Janine Wedel - Collision and Collusion - The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe

224.  Frontline “Return of the Czar” interview with E. Wayne Merry, PBS website www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows\yeltsin\interviews\merry.html.

225.  Frontline “Return of the Czar” interview with Thomas Graham, PBS website www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows\yeltsin\interviews\graham.htm.

226. See Igor Kliamkin, “Elektorat Demokraticheskikh Sil,” Analiz Elektorata Politicheskikh Sil Rossii (Analysis of the Electorate of Russia’s Political Forces), Moscow, Russia: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1995, pp. 16-17.

227. Information provided by Steve Grant, Office of Research, U.S. Department of State, July 10, 2000. A version of this is cited in Thomas E. Graham, Jr., “Putin’s Russia: Why Economic Reform Requires Political Support, Reflections on U.S. Policy Toward Russia,” East European Constitutional Review, Winter/Spring 2000 (Reprinted in Johnson’s Russia List, no. 4364, June 13, 2000). See also United States Information Agency, “Is Economic Reform in Russia Dead?,” Opinion Analysis, Washington, DC.: USIA: Office of Research and Media Reaction, March 15, 1999, pp. 3-4. The ratio of Russians who had favorable attitudes toward U.S.-Russia rapprochement versus those who did not declined steeply from 1994 to 1999. In 1994 the ratio was 2.47, as compared with 1.67 in 1999. See Boris Dubin, “Vremia i Lyudi: O Massovom Vospriiatii Social’nykh Peremen,” Russian Public Opinion Monitor, May-June 1999, pp. 22-23.

228. Opinion poll conducted in mid-November 1999 by the ROMIR group, a Russian polling organization, cited in James M. Klurfeld, “U.S. Errs by Treading on Russian Sensitivities,” Newsday, December 2, 1999, reprinted in Johnson’s Russia List, no. 3659, December 2, 1999.

229. Interview with Keith Henderson, July 24, 1996.

CHAPTER FIVE

    1. Interview with Marek Kozak, June 18, 1998.

    2. For a detailed description of the legal private sector, see Janine Wedel, The Private Poland: An Anthropologist’s Look at Everyday Life, New York, NY: Facts on File, 1986, pp. 53-55.

    3.  Studia i Materiały, Ośrodek Prac Społeczno-Zawodowych Krajowa Komisja NSZZ “Solidarność,” Warszawa, Poland, 1990.

    4. Leila Webster, Survey of Private Firms in Poland, Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1992.

    5. For analysis of the role of the family, see Janine R. Wedel, The Private Poland: An Anthropologist’s Look at Everyday Life, New York, NY: Facts on File, 1986, chapter 3, “The Ties that Bind”; and Jadwiga Korelewicz, “Social Differences—Feeling of Belonging—Belief in Oneself,” study directed by Edmund Wnuk-Lipiński, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, 1984.

    6. Barbara Heyns, The Dynamics of Market Transition, final report submitted to the National Council on Soviet and East European Research, Washington, D.C., July 1995.

    7. See, for example, Simon Johnson, Daniel Kaufmann, and Oleg Ustenko, “Complementarities, Formal Employment, and Survival Strategies,” prepared for the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council workshop on Economic Transformation—Households and Health, September 7-8, 1995.

    8. See, for example, Victor Nee, “Markets and Inequality: Why Marx and Smith are Both Right,” paper presented at the Conference on Inequality and Democracy, February 4-6, 1994, Rutgers University.

    9. Public Law 101-179, Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, November 28, 1989, sec 201(a).

  10. U.S. General Accounting Office, Enterprise Funds: Evolving Models for Private Sector Development in Central and Eastern Europe, Washington, D.C.: GAO, March 1994, p. 13.

  11. Polish-American Enterprise Fund, Annual Report 1991, New York, NY: Polish-American Enterprise Fund, p. 18; Hungarian-American Enterprise Fund, Annual Report 1991, Washington, D.C.: Hungarian-American Enterprise Fund, p. 5.

  12. U.S. General Accounting Office, Enterprise Funds: Evolving Models for Private Sector Development in Central and Eastern Europe, Washington, D.C.: GAO, March 1994, p. 13.

  13. Development Alternatives, Inc., Program Evaluation of the Central and Eastern Europe Enterprise Funds: Final Report, Washington, D.C.: DAI, 1995, p. 3.

  14. Ibid.

  15. Polish-American Enterprise Fund, Annual Report, 1991, p. 2.

  16. 1995 figures are from Development Alternatives, Inc., Program Evaluation of the Central and Eastern Europe Enterprise Funds: Final Report, Washington, D.C.: DAI, 1995, p. v.

The $1 billion was distributed by the Funds to the following countries: Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan (letter from USAID Enterprise Fund adviser [personal services contractor] Timothy Knowlton, May 17, 2000).

  17. Materials supplied by Polska Agencja Rozwoju Regionalnego (the Polish Agency for Regional Development), Warsaw, Poland. For a history of the Struder program, see Marek Kozak and Andrzej Pyszkowski, eds., Phare-STRUDER: A Pilot Regional Development Programme, Warsaw, Poland: Polish Agency for Regional Development, 1999.

  18. As of June 26, 1998, 1 ECU equaled $1.0925, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

  19. Interviews with Marek Kozak, director of the Polish Agency for Regional Development, June 18, 1998, and May 29, 2000; and materials provided by Kozak, May 29, 2000.

  20. Development Alternatives, Inc., Program Evaluation of the Central and Eastern Europe Enterprise funds: Final Report, Washington, D.C.: DAI, 1995, p. 10.

  21. Development Alternatives, Inc., Program Evaluation of the Central and Eastern Europe Enterprise funds: Final Report, Washington, D.C.: DAI, 1995, pp. 3-4.

  22. Ibid.

  23. Sources include Piotr Kowalski, vice president of the Enterprise Credit Corporation, Polish American Enterprise Fund, interview of April 22, 1994.

  24. Interview with Zdeněk Drábek, July 7, 1994.

  25. Development Alternatives, Inc., Program Evaluation of the Central and Eastern Europe Enterprise Funds: Final Report, Washington, D.C.: DAI, 1995, p. 2.

  26. Interview with Charles Huebner, April 25, 1994.

  27. Public Law 101-179, Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, November 28, 1989, sec 201(a).

  28. U.S. General Accounting Office, Enterprise Funds: Evolving Models for Private Sector Development in Central and Eastern Europe, Washington, D.C., GAO, March 1994, p. 30.

  29. Development Alternatives, Inc., Program Evaluation of the Central and Eastern Europe Enterprise Funds: Final Report, Washington, D.C.: DAI, 1995, p. vi.

  30. U.S. General Accounting Office, Enterprise Funds: Evolving Models for Private Sector Development in Central and Eastern Europe, Washington, D.C.: GAO, March 1994, pp. 55-57.

  31. U.S. General Accounting Office, Enterprise Funds: Evolving Models for Private Sector Development in Central and Eastern Europe, Washington, D.C.: GAO, March 1994, pp. 60-62.

  32. One program concentrating on small and medium-sized businesses was Caresbac, funded by USAID and other sources. In comparison with the Enterprise Funds, Caresbac appeared to operate with much less overhead and make more use of technical assistance resources available from Western voluntary organizations.