Institutional Change in Post-Socialist Regimes: Public Policy and Beyond
Kuznetsov and Kuznetsova (2003) advance the argument that post-socialist institutional settings are transitory. Drawing upon the ideas of new institutionalists, particularly Douglas North (1997), they suggest that these transient institutions are sub-optimal in comparison to their counterparts in advanced market economies. As a result, the prevailing institutions are preventing the incentives of the market system from revealing their full strength, and thus obstructing the process of economic development. In response, Kuznetsov and Kuznetsova (2003) put forward the thesis that the creation of an up-to-date institutional system can bring post-socialist capitalism (in Russia) into the modern age. They call for the state to perform the pivotal role of driving the process of institutional change. This is because "the 'natural' evolution of institutions is not an option as this would mean ignoring available international experience and wasting time and resources rediscovering institutions that have already proven their worth in countries with greater market experience" (Kuznotsov and Kuznetsova 2003, 911). This view falls within a growing current of opinion that favors a bigger role for the state in post-socialist regimes (Martin 2002; Tompson 2002). These views draw on analysis of diverse factors such as geographical position and climate (Lynch 2002), democratization of society (Steen 2001; Sheltsova 2001), industrial development (Carlsson, Lundgren, and Olsson 2001), even entrepreneurship policy (McMillan and Woodruff 2002). The argument is that a strong state which enjoys legitimacy and holds a clear vision of the institutions required for growth can act as the driver of change. Proponents of this view often caution against the uncritical import of reform from the west (particularly the Anglo-Saxon model), as this creates problems regarding the adaptation and interpretation of concepts developed from one setting (western) to another (post-socialist). This qualification enables advocates of this view to explain the recent inability of the state to establish market institutions. Another argument put forward to explain the limited ability of the state to drive