The Lithuanian Free Market Institute conducted a series of surveys among elite groups which influence the formation of economic policy in Lithuania. The commencement of the surveys almost coincided with the beginning of the parliament elected in 1992 (the first opinion poll was carried out in April-May 1993, and the latest data were collected in November-December 1995, just before the country's banking crisis). The surveys were headed by LFMI's research fellow Kęstutis Masiulis, PhD.

This and the following issues of "The Free Market" will present a summary of the most interesting and valuable research results. A book about the surveys is being prepared for publication. Its appendices will contain plenty of research material, including responses, tables, figures, plus data about the respondents' age, education, job, political preferences, etc.

The object of the surveys can be divided into the following groups: a) the political elite: parliament members and heads of the executive authorities (all in all, about 105-120 respondents); b) state officials: parliamentary and presidential advisors (about 10-20 respondents), heads of departments of the Ministries of Economy and Finance, heads of economic departments from other ministries, and ministry secretaries (about 40-60 respondents); c) the media elite: press, radio and television journalists writing on economic issues, heads of economic departments and publications, i.e. those who shape public opinion (about 30-50 respondents); d) scholars: university professors, members of private and public research institutes, lecturers and experts (about 40-60 respondents); and e) the business elite: owners, shareholders and managers of companies and financial institutions, who influence public opinion and legislation.

VALUES OF THE LITHUANIAN ELITE AND IDENTIFICATION OUTLINE

The world outlook of most of Lithuanian opinion leaders had been formed in the Soviet times, when all the economy was in the hands of the state. After the collapse of the Soviet regime, mass consciousness was overwhelmed by the wish to jettison the old inheritance, values and canons of life. Values changed rapidly. All of a sudden, it became unfashionable to be a lefty or think that the state can successfully manage the economy and the processes going on in the private sector. Under such circumstances, liberal values took root very quickly. In April 1993, the number of supporters of market economy with a large public sector and strong regulation decreased significantly (5.4%), and advocates of a centrally planned economy constituted a mere 0.3 percent.

At that time, more than half (58.2%) of Lithuanian opinion leaders supported market economy with a small public sector and weak regulation, and almost a third (30.7%) of the respondents were in favour of a shrinking public sector and regulation. According to later surveys, the number of advocates of a diminishing public sector and regulation continually declined (13.8% in early 1995, as compared to 21% in late 1993), while the numbers of opinion leaders favouring a strongly and weakly regulated economies increased. This suggests that the Lithuanian elite began to reject declarative values and to express opinions corresponding to their factual value orientation.

VALUE ATTITUDES ARE FREQUENTLY DECLARATIVE

Opinions about privatisation manifested most clearly declarativeness of the values of the Lithuanian elite. It is evident that full privatisation is a key prerequisite for ousting the state from its position of an economic agent. The respondents were asked to express their views on the desirable degree of privatisation in various sectors of economy. Although a total of 30% were in favour of a complete withdrawal of the state from the economy, full privatisation of railways was supported by a mere 8.1%, power stations and the energy sector - 5.4%, social insurance - 16.7%, cultural establishments - 13.7%, municipal public transport - 25.7%, radio and television - 24.2%, etc. These data indicate inconsistencies in the expressed opinions.

Somewhat later, the value attitudes of Lithuanian opinion leaders took a turn to the left. The same was true about the decisions on the degree and speed of privatisation and budget expenditures. For example, the number of the respondents against state financing of agriculture declined from 31.2% in April-May 1993 to 14.5% in June-May 1996; radio and television - 20.1% and 16.1%, food processing - 74.9% and 60.5%, health care - 2.2% and 0.8% respectively, etc. No wonder then that in late 1994 the parliament, postponing all urgent issues, approved a list of enterprises to be excluded from privatisation by the year 2000. This list, supplemented by the entities which, by the decision of the parliament, will remain strategic enterprises until the year 2000, shows that the government decided to retain under its control 68% of the remaining state assets.

PROMOTION OF LIBERAL IDEAS

It would be unfair to assert that the popularity of liberal ideas in Lithuania was a question of fashion or the outcome of the negation of communist ideas. In 1991 through 1993, liberal ideas were promoted in Lithuania by means of numerous educational articles, and television and radio programmes. Discussion clubs, organised in Lithuanian towns, invited people to reflect on liberal ideas and their impact on Lithuanian society and economy. Encouraging an active reappraisal of values, they became an alternative source of knowledge for Lithuanian citizens. Increasing popularity of libertarism¾the radical trend of liberalism promoting an absolute individual freedom and negation of the state¾was a natural consequence of the decades of the totalitarian regime. An entrepreneur A. Stašaitis became the staunchest proponent and a symbol of libertarian ideology.

The first educators were philosopher A. Degutis, journalist Z. Kacanauskas and writer R. Gavelis. They expatiated, in the language of merciless logic, on the losses people incur from market regulation and the abuse of official power. Founded by A. Stašaitis, the Entrepreneurs Union published the first Lithuanian translations of the works of the leading spokesmen of classical liberalism, L. Von Mises, F. Bastiat, F.A. Hayek, and H. Lepage (Lithuanian translations by A. Degutis and G. Miškinis).

ENTREPRENEURS FAVOUR PRIVELEGES

Even though the public had "abjured" the respect to the state and state institutions back in the soviet times, it was difficult to part with the illusions of the state as a planner, doer and guardian. Paradoxically, the Soviet elite was in many cases first to refute socialist principles. During the Soviet regime already, a good many of the most active party members had handled their personal life on the principle of self-interest, though they did not dare and could not declare it openly. Understandably, after the break-up of the old social order many of them were quick to reorientate, becoming active apologists for capitalism and, moreover, successful capitalists in practice.

Yet, the image of capitalists as proponents of free market is far from uniform. Empirical evidence suggests that capitalists often believe that a regulated market is much more advantageous than a free market. Even after a failure to keep up with competition, their argument goes, it is feasible to stay in business by virtue of government care and support. Profits can be generated not by means of a fierce competition in satisfying consumers' needs in a free market, but by means of privileges. It appears that oftentimes regulation mechanisms are created in response to the wishes or pressure on the part of capitalists. And it is this old elite that is best at developing and implementing regulation mechanisms which grant benefits, making it virtually impossible for others to enter the already "occupied" market, etc.

ENTERPRENEURS AND JOURNALISTS - THE MOST ZEALOUS LIBERALS

Although sometimes inconsistent, Lithuanian entrepreneurs stand out among other opinion leaders by virtue of their liberal ideas. Together with journalists, they constitute the most extreme elite group. Entrepreneurs and journalists are in favour of a rapid large-scale privatisation and reduction of government powers, and against state interference in economy. In the autumn of 1995, 79.6% of entrepreneurs and 68.6% of journalists supported a market economy with a small public sector and weak regulation. Entrepreneurs and journalists recommend liberalisation as a remedy for economic decline, the shadow sector, and corruption. They have little confidence in the Lithuanian government and litas, which manifests their right-wing orientation.

POLITICIANS AND SCHOLARS ARE THE MOST CONSERVATIVE

The opposite, leftist wing is represented by politicians and scholars. They appear to be the most socialistically conservative part of the elite, less open to innovations and reforms. Evidently, a good many parliament members had been shaped by the Soviet regime and, moreover, constituted its active element. The same is true of most of Lithuanian economists. A large public sector and strong regulation is supported mostly by politicians (8.5% in the spring of 1993 and 19.7% in the autumn of 1995) and scholars (8.1% and 23.2% respectively). Interestingly, it is the opinions of these two groups that had demonstrated a tendency to turn left during the period covered by the surveys.

Opinions of the fifth group, officials, balance between the positions of entrepreneurs and journalists on the one hand and politicians and scholars on the other. They are fairly cautious about the issues concerning radical reforms, and prefer administration mechanisms to the forces of economic self-regulation. This view is common to politicians and economists. In individual cases, however, where state regulation has become clearly impotent, officials' valuations are liberal and similar to those of journalists and entrepreneurs. In response to the question whether it is feasible to increase efficiency of public enterprises without replacing their owner, officials even surpassed journalists and entrepreneurs in terms of radicalism of opinions. But their views on tax reform appeared to be fairly moderate and similar to those of politicians and scholars. State officials also stand out among the other surveyed groups by virtue of their clear stance on almost all issues.

The contemplated types of elite are absolute and pure rather than relative. On certain issues there is virtually no differences of opinion, but if such do exist, they are more evident given respondents' age, party preferences, left-right orientation, etc. The influence of age is rather insignificant. Elderly people tend to favour government intervention in economy. They are rather reluctant to privatise individual branches of economy and display more confidence in public pensions. Young people are disposed more radically with reference to fundamental issues of economic reform. As compared to elderly respondents, however, they are more inclined to justify state support to low-income families and single mothers. Divergence of views is very conspicuous given political orientations, especially the issues disputed by parties.

OPINION LEADERS ABOUT THEIR OWN INFLUENCE

We have tried to look at whether formally selected elite groups (considering their functional belonging to a particular area of activity only) are really influential in one way or another. It is obvious that the weight and powers of the chairman of the parliament vary from those of an ordinary MP. An influential activist of a parliamentary party, even though without a parliamentary mandate, may have more impact on the country's economy than an ordinary member of the same party who has been elected to represent it in parliament. Although valuation of the real influence would require a separate research, we attempted to ascertain how opinion leaders assess their own capabilities and influence. The respondents were asked to rank themselves on levels from 1 to 10 (1 being the lowest and 10 the highest) by evaluating their position in society, possibilities to satisfy material needs, influence at work and in public activities, and power to make and implement independent decisions. In what follows you will find auto-descriptions of the elite groups under discussion.

a. Politicians are sceptical about their possibilities

Politicians, whose majority is constituted by members of parliament, placed themselves in the middle (on average, level 5) in terms of position in society. The opinion that only God is above the parliament seems to be fostered by few parliament members: only 24% of MPs ranked themselves on levels 7 to 10, and a mere 2.7% indicated levels 9 and 10. Politicians outstrip other professional elite groups in evaluating their position in society, though differences in this case are not very distinct. As compared to the supporters of other political parties, those in favour of the Labour Democratic Party (LDP) consider themselves to be in a higher position. Also, politicians surpass other elite groups in terms of influence in public activities (a mean evaluation - 4.4; levels 7 to 10 indicated by 15.7%).

Many politicians are fairly sceptical about their possibilities to satisfy material needs; on average, they position themselves on level 3.8. A total of 65.6% of the political elite think they belong on levels 1 to 4. Politicians, just like state officials, evaluate their influence at work less favourably than other groups (4.5), which implies that only a fraction of them make essential decisions. A similar assessment (4.3) of their powers to realize ideas may be also attributed to the abovementioned factor. In this case, it is only state officials that drop behind them.

The data suggest thus that the Lithuanian political scene is dominated by a tiny group. Being fairly sceptical about their position, influence and capacity to satisfy material needs, most of the elite consider themselves small spirals of a large machine. If, according to "Baltic Surveys", Lithuanians are regarded as the saddest society in Europe, the results of our polls suggest that they are also led by a melancholic political elite.

b. Entrepreneurs are the most independent

Entrepreneurs overshadow other elite groups in terms of possibilities to make independent decisions (the mean valuation 7.0) and influence at work (6.5). The business community is the most independent elite group. The image of entrepreneurs as wealthy people, which is prevalent in public opinion, is, to their mind, exaggerated. Even though entrepreneurs' evaluations of their possibilities to satisfy material needs surpass those of other elite groups (4.7), they do not paint as rosy a picture of their powers as the public does.

c. Journalists feel free and unconstrained

Journalists assess their possibilities to realize ideas much better than other elite groups (6.1). They feel as influential in public activities (4.2) as politicians, and as independent (6.3) as business people. It is a position of free and creative people. As to possibilities to satisfy material needs, journalists drop behind entrepreneurs only.

d. Officials implement other people's ideas

Officials position themselves on lower levels than other respondents in terms of all valuation indicators. Their assessment of influence at work (4.5) and realization of ideas is similar to those of politicians.

e. Scholars are the most optimistic

As compared to other elite groups, scholars stand out by virtue of high valuations of their position in society (4.9), influence at work (5.3), and power to act independently in making decisions (5.8). A total of 68% of the respondents holding a doctor's degree place themselves on levels 6 to 10 with reference to their position in society. As to possibilities to satisfy material needs, 38.5% of them marked levels 6 to 10, surpassing even entrepreneurs (22%).

VALUATIONS OF THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

The respondents were asked to evaluate, according to a scale from -10 to +10, the state of the country's economy 10 years ago, two years ago, today, in two years' and in 10 years' time. The results suggest that valuation of the past and present cause most misunderstandings. Opinions about the remote past are influenced by the respondents' psychological traits. As elite groups of different political orientations comprise a similar number of pessimists and optimists, their forecasts are very similar, too. Valuations of the past and present are subordinated by ideological considerations, while psychological motives affect opinions about the future.

Opinions of the elite about Lithuania's economy during the Soviet regime are very diverse. These differences are especially evident considering supporters of different parties. Proponents of DLP give a favourable assessment (5.7) of the economy in the remote past, while their opponents, i.e. supporters of the Conservatives, hold rather unfavourable opinions (0.4) here. The question about the past was included in three consecutive surveys, which allowed to conclude that the more we move away from the socialist past, the brighter it looks in the eyes of leftist opinion leaders (supporters of DLP: +3.3 in September-October 1994, as compared to +5.1 in May-June 1995 and +5.7 in November-December 1995). Rightists have regarded it simply as hideous (supporters of the Conservatives: -1.9 in September-October 1994; +0.5 in May-June 1995; and +0.4 in November-December 1995). Time heals the wounds. It alleviates wrongs and gloomy recollections. The present has also been gaining better and better evaluations (an average of -1.8 in November-December 1995, as compared to - 3 in May-June 1995 and -3.2 in September-October 1994).

Yet, such a growing optimism is not common to all elite groups. It is displayed mostly by politicians, especially supporters of DLP. Optimism is also increasing among journalists, scholars and government officials. It should be noted though that direct economic agents, i.e. entrepreneurs, do not seem to be changing their sceptical views on today's economy.

Advocates of DLP tend to see the consequences of their decisions through "rose-coloured spectacles", whereas their opponents¾supporters of the Conservative Party¾ through "black-coloured" ones. The average valuation of today's' economy by the former is positive (+0.8 points), and fairly negative (-3.3) by the latter. Similarly, supporters of DLP predict a rapid economic boom, and those in favour of the Conservatives and Christian Democrats postpone it until much later. Yet, remote future (in 10 years' time) seems equally bright for both sides.

Proponents of DLP trace back the biggest economic downfall to the period before their coming into power. Later, they argue, the state of economy began to improve. For the conservative-minded elite, the coming into power of DLP implies a continuous economic decline up to the present moment, while supporters of the Liberal Union (also the Centre and Christian Democratic Parties) associate DLP with a two-year economic stagnation.

WHAT HAS LITHUANIA'S EXPERIENCE TAUGHT THE ELITE?

The lessons of recent history produced different effects on Lithuanian opinion leaders. In response to the question "What would you advise the leaders of other countries who intend to embark on an economic reform programme?", half of those polled said that economy should be exposed to a more rapid and comprehensive reform than it was in Lithuania. Journalists and supporters of the Liberals are the most extreme here. A slower economic transformation would be suggested by the better part of the advocates of DLP, who attribute all Lithuania's failures to a rapid replacement of the old structures, rather than inconsistencies and delays in carrying out economic reforms.

Since the elite appears to be quite optimistic about the Lithuanian economy, the surveys aimed to ascertain what country's economic model they considered an ideal type. The questionnaire of the 1994 survey contained the following question: "What country's socio-economic order do you like?". It appeared that most of the elite prefers economic models of European countries (66%). USA and Canada were indicated by 10.7%, Japan - by 2.2%, and Israel - 0.5% of the respondents. As to Europe, preferences fall rather unevenly. A total of 32.4% of the questioned opinion leaders prefer the Scandinavian economic order (Sweden - 15.1%, Denmark - 6.9%, "Nordic countries" - 6.3%, Norway - 3%, and Finland - 1.1%), with Germany coming next (23.1%).

These data suggest that the Lithuanian elite is inclined towards the so-called "welfare states" and would choose them as an example in redesigning Lithuania's economy.

FACTORS OF THE ECONOMIC CLIMATE

The 1995 November-December survey showed that the elite considers parliamentary majority (7.1 points on a 10-point scale) and the government (7.3 points) the deciding factors in the country's economic and political life.

Yet, government and its economic policies are not hermetic; they are not proof against bigger or lesser influence. In a democratic society, influence streams through various channels. Public opinion, which is shaped by mass media and regarded as a particularly significant factor, did not gain many "points of influence" on the part the Lithuanian elite. Having received a mere 2.5, it located in the last place. Even proponents of DLP, who appear to give the most favourable valuation of public opinion, assessed it with 3.0, whereas journalists and supporters of the Conservatives were all in all sceptical about the impact of public opinion on decision-making.

The political will of the masses who lose elections is represented in parliament by the opposition and non-parliamentary parties. It appears though that these factors do not exercise much influence, either. The parliamentary opposition is assessed by an average of 2.5, while the influence of political parties with 3.1.

According to the elite thus, the key channels of influence on, and control of, government are fairly ineffective. They do not allow the slightest penetration of alternative economic policy ideas, whose influence on democratic government is crucial and beneficial in every way.

The results of the surveys lend support to a claim that non-public channels of influence become more "permeable" as public ones get "jammed". The country's economic policy receives significant impulses from lobby groups (entrepreneurs and business organisations - 4.0 points; other lobbies - 3.1 points). According to the surveys, stable business structures surpass political parties in terms of impact on politics. Organised crime, in turn, overshadow even business organisations (4.0).

External factors are believed to have effect on the economic climate, too. Western countries, according to the elite, exercise more influence on Lithuania's economy than Eastern ones (4.2 and 3.6 points respectively). For supporters of DLP, the influence of the East seems to be even lesser (2.6). Somewhat afraid of the East, conservative-minded respondents hold that it influences economic policy of Lithuania to a greater extent than the West (4.1 and 3.9 respectively).

We suppose that the influence of the East on Lithuania's economy is attributed first of all to a favourable trade regime and direct supply levers. Western countries, in turn, impose their ways by virtue of loan and support policies, the principles of participation in international organisations, the examples of their economic structure, and visiting advisors (experts).

FOREIGN EXPERTS ARE OF DOUBTFUL BENEFIT

The 1994 September-October survey helped to gauge the elite's opinions about the benefit of foreign experts and their capacity to give competent advice. Many of the respondents (64.3%) think that only a fraction of foreign advisors proves useful for Lithuania. Their accomplishments enjoyed a higher appreciation on the part of officials and parliament members than scholars, entrepreneurs or journalists. A mere 12.1% of the Lithuanian elite thinks that economic advisors (or most of them) are fairly well familiar with Lithuania's economy. The prevailing opinion is that they lack understanding of actual problems and therefore are not competent enough to provide assistance.

Comparison of the respondents' attitudes towards foreign advisors with their confidence in local experts suggests that the elite would confide in foreigners more than in experts from Lithuanian governmental institutes, but less than in non-government organisations. Mixed expert groups are considered to be the most reliable - a total of 80% of Lithuanian opinion leaders would delegate such groups with the task of building up the conception of the country's economic reform.

VALUATIONS OF ECONOMIC REFORM

The respondents assess the economic policies pursued by the DLP administration rather negatively. The general orientation of economic reforms received a positive valuation from 24.5%, and a negative or very negative valuation from 51.9% of the surveyed opinion leaders. A total of 21.7% declared themselves neutral. The DLP administration received the most favourable assessments on the part of politicians (43.9% of favourable and 14% of neutral valuations). Given the current composition of the parliament, such views are natural. In terms of professional groups, the worst opinions about the general direction of economic reforms are expressed by journalists (72.4%), business people (59.2% of negative valuations), and scholars (53.7%).

Most of the respondents would call the economic reforms conducted by DLP chaotic (56.9%) and their results negative (60.9%). Only 17.5% expressed favourable opinions about the outcomes of the reforms, with 21.1% being neutral. A mere 5% of the respondents think that the economic reform strategy is well thought-out and clear-cut, while 33.7% tend to consider it vague and underdeveloped. And again only politicians assess positively both the strategy (50%) and results (32.7%) of the reform. Opinions of the remaining professional groups are negative (journalists, 70.8% and 70.9% respectively; entrepreneurs, 66% and 68.3%; scholars, 53.7% and 64.2%; and state officials, 56.2% and 60.4%).

It does not come as a surprise that 88.5% of the respondents supporting DLP assess positively the general orientation of today's economic policies. The reform strategy receives favourable valuations from 84.2% and the results from 70.2% of the respondents. Yet, most of them consider the government's strategy badly thought-out.

The orientation of the economic reform pursued by the Šleževičius administration received the most favourable valuation from the supporters of the Social Democrats (31.6%), and the strategy - from the supporters of Social Democrats (46.2%) and the Centre Party (44.4%). The outcomes are evaluated positively only by the advocates of DLP.

Valuations of the ongoing economic reforms by area show that only monetary reform has been assessed positively (+2.3 and +3.5 points). According to the latest survey, opinions are also favourable with reference to import and export (+1.2). All the other reforms received negative or the lowest positive grades.

The most ineffective reforms, according to the elite, include the reforms of law and order, taxation, privatisation, and social security. Most of the economic reforms are assessed negatively, though not with the worst points. Although the elite does not seem to approve of the economic policies pursued by DLP, they are not considered catastrophic.

Naturally, supporters of DLP hold the most favourable opinion about the effects of their own decisions, while the opposition, i.e. the Conservatives, is the most resentful. Differences in their valuations range from 5 to 8 points.

Opinions about the economic reform pursued by DLP vary with reference to the respondents' seniority. Younger respondents appear to be quite bitter, whereas older ones express more positive views. Economic freedom, for example, is evaluated -2.5 by the respondents of 20-29 years of age, and +2.0 by the respondents of 60 years of age and above. The tax system is assessed -4.5 and +0.5 respectively; state governance, -2.1 and +0.5.

VALUATION OF ADMINISTRATIONS

The economic policy of the DLP administration is not, according to the elite, the worst alternative for Lithuania. Comparison of five administrations which realistically functioned in Lithuania reveals that the Vagnorius administration was considered the worst (-0.8 points on a -10-+10-point scale).

All the administrations are evaluated with fairly low points: the Prunskienė administration with +1.8; Vagnorius, -0.8; Abišala, +0.5; Lubys, +0.2; and Šleževičius, +0.3. These generalisations, however, do not reflect the real opinions, which are very diverse and polarised.

Political preferences are marked by the biggest differences in opinion. Supporters of political parties and their satellites tend to assess "their own" administrations most positively, and their opponents' most negatively. Proponents of DLP evaluated the Šleževičius administration with +5.3, while the conservatives gave it only -4.7; the Lubys administration, +1.7 and -1.1 respectively; and the Vagnorius administration, -5.5 and +4.9.

All the elite groups, except journalists, give the highest ranking to the Prunskienė administration. Journalists give the laurels to the Abišala administration. The Prunskienė administration received fairly high points from the supporters of the Centre Party, Liberal Union, DLP, and Social Democrats. The Abišala administration was favoured most by the advocates of the Christian Democrats and Centrists; Vagnorius by the advocates of the Conservatives and Christian Democrats. The Lubys and Šleževičius administrations were supported only by the advocates of DLP and partly Social Democrats.

The Vagnorius administration enjoyed a higher assessment (+0.6) only on the part of officials, who, as it appears, hold even more favourable opinions about the Prunskienė administration (+2.1). Politicians and scholars expressed positive views about the Lubys and Šleževičius administrations. Entrepreneurs, in turn, remember kindly only Ms. Prunskienė (+2.1).

THE ELITE ABOUT PRIVATISATION

The strategy of slow transformation, which is promoted by DLP and was supported by the majority of citizens in the 1992 parliamentary elections, is unacceptable for many opinion leaders. Most of the elite is in favour of quick and comprehensive changes. Half of them would recommend other countries in transition to choose a more comprehensive liberalisation. Less than one third of the elite would suggest a policy of slow changes advocated by DLP.

However, changes in opinion are underway. During the 1993 November-December survey, 60.5% of the elite were in favour of a more rapid privatisation, and 58.5% considered the degree of privatisation too small. During the 1995 May-June survey, 48.8% of the respondents suggested taking time with the second-stage privatisation, 12.9% would carry it out slowly, and only 20.5% of the elite would approve of quick privatisation.

The above results manifest public disappointment in privatisation. That the elite has being demonstrating a tendency to support a diminishing degree of privatisation may be attributed to the bad experience with the initial privatisation, too. As journalists are the strongest supporters of quick changes (72.3%), the press vehemently attacks the ways DLP is handling economy.

The most serious deficiencies of the Lithuanian economic reform in the eyes of the majority of the elite are:
(1) incoherency and inconsistency; and
(2) insufficient liberalisation.

In other words, most of Lithuanian opinion leaders criticise the course of reforms from rightist, or liberal, positions.

The respondents' ideas about improving the course of economic reform are also fairly inconsistent: they would liberalise the situation of economic entities on the one hand and grant privileges for the selected on the other. Although we are witnessing such "economic policies" every day, a good many opinion leaders, it appears, would utilise them to attain better results.

The surveys ascertained that the respondents strongly support the ideas of transferring all the assets remaining under ministerial ownership to a special management fund, and leaving ministries with the functions of representing the interests of the state and regulating the market. These ideas are supported fully by 39.8% and partly by 39.3% of the elite. Only 11.9% of the respondents were against it. Journalists are the strongest advocates of this idea (56.3% being for, 35.4% partly for, and 0% against), and officials are its biggest opponents (28.9%, 32.2% and 26.7% respectively). Quite unexpectedly, this idea was supported by a number of politicians (members of parliament) (40.2%, 43.9% and 10.3% respectively). Thus, the projects providing for the establishment of a state capital management fund are very likely to return to the parliament and may expect a large-scale approval on the part of the elite. Also, the elite seems to support the opinion that state assets designated for privatisation should be entrusted to a special institution responsible for further privatisation. Such a decision would render privatisation more automatic. Now that the ministries have a possibility to decide on the release of assets for privatisation, to prepare information for disclosure and to estimate property, privatisation is facing more obstacles that incentives.