2. 外语
  3. Proponents of creating large private sectors as quickly as possible in transition economies offer both political and economic ar

Proponents of creating large private sectors as quickly as possible in transition economies offer both political and economic ar

admin2012-10-23  48
问题     Proponents of creating large private sectors as quickly as possible in transition economies offer both political and economic arguments to support their view. They argue that if democracy is to become a viable political system in the countries undergoing transition, the state’s monopoly over the bases of political power must be broken so that the countervailing sources of political influence may emerge [Berger, 1991]. Otherwise, the nomenklatura, managers of stateowned firms and former bureaucrats, may sabotage or block economic reforms, as well as loot, dissipate or transfer to their own possession the assets of the firms they manage. By creating property owners, privatization can create an ascent middle class that has a stake in the creation and maintenance of an effective system of property rights and the pursuit of economic policies that would enable the private sector to flourish.
    The most compelling economic reason for privatizing state-owned enterprises in the transition economies is that as units of production--as distinct from providers of secure employment--they were a failure. Private ownership is thus seen as the means of unlocking gains in productivity by stimulating productive efficiency, offering greater motivation for both managers and workers, and creating incentives to enter new markets and exit declining ones. Privatization, it is argued, will unleash dynamic small businesses, act as a lure for foreign direct investment and speed up the painful process of restructuring industry, and it would accomplish all this while returning property to its rightful historical owners and raising funds for the government.
    Despite this enticing list of promises, many countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union remain reluctant to privatize. Some of the opposition is ideological. Some comes from insiders at state-owned enterprises, both workers and managers, who fear the loss of income and power. More broadly, there are fears that privatization will reduce employment as private owners dismiss redundant workers and that the new private sector will be unlikely to provide the social benefits--like housing, health and nursery care, and recreation, sports and vacation facilities--that state-owned enterprises often provided. At the extreme; there are fears that if privatization exacerbates unemployment and causes declines in production, reformist governments will be swept away.
    Practical difficulties have compounded this resistance to privatization. The valuations of firms is difficult because capital markets barely exist, accounting statements can be almost meaningless, and profits and sales achieved in the communist era are a poor guide to future viability. Households in these countries do not have sufficient savings to purchase many of the largest firms, and, even if they did have the money, they view former state-owned enterprises as dubious investments. With a rudimentary banking system, loans for the purchase of state property are seen as both risky and inflationary. In this muddled situation, suspicions naturally arise that buyers are benefiting from low prices at the expense of the state.
Which of the following statements is true?
选项 A、Nomenklatura is underlined because its meaning cannot be determined by the text.
B、Nomenklatura is different from managers and bureaucrats.
C、Nomenklatura is a foreign term whose meaning in English is managers and bureaucrats.
D、The origin of the word "nomenklatura" is well-known.
答案C
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/tb9O777K
0

考博英语

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)