Jim,
Don't you think that Kostunica has more political
capital than many of the transition leaders and thus
might be in a better position to hold out for at least
parts of a reasonable program along theses lines
if he is so inclined?
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2001 9:41 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:7296] Re: Re: holy trinity/Yugoslavia in transition
>Peter wrote:
>>The first two have to be altered simultaneously and fairly quickly; the
>>third, by its nature, takes more time. I think insufficient thought has
>>been given in most shock therapy programs to two major issues: what are
>>all the unemployed supposed to be doing when they lose their jobs in the
>>SOE's, and how long will it take before firms are able to hold their own
>>in world markets, so that trade opening and convertibility can be
>>sustained?
>>
>>A socialist approach, IMO, would use temporary public service
>>employment, etc., to deal with unemployment, and it would only very
>>gradually open the economy to competition -- and even then leave scope
>>for managing the current account in the long run. (This is in relation
>>to macro adjustment -- obviously a socialist approach to transition
>>itself would be much more substantial and far-reaching...)
>
>the problem is that the IMF and its allies oppose such programs and use the
>subject country's external indebtedness as leverage to impose simplistic
>neoliberal solutions.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
>
>
