出版社：Economic Laboratory for Transition Research Podgorica
摘要：Private initiative in an environment of well protected property rights and a good legal sys-tem, high quality performance of institutions, clear rules of the game, consensus building capacity of the society regarding the importance of economic freedom can bring in signifi-cant differences in economic development between particular countries. During the period of the post-socialism transition, the whole system of inhibiting institutional and other fac-tors has caused the dysfunctional conglomerate system. The effect was synergetic, de-structive, and anti-development. Two decades of intense crisis, with all the accompanying events, has not been sufficient warning to holders of (vulgarised neo-liberal) economic pol-icy in the post-socialism states that something is wrong and that the anti-development model ultimately needs to be changed. This paper discusses the causes and conditions that have disabled the pluralistic and even monistic acting of economic institutes in the practice of transitional countries and have led to their objective substitution by the quasi-institutes and meta-institutes of a socio-pathological nature. It emphasizes the primary significance of institutionalization for eco-nomic policy, as well as the negative effect of pseudo-institutes on economic policy and the valorisation of economic resources. In addition, the article provides evidence that mo-nistic pseudo-market reforms in the period of post-socialist transition have not succeeded in compensating for a vast institutional vacuum, and that they have even led to its spread-ing and turning into a quasi-institutionalization, and institutional nihilism. The paper explains that the institute of civil society as an instrument of people protection from the government doesn't work universally. It's denied by variety of national, corporate and informal groups ("elites"), which are superior in wealth and power and limiting the indivi-duals. Uncontrolled power centers abuse Institute of state regulation and, paradoxically and ironically, preach and conduct marauding ideology of neo-liberalism as an institutional monism
