Relationships with the West (and the rest): Trade integration in Socialist Europe, 1945-1989

与西方（及其他国家）的关系：社会主义欧洲的贸易一体化，1945-1989

• 批准号: 2901788
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: London School of Economics and Political Science
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2023
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2023 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2901788
• 关键词: Relationships; West; rest; Trade; integration

Eastern European countries share a lot of history with the West. Their economic development, however, could hardly be more different. Industrialisation reached these areas mostly in the 20th century and would be completed after World War II in some cases (Eichengreen 2008). At the same time, these countries turned towards a new organisational system of society, Socialism, that had a completely different understanding of economics. Its impact on development is ambiguous in the first decades. Even though these countries did manage to receive some catch-up growth until the 1970s, they never reached the respective development levels of their Western counterparts (Bolt and van Zanden 2020). The following decades until the 1990s could be described as an era of relative stagnation followed by a decline during the transition towards a market-based system (Vonyó 2016; Berend 2011). Despite its geographic proximity and importance in understanding 20th-century history, we know relatively little about economic policies in Socialist Europe. This also includes trade policy which is surprising given that balance of payments issues, which are heavily intertwined with foreign trade, were constantly debated over decades and are sometimes even considered the main cause of the fall of Socialism (Volze 1999).Even though there is substantial literature on the economic growth and development of Eastern Europe during the Cold War, foreign trade plays a relatively small role in it although Kukic (2020) notes that TFP growth was influenced by it. In recent years, two types of literature emerged. On one hand, economists tried to quantify different aspects of Socialist policymaking and development such as the size of Soviet trade subsidies (Stone 1996) or the increasing productivity gap (Broadberry and Klein 2011). On the other hand, historians tried to describe trade policies for specific countries without evaluating their use and impact (see, for example, Eloranta and Ojala 2005). This project plans to merge the two strands by using historical accounts to evaluate policies rigorously and interpreting the results to contribute to the growing literature on Eastern European economic development.

东欧国家与西方有很多历史。但是，他们的经济发展几乎没有什么不同。工业化大多在20世纪到达这些地区，在第二次世界大战后将在某些情况下完成（Eichengreen 2008）。同时，这些国家转向了一种社会主义的新组织体系，对经济学有着完全不同的理解。在最初的几十年中，它对发展的影响是模棱两可的。即使这些国家确实设法达到了一定的追赶增长，直到1970年代，他们从未达到西方同行的相对发展水平（Bolt and van Zanden 2020）。在接下来的几十年中，直到1990年代，可以描述为相对停滞的时代，然后在向基于市场的系统的过渡期间下降（Vonyó2016; Berend 2011）。尽管它在了解20世纪历史方面的地理距离和重要性，但我们对社会主义欧洲的经济政策的了解相对较少。这也包括贸易政策，这令人惊讶的是，付款问题的平衡与对外贸易的交织在一起，几十年来一直在争论，有时甚至被认为是社会主义沦陷的主要原因（Volze 1999），即使在冷战期间对东欧的经济增长和发展有实质性的文献，在冷战期间，它在库克（Kuk）中扮演了较小的角色，尽管它在库克（Kuk）（2020）（2020年）。近年来，出现了两种类型的文献。一方面，经济学试图量化社会主义决策和发展的不同方面，例如苏联贸易补贴的规模（Stone 1996）或生产力差异的增加（Broadberry and Klein 2011）。另一方面，历史学家试图描述特定国家的贸易政策，而无需评估其使用和影响（例如，参见Eloranta和Ojala 2005）。该项目计划通过使用历史记录来严格评估政策，并解释结果，以促进不断增长的东欧经济发展文献来融合这两条线。