<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="en">
    <teiHeader>
        <fileDesc>
            <titleStmt>
                <title>Studying the Economic Transition – Challenges, Problems and Results</title>
                <author>
                    <name>
                        <forename>Aleksander</forename>
                        <surname>Lorenčič</surname>
                        <roleName>PhD</roleName>
                        <affiliation>Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj-Ormož</affiliation>
                        <address>
                            <addrLine>Muzejski trg 1</addrLine>
                            <addrLine>SI - 2250 Ptuj</addrLine>
                        </address>
                    </name></author>
            </titleStmt>
            <editionStmt>
                <edition><date>2016-10-04</date></edition>
            </editionStmt>
            <publicationStmt>
                <publisher>
                    <orgName xml:lang="sl">Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino</orgName>
                    <orgName xml:lang="en">Institute of Contemporary History</orgName>
                    <address>
                        <addrLine>Kongresni trg 1</addrLine>
                        <addrLine>SI-1000 Ljubljana</addrLine>
                    </address>
                </publisher>
                <pubPlace>http://ojs.inz.si/pnz/article/view/178</pubPlace>
                <date>2016</date>
                <availability status="free">
                    <licence>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</licence>
                </availability>
            </publicationStmt>
            <seriesStmt>
                <title xml:lang="sl">Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino</title>
                <title xml:lang="en">Contributions to Contemporary History</title>
                <biblScope unit="volume">56</biblScope>
                <biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope>
                <idno type="ISSN">2463-7807</idno>
            </seriesStmt>
            <sourceDesc>
                <p>No source, born digital.</p>
            </sourceDesc>
        </fileDesc>
        <encodingDesc>
            <projectDesc xml:lang="en">
                <p>Contributions to Contemporary History is one of the central Slovenian scientific
                    historiographic journals, dedicated to publishing articles from the field of
                    contemporary history (the 19th and 20th century).</p>
                <p>The journal is published three times per year in Slovenian and in the following
                    foreign languages: English, German, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Italian, Slovak
                    and Czech. The articles are all published with abstracts in English and
                    Slovenian as well as summaries in English.</p>
            </projectDesc>
            <projectDesc xml:lang="sl">
                <p>Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino je ena osrednjih slovenskih znanstvenih
                    zgodovinopisnih revij, ki objavlja teme s področja novejše zgodovine (19. in 20.
                    stoletje).</p>
                <p>Revija izide trikrat letno v slovenskem jeziku in v naslednjih tujih jezikih:
                    angleščina, nemščina, srbščina, hrvaščina, bosanščina, italijanščina, slovaščina
                    in češčina. Članki izhajajo z izvlečki v angleščini in slovenščini ter povzetki
                    v angleščini.</p>
            </projectDesc>
        </encodingDesc>
        <profileDesc>
            <langUsage>
                <language ident="sl"/>
                <language ident="en"/>
            </langUsage>
            <textClass>
                <keywords xml:lang="en">
                    <term>Slovenia</term>
                    <term>independence</term>
                    <term>economy</term>
                    <term>transition</term>
                </keywords>
                <keywords xml:lang="sl">
                    <term>Slovenija</term>
                    <term>osamosvojitev</term>
                    <term>gospodarstvo</term>
                    <term>tranzicija</term>
                </keywords>
            </textClass>
        </profileDesc>
        <revisionDesc>
            <listChange>
                <change>
                    <date>2016-10-06</date>
                    <name>Neja Blaj Hribar</name>
                    <desc>Pretvorba iz DOCX v TEI, dodatno kodiranje</desc>
                </change>
            </listChange>
        </revisionDesc>
    </teiHeader>
    <text>
        <front>
            <docAuthor>Aleksander Lorenčič<note place="foot" xml:id="ftn1" n="*">
                    <hi rend="bold" xml:space="preserve">PhD, Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj-Ormož, Muzejski trg 1, SI – 2250 Ptuj;
                <ref target="mailto:aleksander.lorencic@pmpo.si">aleksander.lorencic@pmpo.si</ref></hi></note></docAuthor>
            <docImprint>
                <idno type="cobissType">Cobiss type: 1.01</idno>
                <idno type="UDC">UDC: 930:330.342.14/.15(497.4)"1991/2004"</idno>
            </docImprint>
            <div type="abstract" xml:lang="sl">
                <head type="main">IZVLEČEK</head>
                <head>PROUČEVANJE GOSPODARSKE TRANZICIJE – IZZIVI, ZAGATE IN REZULTATI</head>
                <p><hi rend="italic">V pričujočem prispevku avtor predstavi izzive, zagate in
                        spoznanja, s katerimi se je soočal pri raziskavi in proučevanju slovenske
                        gospodarske tranzicije. Cilj raziskave, ki velja za 'pionirsko' na področju
                        zgodovinopisja, je bil analitično interpretirati proces gospodarske
                        tranzicije in poudariti njene temeljne posebnosti, zakonitosti, nosilce ter
                        rezultate. Rezultat raziskovanja je znanstvena monografija in številni
                        znanstveni ter strokovni članki s področja gospodarske tranzicije. </hi></p>
                <p><hi rend="italic">Ključne besede: Slovenija, osamosvojitev, gospodarstvo,
                        tranzicija</hi></p>
            </div>
            <div type="abstract">
                <head>ABSTRACT</head>
                <p><hi rend="italic">In the following article the author presents the challenges,
                        problems and findings that he encountered while researching and studying the
                        Slovene economic transition. The aim of this research, which is considered
                        ‘pioneer’ in the field of historiography, was to analytically interpret the
                        process of economic transition and point out its fundamental
                        characteristics, rules, agents and results. The result of the research is a
                        scientific monograph and a number of scientific and technical articles in
                        the field of economic transition.</hi></p>
                <p><hi rend="italic">Key words: Slovenia, independence, economy, transition</hi></p>
            </div>
        </front>
        <body>
            <p>In historiography, there are a few so clear and in terms of time so accurately
                delimited milestones as the year 1991 in Slovene history. With the proclamation of
                autonomy and independence, we, the Slovenians, have taken our destiny completely
                into our own hands for the first time, which is why this period, without a doubt,
                deserves special attention in the field of historiographical research. Despite the
                fact that from the viewpoint of historiography it lasts only for a short period of
                two decades and despite the processes many of which have not yet been concluded,
                this period has to be systematically researched by means of the historiographic
                    method.<note place="foot" xml:id="ftn2" n="1"> Aleksander Lorenčič, "Slovensko
                    gospodarstvo med tranzicijo in globalno krizo (1990–2010)," in: <hi
                        rend="italic">Vizija raziskav slovenske gospodarske in družbene
                        zgodovine</hi>, ed. Darja Mihelič (Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2014),
                    311, 312.</note> The study of the period in question, which – due to the so-called
                historical distance – requires taking into account several factors that influence
                the scientific research and the presentation of events (from the question of
                sources, to documentation and the influence of politics), is in many countries no
                longer a novelty. The importance and role of economic history as a sub-discipline or
                a specific genre within the historical science is not given much attention. In
                general, the economic historiography has been for decades on the outskirts of
                interest in the professional circles. In the nineties of the 20<hi
                    rend="superscript">th</hi> century, there has been a restructuring of the
                economic historiography, which coincided with the arrival of the younger
                researchers. In fact, only two researchers, Žarko Lazarević and Jože Prinčič, both
                members of the Institute of Contemporary History, have systematically and actively
                dealt solely with the economic history.<note place="foot" xml:id="ftn3" n="2"> Žarko
                    Lazarević, "Identitetne zadrege slovenskega ekonomskega zgodovinopisja," in: <hi
                        rend="italic">Podobe modernizacije. Poglavja iz gospodarske in socialne
                        modernizacije Slovenije v 19. in 20. stoletj</hi>u, eds. Žarko Lazarević and
                    Aleksander Lorenčič (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2009), 38.</note>
                Precisely the Institute of Contemporary History has decided to systematically focus
                also on the period after 1990, and for that purpose employed two young researchers.
                The result of this decision is, among others, a scientific monograph titled
                    <hi rend="italic" xml:space="preserve">Prelom s starim in začetek novega: Tranzicija slovenskega gospodarstva iz socializma v kapitalizem (1990–2004) </hi>(<hi
                    rend="italic">A Break With the Old and the Beginning of the New: The Transition
                    of Slovene Economy from Socialism to Capitalism (1990–2004)</hi>), which
                represents a significant contribution to the Slovenian economic historiography.<note
                    place="foot" xml:id="ftn4" n="3"> Aleksander Lorenčič, <hi rend="italic">Prelom
                        s starim in začetek novega. Tranzicija slovenskega gospodarstva iz
                        socializma v kapitalizem (1990–2004)</hi> (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo
                    zgodovino, 2012).</note>
            </p>
            <p>Writing about the Slovenian economic transition as a historian has not been an easy
                task, but it has nevertheless represented a great challenge. I agree with Ivan T.
                Berend, who in 2009 in the preface of his book wrote that to write about the present
                or "the unfinished present" is the same as "shooting a moving target".<note
                    place="foot" xml:id="ftn5" n="4"> Ivan T. Berend<index indexName="XE">
                        <term>Berend T. Ivan</term>
                    </index>, <hi rend="italic">From the Soviet Bloc to the European Union. The
                        Economic and Social Transformation of Central and Eastern Europe since
                        1973</hi> (New York: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009),
                    14.</note> The fact is that anyone who reads the newspapers or watches the
                daily-news programs is aware that in the last few years we have been "bombarded" on
                a daily basis with the information that more or less pertains to the economic
                transition or its consequences. What is more, the market is full of literature and
                articles (non-technical, technical and scientific) which deal with the process of
                economic transition as a whole or focus only on individual problems. I have to admit
                that due to the multitude of often contradictory information (the opinions of the
                economic profession are frequently divided as well), it was rather difficult to
                create a relevant and comprehensive image of such a complex process as the economic
                transition. As far as the methodological approaches are concerned, due to the legal
                restrictions on the access of the archival materials, the research and insights are
                mostly not based on the classic historical (archival) sources. However, judging by
                the previous research experience regarding the period after the Slovenian
                independence, it is clear that the classic method of studying historiography has to
                be upgraded with the new methodological approaches. One of the reasons is also the
                occurrence of informational and communicational revolution after 1990, enabling
                quicker access to various sources (e.g. the digitalization of different documents),
                and at the same time triggering the emergence of new industries. The second reason
                lies in the fact that after 1991, only the state bodies and institutions the
                documentation of which is more or less accessible also today were legally required
                to hand over their material to the archives in a given period of time. Furthermore,
                it is known that a great deal of material was destroyed, be it due to negligence or
                on purpose, for instance the material of various companies. What is interesting as
                well is the information presented by an archivist from the Regional Archives
                Maribor, Gordana Šövegeš, who was wondering about the whereabouts of the documentary
                material of the Prekmurian companies that went bankrupt in the nineties. Inquiring
                with different bankruptcy managers and former company directors yielded no new
                information for the archivist, and the most frequently heard answer was "we do not
                know". The ones responsible also ignored the laws. "Where would we be if we complied
                with all the laws and regulations! " a director replied to the archivist. We have to
                bear in mind that the Prekmurian example is certainly not the only one and, as
                written by the archivist Šövegeš in 2003, it is "generally known that the material
                of the former companies in public ownership is being massively destroyed even
                    today".<note place="foot" xml:id="ftn6" n="5"> Gordana Šövegeš Lipovšek<index
                        indexName="XE">
                        <term>Šoevegeš Gordana</term>
                    </index>, "The archival material of the Prekmurian companies," in: <hi
                        rend="italic">Arhivi in arhivsko gradivo v času tranzicijskih
                        sprememb/Infoarh</hi>, eds. Mija Mravlja and Andrej Nared (Ljubljana:
                    Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2003), 59–61.</note> Similar things happened with
                the Communist Party material or the CK ZKS (Central Committee of the Slovene
                Communist Party) material. Many municipal committees (18 exactly) did not hand over
                their material. As written by Darinka Drnovšek from the Archives of the Republic of
                Slovenia, some people "destroyed the documentation simply because they feared that
                under the new political circumstances these archives would be taken advantage of",
                others stored the documents somewhere (in the basement or the attic) and "the new
                leaderships did not want to have anything to do with it".<note place="foot"
                    xml:id="ftn7" n="6"> Darinka Drnovšek, "The material of the Communist Party in the time of transition," in:
                        <hi rend="italic">Arhivi in arhivsko gradivo v času tranzicijskih
                        sprememb/Infoarh</hi>, eds. Mija Mravlja and Andrej Nared (Ljubljana:
                    Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2003), 67–70.</note> Archivists will thus have a lot
                of hard work to make sure that the archival material ends up in the archives in the
                most satisfactory form possible – at least a greater part of what has not been
                destroyed. Since the problem of transition is distinctively multidisciplinary, the
                methodological approach was highly interdisciplinary as well. As a historian, I have
                given priority to the established method of historical profession, meaning that on
                the basis of a detailed study of all the possible and available sources and
                especially the critical analysis of the latter, I have tried to determine, confront
                and confirm as many material facts of the process in question as possible. The
                economic, political, sociological, legal and anthropological conceptualizations of
                the thematic, theoretical and methodological bases for studying the transition were
                all taken into account. The monograph deals with all the fundamental processes of
                the economic transition. Up until now, especially the economic profession has dealt
                with individual problems and processes of this period, but not in a manner in which
                the problem of economic transition is presented in this work. As already pointed
                out, the monograph is written in accordance with the rules of historical profession
                and it represents a comprehensive account of the problem of the economic transition.
                This means the inclusion of all the relevant aspects of the problem, since only this
                way we can expect a comprehensive and authentic reconstruction of the complexity of
                the economic transition. </p>
            <p>The decision to become a sovereign and independent country has made it possible for
                Slovenia to engage in its own economic policy and to take over the responsibility
                for its own economic development. By the end of 1992 Slovenia had already been
                recognized by one hundred countries and become a member of the UN and its
                specialized organizations; by 1996 she had become a member of almost all the
                significant economic associations (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
                International Monetary Fund, World Bank and International Finance Corporation, GATT,
                WTO, EFTA and CEFTA). Slovenia was in this way "fastened with a safety belt" to the
                West and thus protected from the war that took place in parts of the former
                Yugoslavia. The biggest strategic objective of the Republic of Slovenia was, due to
                its close political, cultural and economic co-operation with Europe, full membership
                of the EU, which was realized on 1 May 2004. The only organization which Slovenia
                was unable to become a member of quite so rapidly was the OECD which unites the
                economically most developed countries in the world (Slovenia did not become a member
                until 2010).<note place="foot" xml:id="ftn8" n="7"> Lorenčič,
                    <hi rend="italic" xml:space="preserve">Prelom s starim in začetek novega, </hi>455, 456.
                </note> Slovenia was one of the first to pass over the period of transformation
                depression, which was typical for transition economies in the early nineties, as the
                recovery of economic growth through the revival of domestic demand took place in
                mid–1993. Slovenia relatively quickly exceeded the pretransitional level of economic
                activity – the 1990 level of pretransitional development from in 1996 and the 1987
                level in 1998.<note place="foot" xml:id="ftn9" n="8"> Ibid, 456. </note>
            </p>
            <p>Throughout the whole economic transition process, the process of privatization has
                caused by far the most trouble and stress in political and economic circles and to
                the population as a whole. It has certainly proved to be the central and most
                demanding of all the transition processes. Let us say right away that this is not
                just a Slovenian particularity, but similar patterns were also seen in other
                post–communist countries. Privatization of socially-owned property was the process
                that affected the population most deeply. Legally, the process took place in several
                steps. In autumn 1991 two acts relating to the privatization of apartments and
                denationalization were adopted. The Ownership Transformation of Companies Act (OTCA)
                was adopted in November 1992.<note place="foot" xml:id="ftn10" n="9"> Ibid,
                    457, 458.</note> The basic principle of the privatization of apartments and
                apartment houses was the equalisation of the right to purchase an apartment for all
                those citizens who held housing rights on the day the Housing Act was implemented.
                An even greater problem was caused by denationalization or the implementation of the
                latter which was often the subject of polemics and various accusations, particularly
                by expropriators who set up the Association of Expropriated Property Owners of
                Slovenia. In their view, the return of nationalized property took place too slowly.
                The property was returned to the former owners or their heirs "in kind" and if that
                was not possible, compensation was provided. Return of the property "in kind"
                provoked most outrage when the Act was adopted, which only intensified when the act
                was put into practice. At the end of March 2007, the percentage of settled cases at
                the national level was 94.9. The objective of denationalization and privatization of
                apartments should be to establish ownership and to redress a wrong, but often just
                the opposite has happened. Legislation in the form it was adopted has actually led
                to a number of new injustices. Let us look at, for example, the returning of
                apartments in kind, even when they were occupied by residents with housing rights to
                them. Slovenia was the only one of all the transition countries to implement this.
                Many people in this situation were unjustly treated and indeed exploited by the new
                owners, but the state has done very little to help and has actually continued to
                write acts that have done very little to prevent a number of malversations. The
                government had by far the most problems with the adoption of the privatization of
                companies act. The proposals concerning the method of privatization, put forward by
                Aleksander Bajt and Ivan Ribnikar, were given little serious discussion at
                government level. However, within the coalition there was a conflict between two
                completely different economic and political concepts and in the end, some sort of
                interim model between Mencinger’s and Sachs’s proposal prevailed. During the period
                from 1990 to the adoption of the OTCA at the end of 1992, many companies converted
                their status, increased in capital or reorganized on the basis of the Yugoslav
                legislation of that time. Because at that time the state had not yet fully
                established the institution of control over the status and financial-capital changes
                of the companies that had social capital, there was, of course, wide scope for
                abuse. During this period, so-called "wild privatization" took place. In order to
                prevent such abuses, in December 1990 two state institutions that were supposed to
                supervise and regulate the process of privatization and restructuring were
                established. The Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Restructuring and
                Privatization has supervised and followed the process, prepared guidelines and
                verified the privatization programmes, while The Fund of the Republic of Slovenia
                for Development has restructured companies. The latter also became the owner of
                companies and could negotiate and sign sales contracts. Today we are often witness
                to accusations about fearsome social stratification, stories about management
                takeovers and similar. What we have to realize is that the situation in society and
                the economy today is not a result of what took place yesterday or in recent years,
                but that we have to look for answers at the beginning of our transition story. The
                lion's share of controversial privatizations can reliably be attributed to delays in
                the long-term process of the adoption of The Ownership Transformation of Companies
                Act. We cannot affirm that the so-called "wild privatization" ran by the so-called
                Marković acts, because if that were the case, it certainly would not be
                controversial and illegal. In fact, it only referred to a legally unresolved
                Marković conception of privatization. One fact we cannot dispute is that while
                politicians were arguing and discussing possible solutions to the problems of
                ownership transformation, some had already seized a considerable section of
                socially-owned property. Let us recall the two, so-called "higher forms" of abusing
                social property, which some were taking advantage of when relevant legislation had
                not yet been adopted. The first is by-pass companies. This was a well-known and
                widespread phenomenon of establishing a company in private ownership, set up by
                workers employed in a social enterprise with the same or similar subject of business
                for which the social company was registered. The social company was then run down,
                until they entered liquidation and bankruptcy. This serves as a clear case of "wild
                privatization". The other example represents a free transfer of social capital,
                which refers to the second paragraph of article 145 of the Law on Enterprises from
                1990. The described transfer of the capital, even if carried out between companies
                that were in social ownership, was illegal. In this way, mixed companies now became
                social property owners in social companies and by doing so also indirectly
                privatized social companies without the Privatization Act, which was unacceptable
                and illegal. Of course, there were also other forms of abusing social property, such
                as unfounded abatement of debts, improper profit-sharing and unpaid transfer of
                capital. In any case the fundamental cause of "wild privatization" was the fact that
                the privatization of public property was possible from the outset, without adequate
                rules and regulations. Moreover, despite warnings from the relevant institutions,
                the Slovenian parliament did not react. The same was also true in the case of the
                aforementioned article 145. b of the Law on Enterprises, which allowed free transfer
                of social property under one’s own will and which the Slovenian parliament did not
                withdraw or supplement in time. According to data from the Agency for Auditing,
                during the period from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1992 there was a deficit of
                socially-owned property to the value of 86,174 million Slovenian Tolars or, if
                revalorized, the value of 1,238,454,581.87 Euros. In total, according to the audit,
                the deficit of socially-owned property in the period from 1 January 1990 to 31 July
                2004 was to the value of 104 billion-Slovenian Tolars.<note place="foot"
                    xml:id="ftn11" n="10"> Ibid, 268, 458–60. </note> In any
                case, a small proportion of the population managed to recover significantly during
                this period. The long-term adoption of the appropriate legislation has thus had
                serious consequences. However, it is possible to understand the governing policy of
                that time, at least to a certain extent. According to many, the privatization law
                which was eventually adopted was the best of all those suggested. Certainly, if we
                accept that it is better to pause and reflect rather than make hasty decisions, it
                was certainly preferable to pass an appropriate law later than rush through an
                unsuitable one. It is also true, as Jože Mencinger admits, that the government at
                that time was a group of amateurs and either politicians or the appropriate bodies
                were able to deal with the situation (this was the same in all transition
                countries). In defence of the government at that time, we should also consider that
                processes such as the transition do not happen often and there is no manual for
                producing perfect results. All this can be understood, but what is harder to accept
                is the fact that consequently there were numerous abuses and economic benefits to
                some, which, of course, is the other, darker side of the story. Anyway, the finally
                adopted OTCA provides companies with seven methods of achieving ownership
                transformation and combines the elements of two different approaches, namely the
                decentralized approach, where most of the initiatives and decisions came from
                companies and the mass privatization of part of the shares so that they can be
                divided among citizens in exchange for certificates. Despite the long-term adoption
                of the OTCA, some flaws remained. The legislature had, inter alia, restricted audits
                to a three-year period from 1990 to 1992, assuming that the pre-privatization audit
                procedures would be completed by the end of 1994, which certainly was not the case.
                It turns out that the deadlines set by the legislator were missed completely and
                impossible to execute in practice. Inappropriate rules of law, among other things,
                triggered once again the unnecessary "legalization" of "wild privatization" after 1
                January 1993 and thus the establishment of by-pass companies and similar
                malversations also continued after 31 December 1992.<note place="foot"
                    xml:id="ftn12" n="11"> Ibid, 461. </note> Up to the beginning of the operation
                of the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for the Auditing of Ownership
                Transformation of Companies in August 1996, so after a period of almost three years,
                it was not possible to initiate an appropriate audit of previous privatization or to
                act according to the OTCA. One of the methods of becoming rich in Slovenia was
                provided by certificates. The majority of Slovenian citizens sold the certificates
                quickly, thinking they were nothing more than a worthless piece of paper. Since
                1993, however, the market in proprietary certificates has flourished. Brokerage
                firms were formed and a handful of better-informed citizens purchased the
                certificates at low value and exchanged them later for shares; while the share
                values increased (mostly), their owners became increasingly richer. The processes of
                ownership and privatization have taken a relatively slow course. Up to 7 November
                1994, 700 companies submitted their programmes for restructuring to The Agency of
                the Republic of Slovenia for Restructuring and Privatization, which was 52 per cent
                of all those liable for transformation by law. In early May 1998 the Act Concluding
                Ownership Transformation and Privatisation of Legal Entities Owned by the
                Development Corporation of Slovenia came into force, which defined the transition
                from the decentralized to centralized form of privatization. In the six years of the
                process, almost all of the companies with social capital carried out ownership
                transformation, and only a small number of companies chose not to privatize, because
                of their own inactivity, or other objective reasons. By completing the process of
                the ownership transformation of companies, the first phase of the transition process
                was completed, the aim of which was to push Slovenia into common global trends and
                economic flows and also enter into the European integration process. With the
                completion of the process a new investment cycle was also initiated, thereby
                increasing not only the economic growth and employment but also the share of foreign
                investments. After the formal completion of the process of ownership transformation
                of companies, it was necessary to complete the second part of the transition
                process, namely the privatization of state property. The sale of state property
                represents another form of "wild privatization". The majority of capital shares in
                the period 1995–2005 were sold without public bids, therefore non-transparently. The
                privatization method was otherwise well-intentioned and allowed a high level of
                worker and employee involvement in ownership changes, but the good intentions came
                to nothing. During the privatization process, the participation of internal owners
                (non-management employees) and state funds declined, but the participation of
                investment firms and managers increased. Slovenia’s entry into the European Union
                marked the formal end of the transition, however the emphasis here is on formal,
                because only after that period did the privatization prey or its results begin to
                show. We have been witness to frequent stories of management takeovers, numerous
                accusations and polemics. These events served the politicians mostly for the purpose
                of collecting votes; let us not forget the story of the sale of Mercator. The
                management buyouts did not start in BTC, Iskra, Merkur or Laško. A unique case of a
                Slovenian management buyout took place in 1995 in the company Agroruše. It is
                reasonable to add that where privatization was carried out fairly and by the will of
                the people, where there was no double crossing and injustice and in particular,
                where intentions were entirely honest, those who undertook the process of ownership
                transformation were able to live with an entirely different spirit and even better.
                Unfortunately, it transpired that in a large number of Slovenian companies the
                motivating principles of the managers were less than fair, accruing benefits and
                greed. As previously mentioned, things were not as closely regulated as they should
                have been at the very beginning. We are thinking in particular here of the legal
                aspect; little has changed. There were many "loopholes" in the acts and many of
                those who are now accused of all kinds of abuses, have acquired their wealth, so to
                speak, legally. A large share of the responsibility lies with the legal system and
                politicians, because the National Assembly is a place where acts are proposed and
                adopted. As mentioned previously, many of the deficits in the first period of
                transition occurred because legislation was inadequate or pending, as well as calls
                to action being largely ignored. In the first phase of transition, politicians
                behaved – except in the election period, obviously – as if wild privatization were
                only an idea, completely foreign to the Slovenian economy. If we mention the later
                period and the aforementioned notorious manager’s takeovers, the fact is that a
                great deal of them also happened with the generous help of the politicians. Whether
                we like it or not, politics and the economy are co-dependent areas, as was
                illustrated so strikingly during the process of privatization, since the latter
                often served policy as a tool to increase influence. Even in stories that were
                seemingly all about the national interest, it transpired that the interests of
                individuals prevailed. The concept of policy in its narrow sense is defined as
                directing society with the help of the state. And given the fact that socially-owned
                property has mostly landed in the hands of a handful of people, that we are
                witnessing distinctive social stratification, that many do not believe in a state
                governed by the rule of law and the like, it is clear that the policy has not
                entirely successfully directed Slovenian society to the intended goal. The
                restructuring of the Slovenian economy can certainly not be described as successful,
                at least not entirely. If not before, this statement proved to be true when after
                the first quarter of 2009, Slovenia officially lapsed into recession brought about
                by the global financial and economic crisis. The recession occurred for the first
                time since 1993, when our country passed over to the transformation recovery and we
                again witnessed a decline in economic activity, the failure of companies and high
                unemployment. Crises, which are an integral part of economic life, highlight
                accumulated economic imbalances or irregularities, and this is exactly what happened
                in Slovenia. Many of the companies which were not successfully and suitably
                restructured during the transition have collapsed. Many were forced to reorganize
                and restructure.<note place="foot" xml:id="ftn13" n="12"> Ibid, 461–64.</note>
            </p>
            <p>With regard to the conclusions and results of the research connected to my study of
                the economic transition, be it individual articles or the monograph <hi
                    rend="italic">Prelom s starim in začetek novega</hi> (<hi rend="italic">A Break
                    With the Old and the Beginning of the New</hi>), the fact is that from today’s
                perspective and with new knowledge I would have written some things differently.
                However, this is precisely the essence of the research and historiography as such:
                it is a vital process that takes the existing knowledge and constantly upgrades it
                in the presence of new knowledge. I believe the crucial thing in understanding the
                economic transition is for the researcher to understand the process and put it in a
                broader context. Taking an example of the grounds or causes for the socio-political
                and economic changes, we must bear in mind that, from a broader perspective, this
                was the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the bipolar
                division of the world and the time in which socialism became obsolete. In
                Yugoslavia, the political, transnational, cultural and economic disagreements lead
                to the desired goal – the Slovenian independence and the transition to a capitalist
                system. Researching the economic transition as a contemporary researcher, I am aware
                of the fact that capitalism is a causal-consequential process and that Slovenia
                cannot avoid external influences, on which it ultimately depends. Economic crises
                are an integral part of the economy; the two crises Slovenia has faced in the last
                25 years – the transitional and the current one – do not have the same reasons for
                their occurrence, but their consequences for the population are similar: the
                bankruptcies of many companies, unemployment, the problems of the banks, etc. The
                crisis that occurred in 2008 is the third great crisis in the last century and a
                half. Comparing the crisis that hit the countries with the Slovenian population
                after the collapse of the Vienna Stock Exchange in 1873, the crisis that was the
                result of the stock market crash on Wall Street in 1929 and the current crisis, the
                fact is that all three of them have their origin in the financial sector, because
                they are the consequence of the financial, credit and investment speculations, and
                they all occurred after periods of outstandingly positive financial and economic
                trends. The main difference between the transitional crisis on the one hand, and the
                global financial and economic crisis on the other is that the former had regional,
                while the latter had global dimensions. In 1991, Slovenia entered the world of
                capitalism, which was also facing certain changes that ultimately lead to the
                outbreak of the last great crisis. If we consider the events from a broader
                perspective, we discover that in the field of capitalism, especially after the
                outbreak of the oil crisis in 1973, there has been a major shift in mentality,
                leading to the belief that the role of state and interventionism are not essential
                or important for the economy. Neoliberalism occurred: an economic-political paradigm
                which advocates minimizing the role of state in the economy. The economist Davorin
                Kračun believes that neoliberalism received political support with the election of
                President Reagan in the USA and reached its peak at the end of the 1980 with the
                so-called Washington Consensus, which represented a recipe for the countries in
                    transition.<note place="foot" xml:id="ftn14" n="13"> Sonja Ploj Ratajc and
                    Vanessa Čokl, "An interview with Davorin Kračun," <hi rend="italic">V
                        soboto/Večer</hi>, 28 July 2012, 3–5.</note> Kračun believes that "under
                these circumstances, the neoliberal economic-political paradigm was fairly
                successful also because it coincided with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the
                expansion of the global market to the once impregnable fortresses of Russia and
                China". Moreover, in his opinion, the informational and communicational revolutions
                paved the way for the entirely new industries.<note place="foot" xml:id="ftn15"
                    n="14"> Ibid, 3.</note> Ivan T. Berend, a comparative historian of the Central
                and Eastern Europe, is of similar opinion, and he believes that capitalism has
                changed and since the 1970s has definitely not been the same.</p> <quote>"The developed
                European countries have been deindustrialized, the industry has lost its
                significance and in the most developed Western countries only 18 percent of the
                active population works in the industry. The financial sector, including banks,
                financial institutions, insurance companies and the real estate sector, grows six
                time faster than the real economy and its assets are three or four times larger than
                the entire gross domestic product of the European Union. I am talking about the
                deindustrialized, excessively financially controlled economy, which was very fragile
                and susceptible to the financial panic that occurred. From 1980 onwards, the entire
                system has been deregulated: all the regulations implemented in the 1930 and after
                the Second World War with the Bretton Woods Agreement, including the lessons learned
                from the Great Depression, have been eliminated. Neoliberalism was convinced that it
                solved the problems of the crises and that they will not occur anymore. The leading
                economists of the Chicago School advised the governments that we no longer need the
                straightjacket of regulation,"</quote> <p>believes Berend.<note place="foot" xml:id="ftn16"
                    n="15"> Saša Vidmajer, "An interview with Ivan T. Berend," <hi rend="italic"
                        >Delo/Sobotna priloga</hi>, accesed 25 March 2012, <ref
                        target="http://www.delo.si/zgodbe/sobotnapriloga/zgodovinar-ivan-t-berend-krizo-je-povzrocila-periferna-mentaliteta.html"
                        >http://www.delo.si/zgodbe/sobotnapriloga/zgodovinar-ivan-t-berend-krizo-je-povzrocila-periferna-mentaliteta.html</ref>.</note>
                In Slovenia, we were not fully aware 25 years ago what the transition to capitalism
                will bring. During this period, capitalism has changed in certain aspects as well.
                The financial capitalism prevails, which affects the social differences and rivalry
                even more. 25 years of independence is a relatively short period and it seems that
                after so many years of being an independent country we have only begun to learn
                about the negative aspects of the capitalist system, of which we expected so much
                when we gained independence. Today, this strongly shows in the helplessness and
                despair of people. It is often said that the Slovenian constitution writes about the
                implementation of the market economy, while in reality, we have run into the cruel
                capitalist economy. The romantic ideas make it that much harder to accept the fact
                that in 1991, Slovenia did not only gain independence, but also transited to the
                capitalist system with all of its positive and negative characteristics about which
                we listen on a daily basis.<note place="foot" xml:id="ftn17" n="16"> I have summed
                    up my views on the development during the 25 years of independence in an
                    interview for the newspaper <hi rend="italic">Finance</hi> – Aleksander Lorenčič
                    and Lojze Javornik, "Slovenci imamo mitičen odnos do vsake državne tvorbe:
                    Zgodovinar Aleksander Lorenčič o čudnosti čudenja liberalnemu kapitalizmu,
                    slepega prevzemanja ideologije od starejših generacij in o slovenskem
                    zaostajanju zaradi neenotnosti o temeljnih ekonomskih nalogah in odnosu do tujih
                    naložb," <hi rend="italic">Finance</hi>. <hi rend="italic">Priloga Manager:
                        revija za podjetne</hi>, 17 June 2016, 16–19.</note> 1991 marks a
                significant turning point in our history. Attaining independence, gaining
                international recognition and entering into various international bodies, with the
                pinnacle – entrance into the European Union in 2004 – are achievements our ancestors
                could only dream of. If we draw a line, the process of economic transition and the
                transition to an open socio-market economy in Slovenia deserves positive historical
                appraisal with a black dot that, as in other transition countries, points to missed
                strokes and opportunities. This is understandable, because a process as complex as
                the transition cannot be accomplished entirely as planned or intended, since matters
                in practice often do not run as smoothly they are written in textbooks and acts of
                law.</p>
        </body>
        <back>
            <div type="bibliography">
                <head>Sources and Literature</head>
                <listBibl>
                    <head>Literature:</head>
                    <bibl>Berend, T. Ivan. <hi rend="italic">From the Soviet Bloc to the European
                            Union. The Economic and Social Transformation of Central and Eastern
                            Europe since 1973</hi>. New York: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
                        2009. </bibl>
                    <bibl>Drnovšek, Darinka. "The material of the Communist Party in the time of
                        transition." In: <hi rend="italic">Arhivi in arhivsko gradivo v času
                            tranzicijskih sprememb/Infoarh</hi>, eds. Mija Mravlja and Andrej Nared,
                        67–70. Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2003.</bibl>
                    <bibl>Lazarević, Žarko. "Identitetne zadrege slovenskega ekonomskega
                        zgodovinopisja." In: <hi rend="italic">Podobe modernizacije. Poglavja iz
                            gospodarske in socialne modernizacije Slovenije v 19. in 20.
                            stoletju</hi>, eds. Žarko Lazarević and Aleksander Lorenčič, 13–57.
                        Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2009.</bibl>
                    <bibl>Lorenčič, Aleksander and Lojze Javornik. "Slovenci imamo mitičen odnos do
                        vsake državne tvorbe: Zgodovinar Aleksander Lorenčič o čudnosti čudenja
                        liberalnemu kapitalizmu, slepega prevzemanja ideologije od starejših
                        generacij in o slovenskem zaostajanju zaradi neenotnosti o temeljnih
                        ekonomskih nalogah in odnosu do tujih naložb." <hi rend="italic">Finance.
                            Priloga Manager: revija za podjetne</hi>, 17 June 2016, 16–19.</bibl>
                    <bibl>Lorenčič, Aleksander. <hi rend="italic">Prelom s starim in začetek novega.
                            Tranzicija slovenskega gospodarstva iz socializma v kapitalizem
                            (1990–2004)</hi>. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2012.</bibl>
                    <bibl>Lorenčič, Aleksander. "Slovensko gospodarstvo med tranzicijo in globalno
                        krizo (1990–2010)." In: <hi rend="italic">Vizija raziskav slovenske
                            gospodarske in družbene zgodovine</hi>, ed. Darja Mihelič, 311–325.
                        Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2014.</bibl>
                    <bibl>Ploj Ratajc, Sonja and Vanessa Čokl. "An interview with Davorin Kračun."
                            <hi rend="italic">V soboto/Večer</hi>, 28 July 2012, 3–5. </bibl>
                    <bibl>Šövegeš Lipovšek, Gordana. "The archival material of the Prekmurian
                        companies." In: <hi rend="italic">Arhivi in arhivsko gradivo v času
                            tranzicijskih sprememb/Infoarh</hi>, eds. Mija Mravlja and Andrej Nared,
                        59–61. Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije, 2003.</bibl>
                    <bibl>Vidmajer, Saša. "An interview with Ivan T. Berend." <hi rend="italic"
                            >Delo/Sobotna priloga</hi>. Accesed 25. March 2012. <ref
                            target="http://www.delo.si/zgodbe/sobotnapriloga/zgodovinar-ivan-t-berend-krizo-je-povzrocila-periferna-mentaliteta.html"
                            >http://www.delo.si/zgodbe/sobotnapriloga/zgodovinar-ivan-t-berend-krizo-je-povzrocila-periferna-mentaliteta.html</ref>.</bibl>
                </listBibl>
            </div>
            <div type="summary" xml:lang="sl">
                <head type="main">PROUČEVANJE GOSPODARSKE TRANZICIJE – IZZIVI, ZAGATE IN
                    REZULTATI</head>
                <head>POVZETEK</head>
                <docAuthor>Aleksander Lorenčič</docAuthor>
                <p>V pričujočem prispevku avtor predstavi izzive, zagate in spoznanja, s katerimi se
                    je soočal pri raziskavi in proučevanju slovenske gospodarske tranzicije. Cilj
                    raziskave, katere rezultat je več znanstvenih in strokovnih člankov ter
                    znanstvena monografija <hi rend="italic">Prelom s starim in začetek novega</hi>,
                    ki velja za 'pionirsko' na področju zgodovinopisja, je bil analitično
                    interpretirati proces gospodarske tranzicije in poudariti njene temeljne
                    posebnosti, zakonitosti, nosilce ter rezultate. Rezultat raziskovanja je
                    znanstvena monografija in številni znanstveni ter strokovni članki s področja
                    gospodarske tranzicije. Pisati o slovenski gospodarski tranziciji kot zgodovinar
                    je bilo vse prej kot lahko delo, a mi je predstavljalo velik izziv. Ivan T.
                    Berend meni, da je o dogodkih iz sedanjosti oziroma o "nedokončani sedanjosti"
                    pisati tako, kot da bi "streljal na premikajočo se tarčo". Dejstvo je, da vsak,
                    ki prebira časopisje ali gleda dnevno-informativne oddaje, ve, da smo bili
                    zadnja leta tako rekoč vsak dan "bombardirani" s številnimi informacijami, ki so
                    se tako ali drugače navezovale na gospodarsko tranzicijo oziroma njene
                    posledice. Poleg tega je na trgu ogromno literature in člankov, poljudnih,
                    strokovnih in znanstvenih, ki celostno ali po posameznih problemih obravnavajo
                    proces gospodarske tranzicije. Priznati moram, da si je bilo v tej množici
                    podatkov, ki so si pogosto nasprotujoči (tudi ekonomska stroka je v mnenjih
                    pogosto deljena), zelo težko ustvariti relevantno, celostno podobo o tako
                    kompleksnem procesu, kot je gospodarska tranzicija. Pred 25 leti se v Sloveniji
                    nismo zavedali oziroma si je bilo težko predstavljati, kaj bo prehod v
                    kapitalizem v celoti prinesel. Tudi kapitalizem se je v tem obdobju v določenih
                    pogledih spremenil. Prevladuje finančni kapitalizem, ki še toliko bolj vpliva na
                    socialne razlike in tekmovalnost. Četrt stoletja samostojnosti je relativno
                    kratka doba in zdi se, da šele po toliko letih samostojne države spoznavamo
                    negativne plati kapitalističnega sistema, od katerega smo ob osamosvojitvi
                    toliko pričakovali. To se danes izrazito kaže kot nemoč in brezup ljudi. Pogosto
                    je slišati, da smo v Sloveniji v ustavo zapisali, da uvajamo tržno gospodarstvo,
                    zašli pa smo v kruto kapitalistično gospodarstvo. Zaradi romantičnih predstav je
                    toliko težje sprejeti dejstvo, da se Slovenija leta 1991 ni samo osamosvojila,
                    temveč je prešla tudi v kapitalistični sistem z vsemi pozitivnimi in tudi
                    negativnimi lastnostmi, o katerih danes vsakodnevno poslušamo.</p>
            </div>
        </back>
    </text>
</TEI>
