To Economic Patriotism: New Trends in Post-Socialist Countries – EU Members

The paper analyzes the premises and impacts of dependent capitalism model formation in Central-East European (CEE) countries, new EU members; the model is based on large-scale inflow of foreign investments and coordination of economic ties by hierarchies of transnational corporations. It is stated that CEE countries’ leaderships run into a neoliberal democracy paradox, i. e. the need to meet citizens’ social demands while exercising ever less control over national economies. The prospects of dependent capitalism model continuance in the region are assessed under new post-crisis trends in world economy, in particular, in view of reduction of transborder capital flows and decelerating international trade growth.

The sources of economic growth operationalized in CEE countries in order to evolve from long-running stagnation they found themselves in after the world financial crisis, are researched. It is proved that reliance on growing domestic consumption accompanied by weaker export orientation of the economy leads to CEE countries losing their important comparative advantages. The higher-than-anticipated growth of wages compared to labour productivity growth, depletion of reserves in utilization of labour resources cause deterioration of regional economy competitiveness.

Special attention is paid to analyze the premises of spreading of economic nationalism ideology in the region. Exemplified by Hungary, years long leader among CEE countries in foreign capital inflow, tools are demonstrated which are applied in the framework of economic policy aimed to restore state control over market economy; an attempt is made to evaluate the effectiveness of this policy. The conclusion is drawn that – contrary to liberal dogmata dominating in economic theory – making use of tools of economic nationalism can be rather efficient even under conditions of small size post-socialist countries of Europe.

1. Volotov O.G., Volotov S.O. (2015). Hungary's membership in the European Union: lost illusions. Rossiya i sovremennyy mir [Russia and the modern world], no. 4 (89), pp. 47–56 (in Russian).

2. Glinkina S.P. (2017). Post-socialist transformations in the light of discussions about the diversity of capitalism models. Obshchestvennyye nauki i sovremennost’ [Social Sciences and Modernity], no. 2, pp. 5–20 (in Russian).

3. Glinkina S.P., Kulikova N.V. (2017). What capitalism is built in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Novaya i noveyshaya istoriya [New and recent history], no. 6, pp. 79–94 (in Russian).

4. Glinkina S.P., Kulikova N.V. (2018). On the Model of Capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe. Vestnik Instituta ekonomiki Rossiyskoy akademii nauk [Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences], no. 3, pp. 9–24 (in Russian).

5. Kornai Ya. (2006) The great transformation of Central and Eastern Europe: Success and disagreement. Mir peremen [World of change], no. 2, pp. 7–45 (in Russian).

6. Kulikova N. (2011). Lessons of the World Crisis in Eastern Europe. Svobodnaya mysl’ [Free Thought], no. 7–8 (1626), pp. 31–48 (in Russian).

7. MVF. (2017). Central and Eastern Europe: A broader recovery, but slower catch-up with advanced Europe. URL: https://www.imf.org/ru/News/Articles/2017/05/10/na051117-central-and-easterneurope-a-broader-recovery-but-slower-catch-upwith-advanced-europe (in Russian).

8. Mishel’ L. Economic nationalism vs. the world economy. URL: https://www.lucmichel.net/2013/03/23/ (in Russian).

9. Glinkina S.P., Kulikova N.V. (eds.) (2017). Post-socialist world: The results of transformation. vol. 1. Central and Eastern Europe. St. Petersburg, Aleteyya (in Russian).

10. Kulikova N.V. (ed.) (2014). Central and Eastern Europe: The consequences of the debt crisis in the Eurozone. Moscow, IE RAS (in Russian).

11. Kulikova N.V. (ed.) (2018). Central and Eastern Europe in search of new sources of development. Moscow, IE RAS (in Russian).

12. Békés G., Kleinert J., Toubal F. (2009). Spillovers from multinationals to heterogeneous domestic firms: Evidence from Hungary. CEPII Working Paper No. 2009-31, December. URL: http://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUb/wp/2009/wp2009–31.pdf

13. Buckley N. (2016). Poland and Hungary seek more control over companies. October 17. URL: https://www.ft.com/content/417e4558-4525-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1

14. Chikan A., Czako E., Juhasz P., Reszegi L. (2018). Do foreign subsidiaries improve host country competitiveness? Insights from Hungary. Insights, vol. 18, iss. 1, pp. 16–19. URL: https://documents.aib.msu.edu/publications/insights/v18n1/v18n1_Article4.pdf.

15. Clift B., Woll C. (2012). Economic patriotism: reinventing control over open markets. Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 19, iss. 3, pp. 307–323. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13501763.2011.638117.

16. COFACE (2018). CEE TOP 500 Ranking. September. URL: https://www.coface.com/fr/Actualites-Publications/Publications/Coface-CEETOP-500-Companies-2018-Edition.

17. Crouch C. (2008). Economic patriotism and the paradox of neo-liberal democracy. Paper presented at the first Economic Patriotism workshop, Warwick University, 13–14 February.

18. Damijan J. P., Rojec M., Majcen B., Knell M. (2008). Impact of form heterogeneity on direct and spillover effects of FDI: Micro evidence from ten transition countries. Institute for Economic Research (Ljubljana), Working paper No. 40, December. URL: http://www.ier.si/files/Working%20paper-40.pdf.

19. Djankov S. (2015). Hungary under Orban: Can Central planning revive its economy? Peterson Institute for International Economics, Policy brief No. Pb15-11, July 2015. URL: https://piie.com/publications/pb/pb15-11.pdf

20. Geršl A., Rubene I., Zumer T. (2007). Foreign direct investment and productivity spillovers: Updated evidence from Central and Eastern Europe. CNbWorking Paper Series. No. 8. December. URL: http://www.cnb.cz/en/research/research_publications/cnb_wp/download/cnbwp_2007_08.pdf.

21. Goff P.M. (2007). Limits to liberalization: Local culture in a global marketplace. Cornell studies in political economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

22. IMF (2018). Regional economic outlook. Europe: Managing the upswing in uncertain times. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. URL: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/REO/EU/Issues/2018/05/14/EURREO0518.

23. Kinoshita Y. (2011). Sectoral composition of foreign direct investment and external vulnerability in Eastern Europe. IMF Working Paper WP/11/123, May. URL: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp11123.pdf.

24. Magyar Nemzeti bank (2017). Financial stability report. November. URL: https://www.mnb.hu/letoltes/stabilitasi-jelentes-2017-november-eng.pdf.

25. Naczyk M. (2015). budapest in Warsaw: Central European business elites and the rise of economic patriotism since the crisis. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2550496.

26. Podkaminer L. (2013). Development patterns of Central and East European countries (in the course of transition and following EU accession). Wiiw Research Reports, No. 388, July. URL: https://wiiw.ac.at/development-patterns-of-central-and-easteuropean-countries-in-the-course-of-transitionand-following-eu-accession-dlp-2985.pdf.

27. Stratégiai partnerségi megállapodások. URL: https://www.kormany.hu/hu/kulgazdasagi-es-kulugyminiszterium/strategiai-partnersegi-megallapodasok. 2018.03.30.

28. Szanyi M. (2016). The emergence of patronage state in Central Europe. The case of FDI-related policies in Hungary. Working Paper. August. Centre for Economic and Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences – Institute of World Economics.

29. Zajc Kejžar K. (2011). The role of foreign direct investment in the host-country firm selection process: Firm-level evidence from Slovenian manufacturing. Review of World Economics, vol. 147, iss. 1, pp. 169–193. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225862466_The_Role_of_Foreign_Direct_Investment_in_the_Host-country_Firm_Selection_Process_Firm-level_Evidence_from_Slovenian_Manufacturing.