ABSTRACT
There were important differences among the V4 countries in the outcomes of transformation and the crisis. These differences in success witness the role of different starting conditions, the differences deriving from distinct institutional systems, and the governments’ different ideologies which contribute to an explanation regarding the different policies that were implemented.1 More generally, it appears that the countries that were better able to conjugate-by will or by chance-general principles and local circumstances had in general better results than those which followed more ideological paths. Poland and Slovakia were more pragmatic in their policies and reforms and implemented them by taking better notice of local circumstances without giving up the fundamental respect for general rules, in particular regarding the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). It may well be that this was so because these two countries were disadvantaged by their difficult starting situation, with the odds against their success. Conversely, Hungary and the Czech Republic were considered to be reform leaders, either because they had inherited a deeply reformed economy from the socialist era (Hungary), or because they did not need macroeconomic stabilization, already having a balanced economy and a government determined to proceed with rapid privatization (the Czech Republic).
