Year by year, the current nine
countries of Eastern and Central Europe that were controlled by the Soviets --
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania and Slovakia -- become relatively more prosperous in comparison to the
richer nations of Western Europe. As a result of the European debt crisis, this
trend is likely to accelerate.
It has been more than two
decades since these countries acquired their freedom. All have become
multiparty, largely free-market democracies. What seems normal now was far from
a foregone conclusion at the time of the dissolution of the old Soviet Union.
In fact, most bets would have wagered that not all these nations would have
made it.
I was one of the economists
who advised the reformers in Hungary and Estonia -- then later Russia and
Ukraine -- and served as co-chairman of the transition team in Bulgaria. To say
that at the time we were not all confident that the democratic and economic
reforms would be successful would be an understatement.
Per capita incomes still lag
somewhat behind those of the richer Western European countries, as can be seen
in the accompanying table. But economic growth rates on average in the nine new
countries, with plenty of ups and downs, have been much higher than the average
of the European Union (EU).
The improvement has been much
greater than the official numbers indicate because the real level of well-being
in the nine countries at the end of the Soviet period was greatly
overstated.
The Soviets exaggerated their
success for obvious reasons, but many in Western intelligence agencies also
accepted those phony higher numbers because it made the communist threat seem
greater than it was, which led to higher defense and intelligence budgets. Many
who leaned to the left in the media and academic establishments wanted to
inflate socialism's success beyond actuality.
Why are the nine doing better
than the rest of the EU? As can be seen in the table, all but Hungary have far
lower levels of government debt as a percentage of gross domestic product than
the EU average of 83.4 percent. They also have smaller government sectors than
the EU average, and they have much lower marginal and flatter income tax rates
than the rest of the EU.
France is included in the
table to serve as a comparison. France is a large, rich country on its way to
becoming poorer because it increasingly is less competitive in comparison with
the reformed nine thanks to its high tax rates (the 75 percent tax on income
over 1 million euros is pending), heavy labor and financial regulations, and an
elevated level of government spending.
Why have the nine
succeeded?
First, their citizens saw
socialism/communism up close, and they knew it did not work in practice or even
in theory. They understand that government is more often the problem than the
solution.
Second, in most of the
countries, there were those who had read and understood what F.A. Hayek and
Milton Friedman had been saying, despite the difficulties in obtaining those
economists' works.
Many of these young economists
became leaders in their respective nations -- notably, Leszek Balcerowicz,
former deputy prime minister and minister of finance and former chairman of the
National Bank of Poland, who initiated Poland's economic reforms in 1989; Mart
Laar in Estonia, who was trained as a historian but had read Friedman and
implemented many of his ideas when he served as the first real reformist prime
minister in his country; and finally, Vaclav Klaus, president and former prime
minister of the Czech Republic.
As a young economist, Mr.
Klaus had the opportunity to spend limited time studying abroad. He quickly
picked up the ideas of Hayek and Friedman, which got him in trouble in his home
country. He was forced largely to keep out of politics until things began to
change in the late 1980s in what is now the Czech Republic. It was during that
time when I first met Mr. Klaus, and he was filled with enthusiasm and perhaps
a bit of naiveté about the task at hand.
He went on to become finance
minister and then prime minister, and finally for the past nine years he has
been Czech president. In addition to his political success, he has continued to
write serious economic policy books, including a highly regarded and widely
distributed (in English) critique of global-warming hysterics: Blue Planet in
Green Shackles.
Mr. Klaus, despite his
official duties, has been an active participant in the Mont Pelerin Society
(the global organization of classical liberty and free-market scholars and
proponents formed by Hayek in 1947) which is holding its biannual general
meeting in Prague this week. As one of the most free-market heads of state in
the world, he is both hosting events at Prague Castle for the society and
engaging in the debate over solutions for the global economic crisis.
France and many countries in
Europe are headed in one direction. The Czech Republic and the other reform
countries are headed in another direction. The question is, how long will it be
before the Czechs overtake the French in per capita income?
When that day comes, the Czech
people should remember that a major reason for their success is that they were
wise enough to elect Mr. Klaus as their leader rather than a typical European
socialist.
No comments:
Post a Comment