The paper in question:
Seven pages of statistical data linked below were appended to the 14-page paper. Some additional oral remarks to the written text included the following.
Was the surgery of transition a rational choice? In a most important sense there was not any choice. The surgery was indispensable for an adjustment to the conditions of survival in a global economy. But there were also several destructive adjustment processes. The surgery might have been done in a better way. Actually, some healthy tissues were cut off that meant negative discontinuity. Some sick organs were left intact that meant negative continuity. Nevertheless, the improvement is significant. Hungary is among the leaders in speed of economic-social-political transformation. The leaders in change are also leaders in growth.
The changeover occurs high costs. The new members will be unable to abide by the Maastricht criteria for a middle-long period of time.The advanced part of Europe may slow down the process of transformation or may speed it up. Recently the Community is allocating its transfers mainly to its old member states. The Community seems to be unwilling to invest more into its prospective new members because of the vested interests of net receivers in countries having adhered to the Community in previous expansions. But with some more (additional) allocations to new members a support multiplicator would work and induce more national accumulation and international private capital influx. As far as EU assistance is limited, new members should be allowed to reach European conditions in a flexible way which doesn’t mean that the period of necessary changes would be stretched along for an infinite number of years.
Following the oral presentation some 70 messages asked for more copies of the written text.
Links to the Appendix pages from A thru F (appa thru appf):