Making a Successful Transition from a Command to a Market Economy: the lessons from Estonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is now more than ten years since the dismantling of the USSR began, not only in terms of the reasserted independence of the member states, but also in terms of the end of the centralised Soviet command economy. The experiences of a myriad of investors, public and private, who have lost funds they so hopefully made available to emerging enterprises in the Eastern European states, particularly in Russia, have clearly demonstrated to Western observers the difficulties associated with making a transition from a command to a market economy. And yet the transformation in different states has had different degrees of success. For example, in Estonia, the strategies to move from a command to a market economy, adopted by the political leadership throughout the 1990s, have been relatively successful. In this article, the policies that led to this success are identified. It is believed that tentative generalisations from the experiences of Estonia may be helpful in determining the necessary conditions for successful change from a command to a market economy in other countries. To the extent that such transitions contribute to real economic growth, empirical evidence about the conditions necessary for their realisation provides general understanding of the forces underlying economic development. Moreover, it may well be that these generalisations can be used by private and public organisations to obtain a first indication of the probabilities of success of investments that they are contemplating making in a transitional economy, whether measured by return on capital, and/or contribution to general welfare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".