阿根廷新总统米莱上台之后，推行了一系列大刀阔斧的改革，包括汇率贬值、大规模私有化、裁减和压缩政府规模。由于近些年来国内的改革越来越流于口号，甚至连口号的声音都小了不少，重点让位于稳定。阿根廷这些比较激进举措，自然让国内那些已经不熟悉什么是改革的自媒体又联想到了休克疗法。
每当提到休克疗法，人们往往想到的是和俄罗斯联系在了一起。苏联解体之后，俄罗斯为了尽快与旧的制度说再见，又在建进行了激烈的私有化改革，也就是俗称的休克疗法。相比于没有进行政权更迭，而且采取渐进式的市场化改革的中国，最终成长为了可以与美国比肩的世界第二大经济体，俄罗斯的休克疗法的成就，可以说是黯然失色，其间还造成了物价飞涨的混乱。因此，在国内，休克疗法也就被认为是那些想通过市场化改革，迅速解决经济困难的国家所采用的政策毒药。那事实真的于此吗？其实休克克疗指的是一整套的政策套餐，就是放开管制、私有化，同时还要搭配紧缩的货币和财政政策。可以说是给面对经济困难的国家提供的除了凯恩斯主义之外的另外一套政策疗法。可以看出，他与凯恩斯主义经济政策最大的不同，就是它强调的是要搭配紧缩的货币和财政政策。而凯恩斯则是要求政府采取扩张的货币和财政政策来刺激经济，提高总需求。
应该说，这套疗法是更加符合经济学原理和经济规律的，在实践当中也应该取得预期的效果。事实上，俄罗斯作为一个大国，肯定是不愿意自己当第一个吃螃蟹的人。在俄罗斯之前，南美洲的小国玻利维亚就进行过休克疗法的改革，并且取得了奇效。那为什么在俄罗斯身上却是表现成一场灾难呢？
首先，休克疗法就是在一夜之间进行政策拐弯政策对急转弯，但人们的思想观念却不是一夜之间能够转过弯来的。在长期实行计划经济和社会主义的俄罗斯。人们私有财产的观念并不是那么强烈。所以，对私有财产的真正保障不是一夜之间能够建立起来的。改革之后，必然是腐败横行，形成寡头的时代。但总体来说，生活水平相对于苏联末期还是有很大提高的。所以现在不能回到苏联时代，是俄罗斯上下的共识。即便过普京，也是多次在公开场合否定回到苏联的路线，就连他发动乌克兰战争的理由也要归咎于苏联时期，给予了乌克兰过多的自治权力，导致俄罗斯民族的分裂。
其次，说休克疗法在俄罗斯的成绩不如在中国的改革开放辉煌，这其中也有一定的误解成分。按照人们的认识，苏联在冷战时期是超级大国，能够与美国在全球争霸。他的经济时经济家底应该远比中国雄厚，而且还推行了比中国更加彻底的市场化改革，那么效果应该也应该大大领先于中国。但实际上这可能是一个误解。因为冷战时期的军备竞赛，苏联的工业和经济严重偏向于军事工业的，而这在经济当中是典型的、无效的GDP，因为这些武器装备不能用来满足人们的生活需求。所以看似强大的苏联及经济的起点，经济改革的起点未必比中国更高。
然后，最重要的原因就是俄罗斯的休克疗法并没有完全的照方抓药。其中最重要的紧缩货币与财政政策并没有获得执行。当局为了维护政权稳定，想继续保持原有的不可负担的社会福利和政府财政支出，而滥发了大量货币，造成了卢布的大幅贬值，这才是混乱的主要原因。
After taking office, Argentina's new president Milay introduced a series of drastic reforms, including the devaluation of the exchange rate, large-scale privatization, and reduction and reduction of the size of the government. As domestic reform in recent years has become more and more sloganistic, even the voice of the slogan has become much smaller, and the focus has given way to stability. These relatively radical measures in Argentina naturally made those domestic media who were not familiar with what is reform think of shock therapy.
When shock therapy is mentioned, it is often associated with Russia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia tried to say goodbye to the old system as soon as possible, and embarked on a drastic privatization reform, commonly known as shock therapy. Compared with China, which adopted gradual market-oriented reforms without regime change and eventually grew into the world's second largest economy on a par with the United States, Russia's shock therapy has been overshadowed by the chaos caused by soaring prices. As a result, shock therapy has become known domestically as a policy poison for countries that want to quickly solve their economic problems through market reforms. Is that really the case? The Hueckke treatment refers to a policy package of deregulation and privatisation combined with tight monetary and fiscal policy. It can be said that it provides an alternative set of policy remedies to Keynesianism for countries facing economic difficulties. It can be seen that his biggest difference from Keynesian economic policy is that it emphasizes the combination of tight monetary and fiscal policies. Keynes, on the other hand, called for expansionary monetary and fiscal policies to stimulate the economy and raise aggregate demand.
It should be said that this set of therapy is more in line with economic principles and economic laws, in practice should also achieve the expected effect. In fact, Russia, as a big country, is certainly not willing to be the first to eat the crab itself. Before Russia, the small South American country of Bolivia had reformed shock therapy, with remarkable results. So why has it been such a disaster for Russia?
First of all, shock therapy is to make a sharp turn in policy overnight, but people's ideas can not turn the corner overnight. In Russia, which has long practiced planned economy and socialism. The idea of people owning private property is not that strong. Therefore, the real security of private property cannot be established overnight. After the reform, there will inevitably be an era of rampant corruption and oligarchy. But overall, living standards have improved considerably since the end of the Soviet Union. Therefore, there is a consensus in Russia that there can be no return to the Soviet era. Even Putin has repeatedly denied in public the path back to the Soviet Union, and even his justification for the war in Ukraine has been attributed to the Soviet era, which gave Ukraine too much autonomy and led to the division of the Russian nation.
Second, there is some misunderstanding that shock therapy is not as successful in Russia as it was in China's reform and opening up. According to people's understanding, the Soviet Union was a superpower during the Cold War, able to compete with the United States in the global hegemony. Its economic background should be far stronger than China's, and it has implemented more thorough market-oriented reforms than China's, so the effect should also be far ahead of China's. But this may actually be a misunderstanding. Because of the arms race during the Cold War, the Soviet Union's industry and economy were heavily skewed towards the military industry, which was a typical and ineffective GDP in the economy, because these weapons and equipment could not be used to meet the needs of people's lives. Therefore, the starting point of the seemingly powerful Soviet Union and its economy is not necessarily higher than that of China.
However, the most important reason is that Russian shock therapy is not fully prescribed. The most important of these, tight monetary and fiscal policies, have not been implemented. In order to maintain the stability of the regime and maintain the unaffordable social welfare and government fiscal expenditure, the authorities have issued excessive amounts of money, resulting in a sharp depreciation of the ruble, which is the main reason for the chaos.
Upvoted! Thank you for supporting witness @jswit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit