Generalisation of international experience in reforming national economies

Abstract

The article systematises and generalises the international experience of national economic reform based on a comparative analysis of five country clusters: post-socialist transition economies, the "Asian Tigers", Latin American reformers, post-conflict states, and "late reformers". The evolution of theoretical models of structural reform is traced from the Washington Consensus (1989) through the Post-Washington and Augmented Washington Consensus to modern diagnostic approaches (growth diagnostics) that account for each country's contextual specificity. Adjacent categories (stabilisation, structural adjustment, reform, modernisation, and transformation) are delineated as an analytical prerequisite for correct comparison. It is argued that no single universal reform recipe exists, and the principles of "one economics, many recipes" (D. Rodrik) combined with the identification of binding constraints on growth constitute the most productive analytical framework. Cross-cutting success factors for reforms are identified: the quality of inclusive institutions, the balance between external conditionality and domestic ownership, optimal sequencing of reform measures, countering state capture, and ensuring social legitimacy. The institutional dimension of reform is analysed through O. E. Williamson's four-level model and F. Fukuyama's state-capacity paradox. The author proposes a typology of reform success factors by the criterion of their generalisability (from context-dependent to structural regularities). The limitations of policy transfer are discussed in relation to isomorphic mimicry risks and survivorship bias in the reform literature. Implications are formulated for countries facing dual burdens (conflict/post-conflict alongside structural transformation), particularly for Ukraine, which confronts an unprecedented triple challenge of reconstruction, structural transformation, and preparation for EU membership.