IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecopol/v15y2003i1p33-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Will Gradualism Work When Shock Therapy Doesn"t?

Author

Listed:
  • Vivek H. Dehejia

    (Carleton University and CESifo)

Abstract

When shock therapy is politically infeasible, will gradualism work? This paper takes up this question by: (i) building a political economy model in which it makes sense; (ii) stating the relevant political economy constraint rigorously; and (iii) analyzing the question in the context of a neoclassical model of adjustment, based on Mussa (1978). The paper answers the question in the affirmative, thus contributing to the scientific and policy literature on the economic analysis of policy reform. Copyright 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Vivek H. Dehejia, 2003. "Will Gradualism Work When Shock Therapy Doesn"t?," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 33-59, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecopol:v:15:y:2003:i:1:p:33-59
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shoya Ishimaru & Soo Hyun Oh & Seung-Gyu Sim, 2017. "Trade preferences and political equilibrium associated with trade liberalization," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 361-384, April.
    2. Ichiro Iwasaki & Taku Suzuki, 2016. "Radicalism Versus Gradualism: An Analytical Survey Of The Transition Strategy Debate," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 807-834, September.
    3. Didier Laussel & Philippe Michel & Thierry Paul, 2004. "Intersectoral adjustment and unemployment in a two-country Ricardian model. Une approche par la méthode événementielle," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 70(2), pages 169-192.
    4. Didier LAUSSEL & Philippe MICHEL & Thierry Paul, 2004. "Intersectoral adjustment and unemployment in a two-country Ricardian model," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 2004023, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    5. Digdowiseiso, Kumba, 2010. "The transition of China and Ussr: A political economy perspective," MPRA Paper 22561, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Shubham Chaudhuri & John McLaren, 2007. "Some Simple Analytics of Trade and Labor Mobility," NBER Working Papers 13464, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Dehejia, Vivek H., 2001. "Optimal restructuring under a political constraint," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 25(12), pages 1989-2006, December.
    8. repec:zbw:bofitp:2000_008 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. James Dean & Vivek H. Dehejia & Elinor Johansen & Sarah Turney, 2004. "Optimal Globalization and National Welfare," Carleton Economic Papers 04-17, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    10. Stephen Cameron & Shubham Chaudhuri & John McLaren, 2007. "Trade Shocks and Labor Adjustment: Theory," NBER Working Papers 13463, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Artuç, Erhan & Chaudhuri, Shubham & McLaren, John, 2008. "Delay and dynamics in labor market adjustment: Simulation results," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 1-13, May.
    12. Mathias Dewatripont & Gérard Roland, 1996. "Transition as a process of large‐scale institutional change," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 4(1), pages 1-30, May.
    13. Laurila, Juhani & Singh, Rupinder, 2000. "Sequential reform strategy : The case of Azerbaijan," BOFIT Discussion Papers 8/2000, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F11 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Neoclassical Models of Trade
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ecopol:v:15:y:2003:i:1:p:33-59. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0954-1985 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.