The general message of the debate is: Serbian model of transition needs to be radically changed. Transition formula should be: Restitution, Deregulation, Privatization – Now!
This is a review article of the newly published book “Law, Informal Rules and Economic Performance”. The importance of the problem area covered by the book and the elegance and precision with which it is elaborated are particularly emphasized. Wholeheartedly endorsed is Professor Pejovich’s general stance elaborated in the book that the institutions are the category of elements that has to be resorted to if determinants and mechanisms of economic development are to be consistently and non-tautologically explained.
In the last couple of weeks, there has been a lot of talk about Kosovo’s path to independence. Experts, politicians, academics, and those that live or have lived in the Kosovo region have been waging in to the debate. This issue has been widely debated, not just in Europe, but also in the United States. Hence, it is of crucial importance who in Washington, DC publicly or behind closed doors gets an opportunity to speak about such an issue. This city is a nest of political power players. Because many political decisions are made here, all countries have their embassies present. Moreover, what happens in this city has an indisputable influence on decisions of the United Nations and NATO, which are of extreme importance in solving the Kosovo issue.
Serbia and Montenegro (as member states of Yugoslavia) were influenced in 80’ by collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe. Ideology of “brotherhood and unity” during that period quickly vanished under the rising tide of nationalism and xenophobia. Instead of going into reforms of political and economical system, these two republics managed to preserve a mutation of pre-existing communist order.
Speech of Benjamin Constant held at the Royal Athenaeum (1819).