Which factor most significantly accounts for the contrasting outcomes of market liberalization between post-Soviet Russia and post-Mao China?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Task framing: We are asked to compare factors behind the divergent outcomes of market liberalization in post-Soviet Russia and post-Mao China, and to evaluate each answer option against historical and political-economic realities.
Option 1: 'China implemented a phased approach to economic liberalization that addressed one sector at a time, whereas Russia attempted comprehensive reforms across all economic sectors simultaneously.' This emphasizes sequencing and sector-by-sector liberalization. While China did pursue gradualism and reform in stages, the core contrast typically cited is not merely sequencing but the coexistence of a strong authoritarian political framework with controlled economic liberalization. The claim that Russia’s problem was simply the breadth of reforms ignores other crucial factors such as political legitimacy, institutions, and macroeconomic management. In short, while sequencing mattered, this option makes an oversimplified causal claim and overemphasizes the reform pattern without accounting for political-institutional context.
Option 2: 'China maintained authoritarian political control throughout its economic reforms, while Russia's simultaneous political and economic liberalization created instability that undermined market development.' This option foregrounds the political regime and stability as pivotal. The argument is that China's continued single-party rule provided policy continuity and social order, enabling gradual reform and sustained investment, whereas Russia liberalized political and economic spheres in tandem, producing legitimacy gaps, governance challenges, and policy volatility that hindered reliable market-building. This aligns with many comparative analyses that stress the stabilizing effect of centralized authority on reform momentum, even while outputting growth in China. It identifies a plausible mechanism—political stability and coherent institutions facilitating reform—though the exact causal chain can still be debated and is not universally singular.
Option 3: 'China established robust legal frameworks and property rights protections before liberalizing markets, while Russia prioritized privatization without these institutional reforms.' This statement is not an accurate portrayal of the Chinese experience. Although China expanded markets and private enterprise rapidly, robust legal frameworks and strong property rights protections did not precede liberalization in the way this option implies; reforms often occurred in a state-directed fashion with continued state ownership and control over key sectors. Meanwhile, Russia pursued rapid privatization and privatization of state assets in the 1990s, but this did not come with parallel, robust, functioning institutions or a mature rule of law to protect property rights. The characterization here misstates the sequencing and the depth of institutional development in both cases, making it an incorrect explanation of the outcomes.
Option 4: 'China maintained essential social safety nets during market reforms, preventing the socioeconomic collapse that undermined Russia's transition when its welfare systems deteriorated.' This option overstates the welfare cushion narrative in China and misattributes a protective safety-net effect as the central differentiator. In practice, China’s reforms were accompanied by uneven social protections, and the Chinese transition did not rely on robust, universal social safety nets the way some other cases might suggest. Russia’s difficulties were not solely or primarily caused by welfare deterioration; they stemmed from rapid privatization, governance challenges, and macroeconomic volatility among other factors. Therefore, this explanation is not a strong or widely accepted account of the core divergence between the two cases.
Overall, option 2 presents the most coherent strategic contrast by highlighting the role of political regime and stability in shaping reform outcomes. The other options either mischaracterize the reform sequences, misstate institutional development, or overemphasize welfare narratives that are not central to the comparative explanation.

Which factor most significantly accounts for the contrasting outcomes of market liberalization between post-Soviet Russia and post-Mao China?

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Havrylyshyn and van Rooden (2003) conclude that "achieving macro-economic stabilisation and implementing broad-based economic reforms remain the key determinants of growth in transition economies". How do they capture stabilisation and economic reforms in their empirical work?

Which of following is NOT broadly considered as one of the three fundamental processes of Chinese economic reforms since late 1970s?

The mainstream of development economists has collectively summarised three secrets behind tremendous success of China’s economic and opening-up reforms since 1978, including marketisation, de-centralisation and globalisation. Which following specific reform is least related to ‘globalisation’?

Which of the following best characterizes China's approach to economic reforms that began in the late 1970s?

Which of the following is NOT included in the reform package of the 1990s?

位置8的问题 Which of the following is NOT included in the reform package of the 1990s?Which of the following is NOT included in the reform package of the 1990s?SOE layoffDual-track price systemBanking independenceFiscal centralization

位置4的问题 Which of the following reforms was widely adopted in the 1980s?Which of the following reforms was widely adopted in the 1980s?Dual-track price systemSOE layoffFiscal centralizationBanking independence

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单