Re: Political Economy of Yugoslavia

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

     I think it is an open question whether the
economic decentralization caused the ethnic
tensions or whether it was a response to the
ethnic tensions.  It has long been argued that
this decentralization was one of Tito's ways
of defusing the greater tendencies to decentralization
and separatism that were percolating through
Yugoslavia.  1974 was of course the year that
Kosovo-Metohija was granted autonomy.  This
was also a period marked by outbreaks of
terrorist violence by Croatian separatists.
       Chip and I have had an offlist discussion and
clarified some of the points of dispute.  I would note
that he has spent time in the Balkans and has published
on the economics of the region.
       Question for Paul Phillips:
      I grant that Warren Zimmerman's sandbagging
of the de facto cantonization agreement in Bosnia-
Herzegovina in 1992 contributed significantly to the
outbreak of the war there.  If this was done for motives
of imperialist economic domination, then why do we
now hear that the Muslim Bosniaks are resisting
privatization?
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: chip poirot <csp@xxxxxxx>
To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, June 03, 1999 10:14 PM
Subject: Political Economy of Yugoslavia


>I think it is very helpful to analyze the impact of IMF plans on the
breakup
>of Yugoslavia. Beginning in the 1980's the IMF oversaw several unsuccessful
>plans. For those interested, I want to throw out a few ideas and see where
>they go. By 1989, Yugoslavia was experiencing hyperinflation, and in
January
>of 1990 an austerity plans was introduced.
>
>Before discussing these plans however, I think it is helpful to go back and
>look at the Yugoslav economy in the 50's, 60's and 70's. From 1952-1965
>Yugoslavia experienced growth rates of 9%. In contrast to CMEA countries,
at
>least some of this growth was export oriented so Yugoslavia had to compete
in
>international markets. CMEA countries in the region focused on heavy
industry
>but Yugoslavia also developed light industry (e.g. textiles, rubber). In
1965,
>central planning was abandoned and the state turned to indicative planning.
In
>1975, a modified plan "by agreement" was implemented. By the late '70's,
>growth turned negative. Inflation took off in the early 80's.
>
>Here is a fairly standard explanation for the growth of the tensions. At
the
>micro-level, self-management was ineffective. The party and enterprise
>managers dominated decision making. Workers were strong enough however to
>press for wage increases. In the late 1970's and 1980's, wages increased
>faster than output, adding to inflationary pressures.
>
>The plans developed after 1975 led to the growth in regionalism and
resentment
>of the center, adding to the centrifugal tendencies of Yugoslav politics.
>
>I'll stop there and see where this leads.
>
>