Hmm, this analysis was published in 1986. It predates the collapse of the USSR by 5 years, and of course the data used in the analysis is older than the publication date. Many of the nations listed as socialist economies were Soviet satellites (North Korea, Romania, Chekoslavokia, etc) and were being financially supported by the USSR. This was a big part of why the USSR collapsed - it was massively overextended. The centralized economy (which is how socialist countries are identified in this analysis) did not scale sustainably.
Well OK, but is it valid to consider the satellite states as functional centralized economies when they were financially dependent on the USSR? For instance, North Korea’s economy and quality of life immediately collapsed when the income from the USSR stopped.
Ultimately my point is that this comparison done 10 years later would look very different.
I think one of the criticisms of the USSR is that it economically looted the satellite states at least at first so I think we’d first need to firmly establish where wealth flowed over time before we talk about that.
I also have some problems calling N. Korea specifically both socialist and a Soviet satellite, neither of which is true imo but you could still say similar things about the actual satellites so I think the point remains.
Hmm, this analysis was published in 1986. It predates the collapse of the USSR by 5 years, and of course the data used in the analysis is older than the publication date. Many of the nations listed as socialist economies were Soviet satellites (North Korea, Romania, Chekoslavokia, etc) and were being financially supported by the USSR. This was a big part of why the USSR collapsed - it was massively overextended. The centralized economy (which is how socialist countries are identified in this analysis) did not scale sustainably.
The USSR’s centralized economy did not scale enough to maintain their “security state” and fight off American imperialism.
For forever.
Well OK, but is it valid to consider the satellite states as functional centralized economies when they were financially dependent on the USSR? For instance, North Korea’s economy and quality of life immediately collapsed when the income from the USSR stopped.
Ultimately my point is that this comparison done 10 years later would look very different.
I think one of the criticisms of the USSR is that it economically looted the satellite states at least at first so I think we’d first need to firmly establish where wealth flowed over time before we talk about that.
I also have some problems calling N. Korea specifically both socialist and a Soviet satellite, neither of which is true imo but you could still say similar things about the actual satellites so I think the point remains.