The dramatic transition from Communism to market economies across Asia and Europe started in the Chinese countryside in the 1970s. Since then more than a billion of people, many of them very poor, have been affected by radical reforms in agriculture. However, there are enormous differences in the reform strategies that countries have chosen. This paper presents a set of arguments to explain why countries have chosen different reform policies.

Capital account liberalization was once seen as an inevitable step along the path to economic development for poor countries. Liberalizing the capital account, it was said, would permit financial resources to flow from capital-abundant countries, where expected returns were low, to capital-scarce countries, where expected returns were high. The flow of resources into the liberalizing countries would reduce their cost of capital, increase investment, and raise output (Fischer, 1998; Summers, 2000). The principal policy question was not whether to liberalize the capital account, but when - before or after undertaking macroeconomic reforms such as inflation stabilization and trade liberalization (McKinnon, 1991). Or so the story went.

In recent years intellectual opinion has moved against liberalization. Financial crises in Asia, Russia and Latin America have shifted the focus of the conversation from when countries should liberalize to if they should do so at all. Opponents of the process argue that capital account liberalization does not generate greater efficiency. Instead, liberalization invites speculative hot money flows and increases the likelihood of financial crises with no discernible positive effects on investment, output, or any other real variable with nontrivial welfare implications (Bhagwhati, 1998; Rodrik, 1998; Stiglitz 2002).

While opinions about capital account liberalization are abundant, facts are relatively scarce. This paper tries to increase the ratio of facts to opinions. In the late 1980s and early 1990s a number of developing countries liberalized their stock markets, opening them to foreign investors for the first time. These liberalizations constitute discrete changes in the degree of capital account openness, which allow for a positive empirical description of the cost of capital, investment, and growth during liberalization episodes.

The third volume of The Cambridge History of Russia provides an authoritative political, intellectual, social and cultural history of the trials and triumphs of Russia and the Soviet Union during the twentieth century. It encompasses not only the ethnically Russian part of the country but also the non-Russian peoples of the tsarist and Soviet multinational states and of the post-Soviet republics. Beginning with the revolutions of the early twentieth century, chapters move through the 1920s to the Stalinist 1930s, World War II, the post-Stalin years and the decline and collapse of the USSR. The contributors attempt to go beyond the divisions that marred the historiography of the USSR during the Cold War to look for new syntheses and understandings. The volume is also the first major undertaking by historians and political scientists to use the new primary and archival sources that have become available since the break-up of the USSR.

• Major new history of Russia in the twentieth century, using for the first time the new primary and archival sources that have become available since the breakup of the USSR
• The approach is both chronological and thematical, dealing with large trends such as the transformation of the peasantry, urbanization, and the non-Russian peoples
• Third volume in the new three-volume Cambridge History of Russia

Objective:

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treating HIV-infected injection drug users (IDUs) and non-IDUs in Russia with highly active antiretroviral therapy HAART.

Design and Methods:

A dynamic HIV epidemic model was developed for a population of IDUs and non-IDUs. The location for the study was St. Petersburg, Russia. The adult population aged 15 to 49 years was subdivided on the basis of injection drug use and HIV status. HIV treatment targeted to IDUs and non-IDUs, and untargeted treatment interventions were considered. Health care costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) experienced in the population were measured, and HIV prevalence, HIV infections averted, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of different HAART strategies were calculated.

Results:

With no incremental HAART programs, HIV prevalence reached 64% among IDUs and 1.7% among non-IDUs after 20 years. If treatment were targeted to IDUs, over 40 000 infections would be prevented (75% among non-IDUs), adding 650 000 QALYs at a cost of USD 1501 per QALY gained. If treatment were targeted to non-IDUs, fewer than 10 000 infections would be prevented, adding 400 000 QALYs at a cost of USD 2572 per QALY gained. Untargeted strategies prevented the most infections, adding 950 000 QALYs at a cost of USD 1827 per QALY gained. Our results were sensitive to HIV transmission parameters.

Conclusions:

Expanded use of antiretroviral therapy in St. Petersburg, Russia would generate enormous population-wide health benefits and be economically efficient. Exclusively treating non-IDUs provided the least health benefit, and was the least economically efficient. Our findings highlight the urgency of initiating HAART for both IDUs and non-IDUs in Russia.