Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Regional review

II. Developed country regions


Improving economic trends and agricultural performance

Continuing lack of harmony in the process of structural reforms

Development of private small-scale farming

Increasing orientation of agricultural policies towards the EU policy model

The necessity for improving competitiveness in the CEEC agrofood sector


Economic performance and policies

Recent performance of the agricultural sector

Farm restructuring

Upstream and downstream sectors

State procurement

Subsidies, price and credit policy


Macroeconomic setting

The human costs of austerity

Soviet agricultural subsidies and Moldova's and Belarus' specialization and trade within the former USSR

Food price liberalization and budget support

Post-reform adjustments in consumption, agricultural production and trade

Transformation and privatization in agriculture

Private plot agriculture in Moldova and Belarus

Lessons and long-term objectives from Moldova's and Belarus' comparative experiences

30 For the purposes of this subregional overview, the Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) includes the following countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Yugoslavia.

31 CEFTA includes the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

32 The CIS comprises all the countries of the former USSR, except the Baltic states, i.e. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

33 These are the Russian Federation, Kazakstan, Ukraine and Belarus.

34 OECD. 1996. Agricultural policies, markets and trade in the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs), selected New Independent States (NIS) of the former Soviet Union, Mongolia and China, 1994 and 1995. Paris.

35 The reduction in trade has been associated with the general downturn of activity, although in the initial stages of transition export restrictions, the loss of confidence in the rouble and the deterioration in the rouble payment mechanism have also played a role. The latter two factors have also led to the creation of an extensive network of bilateral trade agreements regarding intergovernmental or interenterprise barter. See World Bank. 1992. Trade and payments arrangements for states of the former USSR. Studies of Economies in Transformation, Paper No. 2. Washington, DC.

36 See OECD, op. cit., footnote 34, p. 221; Agra Europe. 1996. East Europe. London.

37 FAO. 1995. Preliminary assessment of 1995 foodcrop production and 1995/96 cereal import requirements in the CIS. Rome, FAO.

38 The World Health Organization has observed that norms for livestock consumption in the former USSR and Eastern Europe were in excess of recommendations for western Europe and not justified by differences in climate. See United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/UN. 1994. Crisis in mortality, health and nutrition. Economies in Transition Studies, Regional Monitoring Report No. 2. Florence, Italy.

39 According to household budget data, Russian per caput vegetable oil, fruit and vegetable consumption increased on average in 1995 over 1994, especially for higher-income people, constituting a movement towards western-type diets.

40 Estimates of USDA, Economic Research Service.

41 Belarussian calculations indicate that the farm price parity ratio fell each year to a level equal to two-thirds of the 1986 ratio, but rose in 1995 to a level equal to 78 percent of the 1986 relation. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1995. Review of agricultural policy and trade developments in Belarus. AGR/EW/EG (95) 40. Paris.

42 World Bank. 1996. Agricultural trade and trade policy:a multi-country analysis, Moldova Technical Report; World Bank. 1995. Agricultural trade and trade policy: a multi-country analysis, Belarus Technical Report. Washington, DC.

43 See the criticism of application of the idea of price parity in Russian agricultural policy in FAO. 1993. The State of Food and Agriculture 1993. p. 193-195. Rome.

44 It is difficult for various reasons, including the practice of "privatizing by merely changing the signs", to measure and compare privatization through statistical measures. Much must be judged by attitude as, for instance, by the fact that Belarus has retained the names state and collective farm.

45 By comparison, Belarus had over 700 peasant farms and the Russian Federation had 50 000. Armenia, whose policy was to decollectivize early, created 165 000 individual farms by the end of 1991, each averaging a little over 1 ha.

46 S. Fischer, et. al. 1996. Stabilization and growth in transition economies: the early experience. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(2): 45-66.

47 J.C. Brada. 1996. Privatization is transition - or is it? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(2): 80.

48 A. Rapaczynski. 1996. The roles of the state and the market in establishing property rights. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(2): 102.

49 Brada, op. cit., footnote 47.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page