Institutional Properties of the South East European Region
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/2015-3-2Keywords:
institutional pluralism, institucional changes, alternative institutions, region of South East EuropeAbstract
This paper will identify and analyze the basic institutional characteristics of the region of South East Europe (SEE6), because the building of institutions is one of the main conditions for sustainable development. Basic theoretical and practical barriers, that crucially influenced the current unfavorable transitional institutional characteristics in SEE6, will be researched in a selective way. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the essential institutional differences of this region in comparison with developed countries, particularly in terms of real institutional change, the application of institutional pluralism and the main institutional barriers. The paper starts from the hypothesis that ignoring the institutional pluralism and domination of alternative institutions in SEE6 led to dysfunctionality of institutional change, which had a negative impact on all indicators of economic development in the surveyed countries. The emphasis is on the factors of monistic anti-institutional action, from which the alternative institutions stand out for their destructive significance. It points to devastating and anti-developmental consequences of their actions, and their theoretical support of neoliberal type, which is in practice vulgarized and converted into a quasi-neoliberalism. It identifies the real and concrete causes of reproduced institutional vacuum. The findings from the study suggest that countries of the SEE6 region should apply civilization-proven development models of institutional pluralism type. This indicates the importance of taking real institutional changes and urgent overcoming the quasi-institutional forms in order to successfully valorize the economic resources in the countries of SEE6.References
Howitt, P. (2003). Coordination Failures. In: Snowdon, B., and H. R. Vane (Eds). An Encyclopedia of Macroeconomics (140144). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Polterovich, V (2005). Institutional Traps: Is There a Way Out? Social Sciences, 36(1), 30-40.
Matsuyama, K. (2005). Poverty trap. In: L. Blume and S. Durlauf (Eds). New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed.). Macmillan. Available at: http://www.faculty.econ.northwestern.edu/faculty/matsuyama/Poverty%20Traps.pdf.
Mesaric, M. (2011). Neo-Liberalism Vs. Planning as o Institute of Socio-Economic Development. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 7(9), 5-20.
Draskovic, V (2012). Nekotorye matematicheskie i logicheskie oshibki v ekonomicheskom modelirovanii [Some mathematical and logical mistakes in the economic modeling]. Mathematica Montisnigri, 24, 283-290.
Denzau, A. T & North, D. C. (1994). Shared mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions. Kyklos, 47(1), 3-31.
North, D. C. (1982). Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: WW Norton & Company, 240.
Hodgson, G. M. (1998). Institutions and the Viability of Macroeconomics: Some Perspectives on the transformation Process in Post-Communist Economies. Journal of Institutional Innovation, Development and Transition, 2, 5-18.
North, D. C., Walis, J. J. & Weingast, B. R. (2012). Violence and Social Orders - A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge: The Syndicate of the Pres, 346.
Draskovic, V & Delibasic, M. (2014). Neoliberal Rhetoric as a Metaphor For Quasi-Institutional Monism. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 10(2), 33-47.
Kornai, J. (1994). Transformational recession: The Main Causes. Journal of Comparative Economics, 19, 39-63.
Stiglitz, J. (2000), Formal and Informal Institutions. In: Dasgupta, P. & Serageldin, I. (Eds). Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective (59-70). Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
Polterovich, V M. (2001). Transplantatsiya ekonomicheskikh institutov [Transplantation of economic institutes]. Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii [Economic science of modern Russia], 3, 24-50.
Berkowitz, D., Pistor, K. & Richard, J.-F. (2003). The Transplant Effect. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 51(1), 163-204.
Domazet, T. (2010). Facing the Future of Economic Policy - Causes of the Crisis from the Political Economy Point of View. Proceedings of the Scientific Conference Facing the Future of South East Europe (7-70), Zagreb: Croatian Institute of Finance and Accounting.
Coping with Floods Strengthening Growth. (2015). South East Europe: Regular Economic Report, 7. Washington: World Bank, 69.
Draskovic, & Draskovic, M. (2012). Institutional Nihilism of the Post-Socialist Transition. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 8(2), 191-206.
Marcouiller, D. & Young, L. (1995). The Black hole of graft: the predatory state and the informal economy, American Economic Review, 3, 630-646.
Hodgson, G. M. (2006). Institutions, Recessions and Recovery in the Transitional Economies. Journal of Economic Issues, 15(4), 875-894.
Rodrik, D. (2007). One economics, many recipes: globalization, institutions, and economic growth. Prinston: Prinston University Press, 263.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Mimo Draskovic, Niksa Grgurevic, Milica Delibasic
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
