NationStates Jolt Archive


Privatisation killed up to 1 million workers in Russia

Ariddia
15-01-2009, 11:04
So say British health researchers.

The side of the story that isn't often told, because everyone loves to keep things simplistic.


The rapid mass privatisation which followed the break up of the Soviet Union fuelled an increase in death rates among men, research suggests.

The UK study blames rapidly rising unemployment resulting from the break-neck speed of reform.

The researchers said their findings should act as a warning to other nations that are beginning to embrace widespread market reform.

The study features online in The Lancet medical journal.

The researchers examined death rates among men of working age in the post-communist countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union between 1989 and 2002.

They conclude that as many as one million working-age men died due to the economic shock of mass privatisation policies.

Following the break up of the old Soviet regime in the early 1990s at least a quarter of large state-owned enterprises were transferred to the private sector in just two years.

This programme of mass privatisation was associated with a 12.8% increase in deaths.

The latest analysis links this surge in deaths to a 56% increase in unemployment over the same period.

However, it found some countries with good social support networks withstood the turmoil better than others.

Where 45% or more of the population were members of at least one social organisation, such as a church group or labour union, mass privatisation did not increase mortality.

But Russia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were worst affected, with a tripling of unemployment and a 42% increase in male death rates between 1991 and 1994.

Countries that adopted a slower pace of change, gradually phasing in free-market conditions and developing appropriate institutions, fared much better.

The best were Albania, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia, which experienced only a 2% increase in unemployment - and a 10% fall in male mortality.

Caution urged

The authors, led by sociologist David Stuckler, from Oxford University, wrote: "The policy implications are clear.

"Great caution should be taken when macroeconomic policies seek radically to overhaul the economy without considering potential effects on the population's health."

Researcher Professor Martin McKee, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the death rate was already high in the old Soviet Union, as the healthcare system was inadequate, while rates of smoking and alcohol use were high, and diets poor.

This was compounded as the unemployment rate began to rise as workers suffered from uncertainty and stress.

Not only does stress have a direct effect on health, it is also closely associated with unhealthy lifestyles, such as alcoholism.

Together this raises the risk of heart disease and strokes, as well as mental illness.

"The workplace also tended to provide what healthcare was available, along with social support," he said.

"People got everything from work - and when they lost their jobs all that just went."

In an accompanying article, Professor Martin Bobak and Professor Sir Michael Marmot, from University College London, said the findings were relevant today.

"Countries in other regions are, and have been, undergoing economic and social transitions.

"That the extent and speed of such changes are important is increasingly apparent."

However, they stressed that the impact on health also depended on historical and political contexts.


(link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7828901.stm))

And people wonder why so many Russians are nostalgic for the Soviet era...

Please note, I'm not defending the old USSR. I'm simply pointing out that the abrupt change was not the wondrous thing people in the West often apparently consider it to have been. And that supporters of mass privatisation need to think about what they're advocating.
Gauthier
15-01-2009, 11:10
Russians can't catch a break. When Uncle Joe nationalized industry, over 5 million died, and now that they're privatized over 1 million keel over.
Dumb Ideologies
15-01-2009, 11:24
I support nationalization of public utilities and failing industries, but this isn't really something that one can make political capital out of. Its fairly clear that the huge problems in the immediate post-Soviet period were mostly caused by the overly-rapid, chaotic and unmanaged nature of the transformation of the economy, rather than by privatization per se.
Risottia
15-01-2009, 11:25
So say British health researchers.
And people wonder why so many Russians are nostalgic for the Soviet era...

Please note, I'm not defending the old USSR. I'm simply pointing out that the abrupt change was not the wondrous thing people in the West often apparently consider it to have been. And that supporters of mass privatisation need to think about what they're advocating.

Oh my, them brit health reesarchurs r them KOMMIEZ! ;)

Anyway, former supporters of mass privatisation are ALREADY calling for more regulation and more statal intervention in economy, across the whole planet. Silly ultra-liberist turncoats.
Conserative Morality
15-01-2009, 11:31
This programme of mass privatisation was associated with a 12.8% increase in deaths.

But Russia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were worst affected, with a tripling of unemployment and a 42% increase in male death rates between 1991 and 1994.
It would seem you like to keep it simple also. Where you blame the whole thing on the privatization of Russia, the article seems to think that there were other problems. And in a country like the Soviet Union was, any major change would have been met with internal turmoil, and a change as big as privatization, without systems already in place to take care of things the state once did... *Sigh*
Exilia and Colonies
15-01-2009, 12:45
How did China avoid this problem?
Mad hatters in jeans
15-01-2009, 13:29
How did China avoid this problem?

the haven't, they just execute anyone who says they're suffering. and far stricter censorship in ol Chinatown.
Non Aligned States
15-01-2009, 13:55
How did China avoid this problem?

Capitalism in small doses and iron fisted governmental control. They still have a lot of the problems, but more manageable. Or at least it would be, if they didn't have rampant corruption.
The Cake is a Lie
15-01-2009, 14:21
Privatisation doesn't kill people, people do.
The blessed Chris
15-01-2009, 14:23
I'm well aware of what I'm advocating in privatisation; the necessary, if regrettable and terribly tragic, pain of some to the long term economic, social and political benefit of the nation.
Hydesland
15-01-2009, 14:35
I support nationalization of public utilities and failing industries, but this isn't really something that one can make political capital out of. Its fairly clear that the huge problems in the immediate post-Soviet period were mostly caused by the overly-rapid, chaotic and unmanaged nature of the transformation of the economy, rather than by privatization per se.

Exactly. Transitional economies are always shit.
Andaluciae
15-01-2009, 15:24
So say British health researchers.

The side of the story that isn't often told, because everyone loves to keep things simplistic.



(link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7828901.stm))

And people wonder why so many Russians are nostalgic for the Soviet era...

Please note, I'm not defending the old USSR. I'm simply pointing out that the abrupt change was not the wondrous thing people in the West often apparently consider it to have been. And that supporters of mass privatisation need to think about what they're advocating.

It wasn't just privatization, though, rather widespread governmental collapse and restructuring occurred. Once domestic trade flows with the other former Soviet Republics suddenly became the realm of international trade.

This wasn't just a slick transition between two elected governments, this was the creation of an entirely new state in a country where the nationality is poorly defined and geographically disparate, which never, ever goes smoothly.

Had the Soviet Union not run the country into the ground, these problems likely would not have developed.
Ashmoria
15-01-2009, 15:45
How did China avoid this problem?
they didnt.

privatization caused massive unemployment. unless chinese people are less sensitive to stress than russian people are, it did the same to them.
Lackadaisical2
15-01-2009, 16:08
Your own article disagrees with you, it had nothing to do with privatization, and more to do with rapid change and no back ups and poor social cohesion.



The best were Albania, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia, which experienced only a 2% increase in unemployment - and a 10% fall in male mortality.

(Bold and underline mine)

Using your analysis methods, we can clearly see privatization saves many lives.
Trostia
15-01-2009, 16:10
as many as one million working-age men died due to the economic shock of mass privatisation policies.


Wow! Was that on all of their death certificates?

It must have been! It's what caused their deaths, right?
Non Aligned States
15-01-2009, 16:19
they didnt.

privatization caused massive unemployment. unless chinese people are less sensitive to stress than russian people are, it did the same to them.

True, but unlike the Soviet Union, the PRC pretty much bled in capitalism in small doses. So you had the same problems, but they were more manageable chunks. Of course when your population is what, 1.6 billion, even a manageable chunk of unemployment runs into tens of millions or more out of work.
Gift-of-god
15-01-2009, 16:38
I'm well aware of what I'm advocating in privatisation; the necessary, if regrettable and terribly tragic, pain of some to the long term economic, social and political benefit of the nation.

I will never understand why human lives are considered secondary in importance to the well-being of the economy.
Santiago I
15-01-2009, 16:41
I will never understand why human lives are considered secondary in importance to the well-being of the economy.

The idea behind it is that the well-being of the economy in the long term will provide better means of support for the people of the nation. It doesn't. The well being of the economy may end meaning only the well being of the elite in said economy.
Risottia
15-01-2009, 18:25
Using your analysis methods, we can clearly see privatization saves many lives.

Since the populations of those countries are far smaller than the populations of Russia and Kazakhstan, your argument fails.

The point is that IF privatisations are made within a context of a welfare state, at least for the initial times, and BIG investments are made from foreign companies (this is what happened in Albania and CR, iirc), the worse effects of the process will be avoided.
If privatisations are made by a vodka-addicted s.o.b. of a president and his mobster pals, with occasional yells of "you're trying to rebuild stalinism" every time some labour regulations are invoked, well, that's another story.
Chumblywumbly
15-01-2009, 18:39
The side of the story that isn't often told, because everyone loves to keep things simplistic.
Simplistic like "Privatisation killed up to 1 million workers in Russia"?
Vespertilia
15-01-2009, 19:27
Since the populations of those countries are far smaller than the populations of Russia and Kazakhstan, your argument fails.

The point is that IF privatisations are made within a context of a welfare state, at least for the initial times, and BIG investments are made from foreign companies (this is what happened in Albania and CR, iirc), the worse effects of the process will be avoided.
If privatisations are made by a vodka-addicted s.o.b. of a president and his mobster pals, with occasional yells of "you're trying to rebuild stalinism" every time some labour regulations are invoked, well, that's another story.

The second paragraph is not something I'm gonna pick on, but the as for the first:

Population
- January 2006 estimate 15,217,711 [2] (62nd)
- 1999 census 14,953,100
Czech IIRC is circa ten million, Polish 38. In the aforementioned second paragraph you actually give a plausible explanation, so why first blaming the populace? Unless there's something above I didn't read.
Andaluciae
15-01-2009, 22:18
Habitual and risky drinking, which has a severe impact on Russian working age male mortality, is something that is not only difficult to confront, but given the role of liquor in Russian society, is abnormally prevalent in comparison to other societies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6752515.stm

The Soviet Union was able to "shame" people sober, as repeat binge drinking would tend to get one's photo pasted in public places, especially all over the work place.
Lackadaisical2
16-01-2009, 01:18
Since the populations of those countries are far smaller than the populations of Russia and Kazakhstan, your argument fails.

why, it did save lives, even if it killed more people in other places, it saved the lives of the men in those countries.

The point is that IF privatisations are made within a context of a welfare state, at least for the initial times, and BIG investments are made from foreign companies (this is what happened in Albania and CR, iirc), the worse effects of the process will be avoided.
If privatisations are made by a vodka-addicted s.o.b. of a president and his mobster pals, with occasional yells of "you're trying to rebuild stalinism" every time some labour regulations are invoked, well, that's another story.

yea, it's hard to believe that poor management can have bad results. You might notice that it doesn't have to occur in a welfare state, the thing in common they found was the workers belonging to unions and churchs, which is why I talked about social cohesion (it wasn't the state helping people, but people helping themselves).
Vetalia
16-01-2009, 01:43
And? There wasn't really much else possible at the time; the Soviet Union was over, and given the already rising trend in death rates for 20 years prior to its collapse it is highly unlikely that things would get better. The system was so broken and so inefficient that they had to privatize or face severe consequences. Of course, much of the "privatization" was really a euphemism for oligarchic corruption, so that has to be taken in to account as well when looking at the effects of it on workers. Compare, for example, how successful it was in Eastern Europe to the former Soviet states and you'll probably be able to nail down where those deaths come from.

Corruption allows firms to get away with a lot of stuff they can't in a functional market, and the things these criminals got away with in the 1990's are enough to drive anyone to their death. I mean, we're talking thousands of well-educated workers thrown out of jobs they held for decades by mafiosi whose business experience consisted previously of stealing everything they could from their positions in the Communist party.