Markets and Inequality in Transitional Economies: Toward Testable Theories

摘要: Nee's (1989 and in this issue) "market transition theory," contested by Xie Hannum (in issue), claims that market mechanisms have predictable implications for inequality. "Compared to nonmarket allocation, exchange enhances the bargaining power of producers" (Nee, p. 910). The core argument is cadre advantages shall decline extent markets replace redistribution as dominant mode economic allocation. While successive publications Nee has altered his judgment about how far proceeded rural China, whether theory does predict a privilege, he not claim Market economies vary widely their patterns ways unrelated which economy been established. variability warns against attempts changes inequality without first specifying kinds enterprises other institutions characterize emerging economy-or even characteristics themselves. We tempted into these predictions memorable Polanyian contrast between two ideal-typical economies-"redistributive" "market" -that proven rich source hypotheses stratification (Szelenyi 1978, 1983) firm (Kornai 1992) under state socialism. This crystallized research agenda posing an important historical question social impact rise allocation planned economies-especially it concerns fate communist officials. But many now find ideal-types, continuum bridges them, are poor guide analysis (see Bian Logan 1996; Lin 1995; Rona-Tas 1994, Walder 1992, Stark Hannum, issue). General should be viewed skeptically, works through assets, markets, political processes Markets per se issue.