Would be nice if we could keep the discussion constructive. It’s a good analysis worth consideration. Many spot-on observations.
Good viewpoints. I think that the democratic future in East Europe will prevail but that it will be a two-party system based on party that represent the conservative religious voter base and a opposition one that is a coalition that mostly represent opposition. These will change on who is being in power.
The consequence of neoliberalism has been that these countries have quickly almost caught up with their formerly non-socialist neighbours.
I think the article confuses cause and effect. The problem was that the post-communist east needed hard currency, and initially the only source of money was the IMF. But that money came with strings attached – implement neoliberal economic philosophies of the most extreme kind. In turn, that meant having governments that were willing to do the suicidal things demanded by the IMF. Basically, the east became an economists wet dream – whole countries to experiment with.
In the wake of the IMF many strategic industries had been scrapped and sold-off for pennies on the dollar to a new class of Eastern European- the oligarch.
As someone from eastern Europe, I fully agree with this article.
While migrating from Romania started during communism with our German and Jewish minorities, this still had some other factors behind it(Jews to Israel and Germans having a “thing” for Germany since the 30’s… long story), Romanians did not had that much of a history of migrating. We were never in the situation of the Irish, Italians, Germans to the USA or any other example. Of course, during communism it was almost impossible to escape. Now, and especially after 2007, we are one of the biggest diaspora in the world. Between 2013-2016 we were the second highest migration after Syria who is embroiled in a civil war. Only a war ravaged country was higher than us. Let that sink in.
The 90’s were extremely difficult with an economic meltdown. In this regard, the comparison with the Great Depression is not that valid. It was worse in a way. The Depression did not came with hyperinflation. The 90’s were a perfect storm made up by the stupid policies of forced industrialization made by the commies and with the neoliberal ideas of shock therapy. Factories that were no longer viable, were sold to scrap. What is more painful and a thing that was brought up by nostalgic people, was that even viable factories were taken by shady people (Romanians and foreigners alike) and destroyed. Many mono-industrial towns were left without practically without workplaces and almost all industries were affected.
Rural areas were even more affected. The former state and collective farms were disbanded and the land returned to their former owners. That is good, but now you have a lot of people with small parcels of land and no tools to work the land. They did not want to make modern associations… in effect keep the former farms alive, but all the profit will go to the owners and not the state like before 89. This is a mix between bad policy and stupid mentality.
The neoliberal reforms, especially those made in 1999 by PM Isărescu were successful in creating the basis for the succeeding growth. We had a period of rapid growth, especially after 2007 when we became a part of the EU. Here the article is spot on. This growth coincides with the larges migration in Romania’s history. When my countrymen start to talk about how better off are we today and what a huge economic growth we are having, I like to remind them about migration. If milk and honey runs though here, than why we are leaving in droves?
In the last decade there had been some important changes in some cities (Bucharest, Cluj, Sibiu, Oradea, Timisoara) where corporations and other foreign firms came. But that is it. Some made it through the ranks of those corporations, some opened a business, some work as free lancers in IT, some are in the liberal professions like medicine, lawyers etc. They are the new middle class. They are the success story of Romania. They are few. Other places that saw some growth are the villages around those towns. Medium and small towns saw no such thing, but some of them were helped by the EU funds and start to look decent(as in better roads, some renovated buildings etc.). Many villages look like places stuck in time. Some with only old people left because many of the younger ones left for a big city in Romania or left the country for good. This is the place where the vast majority of Romanians that you had the (miss)fortune to meet in the west came from.
One particular thing about Romania is nationalism. It is not only a product of neoliberalism, but of communism also. Ceaușescu regime became extremely nationalistic in the 80’s. Many old people had that kind of nationalism and this type of nationalism is the one adopted by our so called left wing party, the social-democrats(PSD). The nationalism brought by neoliberalism is, I think, better exposed by AUR and other neo-legionary and very religious parties.
Btw. The saying in the 90’s Romania was “to partition the cat” more quickly when talking about painful reforms. In fact, the economic level of 1989 was reached only around 2004… 15 years after the revolution.
Yea, the transition to capitalist democracy was a disaster. It should have been handled gradually and with state control.
I agree that the 90s were tough and the particle is spot on in noting that the parties considered “left” in the region (like PO in the case of Poland) often became more neoliberal than their conservative counterparts (like PiS), but I’m less convinced about how this led to right-wing populists.
In the example of Poland, PiS has been in power since 2015. This corresponds with quite possibly the most prosperous time in Poland’s history. Society is more equal than Germany and Scandinavia (by Gini coefficient), the % of society at risk of exclusion and poverty is among the lowest in the EU, and there have been more people returning to Poland than leaving it for several years. If dissatisfaction with neoliberalism turns people to right-wing populists, why would they only do so now, and not during the tough times of the ‘90s-‘00s?
I think there are far more important variables at play than some potential pent-up frustration bout hard times 20 years ago. I’d argue that if neoliberalism has enabled populists today, it would be because it created the wealth and prosperity which allowed a party like PiS to enact their hugely popular social programs.
7 comments
Would be nice if we could keep the discussion constructive. It’s a good analysis worth consideration. Many spot-on observations.
Good viewpoints. I think that the democratic future in East Europe will prevail but that it will be a two-party system based on party that represent the conservative religious voter base and a opposition one that is a coalition that mostly represent opposition. These will change on who is being in power.
The consequence of neoliberalism has been that these countries have quickly almost caught up with their formerly non-socialist neighbours.
I think the article confuses cause and effect. The problem was that the post-communist east needed hard currency, and initially the only source of money was the IMF. But that money came with strings attached – implement neoliberal economic philosophies of the most extreme kind. In turn, that meant having governments that were willing to do the suicidal things demanded by the IMF. Basically, the east became an economists wet dream – whole countries to experiment with.
In the wake of the IMF many strategic industries had been scrapped and sold-off for pennies on the dollar to a new class of Eastern European- the oligarch.
As someone from eastern Europe, I fully agree with this article.
While migrating from Romania started during communism with our German and Jewish minorities, this still had some other factors behind it(Jews to Israel and Germans having a “thing” for Germany since the 30’s… long story), Romanians did not had that much of a history of migrating. We were never in the situation of the Irish, Italians, Germans to the USA or any other example. Of course, during communism it was almost impossible to escape. Now, and especially after 2007, we are one of the biggest diaspora in the world. Between 2013-2016 we were the second highest migration after Syria who is embroiled in a civil war. Only a war ravaged country was higher than us. Let that sink in.
The 90’s were extremely difficult with an economic meltdown. In this regard, the comparison with the Great Depression is not that valid. It was worse in a way. The Depression did not came with hyperinflation. The 90’s were a perfect storm made up by the stupid policies of forced industrialization made by the commies and with the neoliberal ideas of shock therapy. Factories that were no longer viable, were sold to scrap. What is more painful and a thing that was brought up by nostalgic people, was that even viable factories were taken by shady people (Romanians and foreigners alike) and destroyed. Many mono-industrial towns were left without practically without workplaces and almost all industries were affected.
Rural areas were even more affected. The former state and collective farms were disbanded and the land returned to their former owners. That is good, but now you have a lot of people with small parcels of land and no tools to work the land. They did not want to make modern associations… in effect keep the former farms alive, but all the profit will go to the owners and not the state like before 89. This is a mix between bad policy and stupid mentality.
The neoliberal reforms, especially those made in 1999 by PM Isărescu were successful in creating the basis for the succeeding growth. We had a period of rapid growth, especially after 2007 when we became a part of the EU. Here the article is spot on. This growth coincides with the larges migration in Romania’s history. When my countrymen start to talk about how better off are we today and what a huge economic growth we are having, I like to remind them about migration. If milk and honey runs though here, than why we are leaving in droves?
In the last decade there had been some important changes in some cities (Bucharest, Cluj, Sibiu, Oradea, Timisoara) where corporations and other foreign firms came. But that is it. Some made it through the ranks of those corporations, some opened a business, some work as free lancers in IT, some are in the liberal professions like medicine, lawyers etc. They are the new middle class. They are the success story of Romania. They are few. Other places that saw some growth are the villages around those towns. Medium and small towns saw no such thing, but some of them were helped by the EU funds and start to look decent(as in better roads, some renovated buildings etc.). Many villages look like places stuck in time. Some with only old people left because many of the younger ones left for a big city in Romania or left the country for good. This is the place where the vast majority of Romanians that you had the (miss)fortune to meet in the west came from.
One particular thing about Romania is nationalism. It is not only a product of neoliberalism, but of communism also. Ceaușescu regime became extremely nationalistic in the 80’s. Many old people had that kind of nationalism and this type of nationalism is the one adopted by our so called left wing party, the social-democrats(PSD). The nationalism brought by neoliberalism is, I think, better exposed by AUR and other neo-legionary and very religious parties.
Btw. The saying in the 90’s Romania was “to partition the cat” more quickly when talking about painful reforms. In fact, the economic level of 1989 was reached only around 2004… 15 years after the revolution.
Yea, the transition to capitalist democracy was a disaster. It should have been handled gradually and with state control.
I agree that the 90s were tough and the particle is spot on in noting that the parties considered “left” in the region (like PO in the case of Poland) often became more neoliberal than their conservative counterparts (like PiS), but I’m less convinced about how this led to right-wing populists.
In the example of Poland, PiS has been in power since 2015. This corresponds with quite possibly the most prosperous time in Poland’s history. Society is more equal than Germany and Scandinavia (by Gini coefficient), the % of society at risk of exclusion and poverty is among the lowest in the EU, and there have been more people returning to Poland than leaving it for several years. If dissatisfaction with neoliberalism turns people to right-wing populists, why would they only do so now, and not during the tough times of the ‘90s-‘00s?
I think there are far more important variables at play than some potential pent-up frustration bout hard times 20 years ago. I’d argue that if neoliberalism has enabled populists today, it would be because it created the wealth and prosperity which allowed a party like PiS to enact their hugely popular social programs.