Devlet işletmelerinin yeni ekonomik sistemdeki rölü üzerine

Serbest piyasa ekonomisine geçiş süreci ile doğal olarak ortaya çıkan özelleştirme uygulamaları farklı ülkelerde farklı sonuçlar vermiştir. Geçiş ekonomileri bu konuda ortak sorunlarla karşılaşmak ile birlikte ülkenin iktisadi yapısına ve diğer sosyal ve ekonomik koşullar istenilen sonuca ulaşılmasını engellemiştir. Ancak temel sorunlardan biri de devletin ekonomideki rolü ile beraber devlet işletmelerinin rolü ne olması gerektiğine
ilişkin olmuştur.

   Bu çalışmada 1991 yılı sonrası Kırgızistan’da yaşanan ekonomik gerileme ve yatırımları arttırma sorunları ile devlet işletmelerinin nasıl bir rol üstlenmesi gerektiği, günümüze kadar yapılmış olan reformlar sonucu üzerinde tartışılmış ve değerlendirilmiştir.

Geçiş Ekonomileri ,

Kamu İşletmeleri ,

Özelleştirme ,

Girişimcilik ,

As known, in developed countries as well as developing countries, both public and private sectors play an important role in their economies. The developed countries are assumed to achieve this level of development through open market ekonomixs where the private industries are strongly encouraged. İt is also claimed that a balanced level of development could be achieved among the Thrird World Countries with the very same open market trategies. But the reality is more likely to be as both E Hansen and P. SAmuelson suggested, with a halth combination of private and public sectors, hand in hand, which we call: Mixed Economics Systems. A country can achiev economic stability with a maxed economicc system where more emphasis is on the public sector. Stablity is composed of two components: price stability and full factors of production. Although these two components seem to contradict eachother, their harmony is the important requirement of a stable economy. Similarly Kyrgyzstan shall follw a similar path within this framwork. Afterthe collapse of the Soviet Union, Kyrgyzstan gave the prior attention to privatizasion of small and middle sized businesses instead of applying the rules of a mixed economic system. But unfortunately this privatizasion has given relatively nagtive results due to the fact that no infrastructural arrangements were made such as technology, marketing, distribution. İn fact, what had to be done was, developing the large scale businesses and improving the infrastructure of small and middle size businsses with loans from İnternational Economic Organizations. A cost benefit analysis for both large scale and middle-small sized businesses should have been made. The most important factor is being able to perpare a legal infrastructure to create confidence and trust both internally and externally. İt is crucial to avoid corruption. Non-market output as well as tax evasion and promote strong cooperation with neighboring countries. Between 1998 and 2002, the Kırgız public businesses made great losses most definitely due to the failures that were mentoined above. Achieving a stable development is very well possible with the existence of these public businesses. Just like China, by obeying the international production and competition standards it is possible to manage a stable development as long as interest politics is avoidedfrom these sectors.

,