppliers, as well as employers - to hired workers, or borrowers - to creditor banks. And with such situation executive and judicial branches of the power are reconciled. In practice the state itself sets a bad example, quite often detaining payments of wages to the civil servant and pensions - to pensioners. Supporters of both strategy leant against what intellectual base? We will recollect, that nobody has acted with the accurate concept or has developed the model, allowing to draw conclusions proceeding from precisely formulated assumptions. Supporters of both strategy supplemented economic knowledge with intuitive representations about capitalism development in the future. Therefore today my problem consists in understanding, quite often reading between the lines, what ideas underlay this vision. Let's begin with the most simple. Whose works and an intellectual position have made on my the biggest impact when I reflected on property problems in the late eighties? One source - F.Hayek's jobs, or, more precisely, its ideas about development of market economy and its opposition to "constructivism" 11. I could not understand, how our Czech colleagues, referring as required on it, compose, sitting at a table, "game rules" for voucher privatisation and the recommendation to the government on its realisation. Hayek attached huge significance to spontaneous actions under capitalism, to how it selects, using evolutionary mechanisms, viable institutes which in a status to survive. Second my intellectual source - I.Shumpetera's works, but not the period "Capitalism, socialism and democracy" (1929) In which naive hopes of market socialism, and earlier in which it considered the businessman as motive power капитализма12 were rested. The Market economy, on Shumpeter, is not sterile world Вальраса aspiring to balance, but the world of real rivalry where live people will organise new firms, win the new markets and advance new products. I felt, that for the Eastern Europe after a huge dose of bureaucratism are necessary thousand and ten thousand such businessmen. Another is closely connected with it also often mentioned idea Shumpeter - about "creative destruction". In my logic it is combined with toughening of budgetary restrictions and painful, but necessary process of market natural selection in which course there is a market. Powerful process of an input of the companies on the market and an exit from it serves as motive power of process of redistribution of resources from less productive to more productive фирмам13. The third source - representation about origin, development and the capitalism strengthening, generated under the influence of works of the scientists belonging to French school "Annals", F.Brodelja's jobs and others, clearing up the evolutionary nature of process, and also researches of the commercial legislation and (the financial discipline, rigidly entered at early капитализме1 ' 1. At last, strong influence on me has rendered studying of socialist systems. I do not use the term "institute" in every second paragraph as recently became accepted, but it seems to me, have managed to understand, that means a word "system" and what difference between socialism and capitalism. I, certainly, realised, that it will not disappear simply thanks to privatisation, liberalisation and stabilisation. Under what influence of intellectual influences representations of supporters of strategy about that ^ how quickly to "construct" capitalism Would be formed? Here insufficiently simply to mention standard approaches "economy". Even if they it is direct on them do not refer, I am convinced, that the strongest influence on supporters of strategy would be rendered by jobs of two authors. One (it is valid, on a twist of fate) is Charles Marx, and another - Ronald Kouz. Strange enough pair, in my opinion. Grown wise марксисты would name that strategy Would borrow Marx, "vulgar Marxism". I would add, that that it took at Kouz, is "vulgar Kouz". In the given context the vulgar Marxism is reflected in the simplified formula: property change - not only necessary, but also a sufficient condition of occurrence of capitalism. Capitalist relations of the property form basis on which there is a capitalist superstructure: institutes, the political organisations and the ideology, required that the capitalist basis could function. The real course of history has shown (it has been confirmed also by the events connected with postsocialist transition), that between basis and a superstructure actually it is much more difficult than the relation. One presence of capitalist relations of the property a-insufficient condition for capitalism strengthening. Transformation of economy and a society in various spheres proceeds often in parallel and is characterised by various kinds of interaction. That one sphere is pulled out forward, another, influencing on the first. There is no universal law defining sequence in which there is such interaction. If the property radical reform anticipates transformation of political, legal and cultural institutes, last will proceed very slowly and painfully, with high social costs. Thus, even if under certain conditions fast and deep reform of relations of the property also is possible, it is completely not obvious that to spend in the beginning it, and then to transform additional institutes, the reasonable sequence. I will try to formulate in the simplified kind an essence vulgar as follows. Has no value, if initial distribution of the legal rights inefficiently. Finally it becomes effective. This statement is impregnated by optimism. It is thought, that if Kouz has taken part in the given discussion, he would add three reservations to the second offer above-stated формулировки16. Effective distribution of the legal rights probably under a condition: - The exchange is carried out in absolutely competitive market; - The exchange occurs freely, there are no barriers on a way of cession of rights of the property; - At cession of rights of the property is not present costs or, at least, they are very low. But what will occur, if these conditions are absent? Actually so business in a case of postsocialist transformation is. Property cession of rights can be blocked the groups of interests possessing the huge power, as in Russia. It is necessary to consider and high social costs arising in redistribution. Let's address to the arguments stated during discussion. 1. Supporters of strategy willingly Would use ethical reasons. Each citizen should receive an equal share of the former state ownership that will be справедливым17. The subsequent course of events has shown hypocrisy of similar argument. Initial distribution of the property was saved not for long then there was a sharp concentration of the former state ownership. In case of Russia it has led to development of the absurd, perverted and extremely unfair form oligarchical капитализма18. State ownership sale under the fair price does not reduce riches of the state, its form simply varies. Receipts from privatisation are necessary for investing effectively, instead of to eat. Hungary used them for reduction of external debts, at least, in a course of "the big wave" privatisations when many enterprises of power and telecommunication branches have been sold. The subsequent reduction of payments on percent and appreciable improvement of a credit rating of the country promoted increase of a standard of living of all its citizens. 2. Supporters of strategy And placed emphasis on sociological arguments. For capitalism strengthening process societies, formations of a class of proprietors is very important. Well-known, that at a certain stage of mature capitalism the big role is played along with институциональной by the distributed joint-stock property. However here it is inadmissible forward, not having strong арьергарда. Occurrence институциональных investors cannot replace radical transformation of stratification of a society. This argument has received the acknowledgement during the first decade of postsocialist transformations. There is a close correlation between degree of economic successes and depth of changes in society stratification. 3. The arguments representing the greatest interest for economists, concerned economic efficiency. In this area strategy And has most convincingly shown the superiority. It has been shown, that the new private companies as a whole more производительны, than remaining in a state ownership or приватизированные19. Empirical evidences confirm the assumption, that the distributed property and preservation of soft budgetary restrictions contain growth производительности20. Shumpeteriansky spirit of business, выбраковка the inefficient, impractical companies, occurrence of the real proprietors aimed at an establishment of an order, arrival of foreign investors - all it has urged on productivity and export growth. 4. At last, we will address to political arguments. Today all agree that acceptance of the program of voucher privatisation and putting off of carrying out of painful re-structuring of the enterprises have played a critical role in a party in power victory on the second free elections in Czechia. Other example of a similar victory in countries of Eastern Europe for last 10 years was not. In this sense privatisation campaign was успешной21. On the contrary, the coalitions which were at the power in Hungary and Poland in the first parliamentary cycle, the second general election have lost. Their contenders who have achieved a victory, adhered basically to the same strategy And, as their predecessors. Four years later, after refusal of use of free privatisation as the selective weapon, they, in turn, have lost elections. Thus, strategy from the point of view criterion of preservation of the power Would appear more effective. Supporters of strategy everywhere and especially in Russia repeated argument, that if "the window of possibilities" for privatisation is opened, these should use and spend immediately her it is necessary quickly while official the bureaucracy is lost and is not capable to show resistance. Therefore changes in property relations should become irreversible, differently other chance can and not to be. The given argument neither to confirm, nor to deny it is logically impossible. Though today it is clear, that, for example, democracies in Czechia did not threaten restoration of communistic board and occurrence of the Soviet tanks, it is necessary to recognise, that in 1991 it was not so obviously. From such point of view it is especially difficult to reinterpret events in Russia. Repeatedly it was necessary to hear following arguments. Mass privatisation should be carried out quickly while the communist party has not won elections. If it begins to dominate in the State Duma, it will be possible to forget about privatisation. In my opinion, this argument is based on the false parcels put upside down. If privatisation was spent differently and it would be possible to avoid a large quantity of infringements and high social costs, from it, in Russia there would be no such strong nostalgia on communistic times. The reform of the property imposed to a society can become irreversible. More solid basis if in a society the wide layer of bourgeoisie was generated nevertheless could be for this purpose put in pawn, the property rights and private contract obligations were consistently observed, democratic norms were, and the market economy was supported by the majority of voters.
