A command economy is a way of organizing the life of a country in which land, capital and almost all resources are in state ownership. Such a system is well known to the inhabitants of the former Soviet Union. This is not surprising, because many of the states that were part of it have not been able to change it for several decades.
History of education
The command economy is a system that emerged as a result of a series of socialist revolutions that took place under the Marxist ideological banner. Its final model in the modern sense was developed by the communist leaders: first by V. I. Lenin, and then by I. V. Stalin. In the fifties and eighties of the last century, the period of the greatest dawn of the socialist camp fell. At that time, more than thirty percent of the inhabitants of the planet lived in its constituent countries. In this regard, it is not surprising that, according to many scientists, the command economy is the biggest economic experiment on Earth in the history of mankind. At the same time, many of the researchers forget that it began with the harsh suppression of the slightest civil liberties, and its implementation entailed huge sacrifices.
Marxist theory
Based on the theory of Karl Marx, the only way to significantly improve the well-being and well-being of mankind is to eliminate such a thing as private property, eliminate any manifestations of competition and carry out all state activities solely on the basis of a generally binding plan. At the same time, it should be developed by the government on the basis of scientific data. It is on such positions that the roots of this theory can be found as early as the Middle Ages, in the works of the authors of the so-called social utopias. Then such ideas failed, but at the beginning of the twentieth century, after the formation of the socialist camp, the government of the Soviet Union began their practical implementation.
signs
The main feature of a command economy is the shortage of some (or even many) goods. If they are on sale, then, regardless of the place of sale, as a rule, they do not differ from each other in quality. The government in this case proceeds from the assumption that the buyer will still buy what is. Thus, it is not surprising that there is no need to manufacture more expensive products and build similar stores on every street.
The next sign of a command economy is the absolute absence of an overabundance of manufactured goods under any conditions. The explanation for this is very simple and lies in the fact that the government of a state with such a system will under no circumstances allow the irrational use of its own resources.
It should also be noted that a country with such an economic system provides constant support to state-owned enterprises. It is expressed by a clear planning of break-even sales markets, a loyal tax policy, as well as constant subsidies. Another essential feature of a command economy is the highly expedient use of labor resources in the enterprises mentioned above. This fact can be explained by the fact that, due to the absence of excess production, the need for personnel processing and overtime appointments is leveled.
Ownership in a command economy
For countries in which a command economic system operates, it is typical that all production organizations are in the hands of government bodies. At the same time, there are enterprises with municipal or national property. Cooperatives also have their place in the system. At the same time, the latter form of ownership does not apply to production companies that make a profit. It applies only to such business entities that can provide individual benefits to citizens. This includes housing stocks, preschools, garages, and so on.
disadvantages
Almost all the problems of a command economy come from the fact that the highest power of the country exercises control over production. At the same time, all subjects of the state economy, in fact, are in equal conditions and rights. This leads to the fact that even the slightest inclinations of a competitive environment are reduced to zero. Based on the fact that this will not bring more material results, the desire of entrepreneurs to improve the quality of their products is also leveled. Due to the fact that all goods produced in the country are more or less evenly distributed among all regions, the wages of the working class are in the most equalized state possible. Thus, the desire of the personnel of enterprises to improve the quality of their own work is out of the question. The whole problem in this case boils down to the fact that no matter how hard a person works, he will not receive wages that go beyond the salary in one category or another.
Positive sides
Despite all the negative aspects of the system discussed earlier, there are some advantages of the command economy. Its main "plus" can be called the absence of the need for financial and labor costs to promote products on the market. Based on the fact that the government is a monopolist in the commercial market, there is no competition. In other words, the goods will be sold in any case, since there is a state quota.
Another great advantage of the planned-command economic system is the absence of class stratifications within society. In connection with the relatively equal wages, in any state where it dominates, there are no both too rich citizens and poor people. It would also be correct to note that many of the problems characteristic of a market economy can be easily solved by the planning-command method.
Population life
The command economic system has nothing to do with basic human needs. The circulation of products in society is arranged quite simply. The decision on the production of goods and their sectoral distribution is taken only by the government. In all regions of the country, products are distributed on the basis of the idea that the population of each of them evenly consumes not only essential goods (including food and medicine), but also clothing and household appliances in full accordance with the volumes produced. As practice shows, this kind of approach cannot be called correct, because those goods that are not in demand at all in one area may be vital in the neighboring region. Even such features of the command economy did not prevent it from flourishing very successfully even in many strong states. As for the well-being of citizens, the salary of each working person is proportional to the volume of his work. At the same time, the average salary in such countries is at a rather low level.
Examples of countries with command economies
The very first and most famous state in history in a command economy is the Soviet Union, which switched to it back in 1917. The peak of the development of such a system fell on the fifties of the last century. At that time, a terrible industrial crisis reigned on the planet. In this regard, the USSR, Cuba, China and other socialist countries have become vivid examples of this way of organizing the economic life of the state. At present, it is difficult to judge and unequivocally answer how effective it was at that moment. On the one hand, the industry fell into a catastrophically difficult state, which could not be settled by the mere correlation of supply and demand, and on the other hand, it was difficult to find a more rational way to overcome the current situation than state intervention.
Be that as it may, the best indicator of the quality of the economic systems of that time is the rate of GDP growth in the first decades after the war. If we analyze them, we can see that the capitalist Western European states were many steps ahead of the countries of the socialist camp in this indicator. Over time, the gap in their level of development only increased.
Exit difficulties
The planned-command development of the Soviet Union, which lasted more than eighty years, led to the fact that the real level of the state of the state at the beginning of the nineties of the last century was, to put it mildly, deplorable. This was expressed in the very low quality and uncompetitiveness of manufactured products, a decrease in the well-being and life expectancy of the population, the obsolescence of the manufacturing sector, as well as severe environmental pollution. The main reason for all this was the peculiarities of the command economy, which were discussed in more detail earlier.
Be that as it may, the process of transition to a market economic system is not as simple and fast as it might seem at first glance. No state can become successful for several years. In this regard, in theory there is the concept of the so-called transitional economy. It is characterized by uncertainty, instability and changes in the entire economic structure of the state. Something similar can be observed now in some countries of the former socialist bloc.
Conclusion
Summing up, it should be noted that the command economy is a way of organizing state life, which is often called socialism. Within its framework, the government plays a monopolistic role in regulating the economic life of the country. It is the government that decides on the volume of production of a particular type of product, as well as its value on the market. With all this, such data are established not on the basis of a real supply and demand ratio, but solely on the basis of long-term statistical data, on the basis of which plans are established. Although such a model of state development has some advantages, as practice shows, in a market economy and competition, any country develops much more efficiently.
What will be the state of the economy in the country depends on many factors. One of them is the economic system chosen by the government. A command economy is beneficial for the state. We propose to find out what characterizes a command economy.
What is a command economy?
This type of economy is the opposite of a market economy, where production, pricing, investment are taken by the owners of the means of production on the basis of their own interests, and not in relation to general planning. A command economy is an economic system in which the state controls the economy. In the system with it, the government makes all decisions regarding the production and use of goods and services.
Signs of a command economy
The government of each country must understand what is characteristic of a command economy:
- Excessive influence of the government on the economy. The state is rigidly involved in the regulation of production, distribution and exchange of products.
- Specific plans for the production of certain products are established.
- Excessive centralization of production (more than 90% of enterprises are state property).
- Producer dictatorship.
- bureaucracy in the administration.
- Direction of a significant part of scarce resources to the needs of the military-industrial complex.
- Low product quality.
- The use of administrative methods of orders, commodity requirements.
Where does the command economy exist?
It is known that the command economy exists in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The country is a sovereign socialist state representing the interests of the entire people. The power here belongs to the workers and the intelligentsia. For the reason that the country does not maintain its own economic statistics, all data on the state of the economy are expert estimates from other countries. After the reforms in agriculture, family businesses began to appear here. The area suitable for agricultural use is more than 20%.
How is a market economy different from a command economy?
Economists say that a command economy and a market economy have many differences:
- Production. If the command economy imposes its own will and specifies how much and for whom to produce, then the market economy strives for stability through dialogue between all participants in the process.
- Capital. In a command economy, fixed assets are under the control of the state, while in a market economy they are in the hands of private business.
- Incentives to develop. The command system is designed to realize the will of the ruling power, and the market economy generates competition.
- Making decisions. The command system does not consider it necessary to reckon with others, and the market economy takes responsible steps through a dialogue between the authorities and society.
- Pricing. The market economy provides for the free formation of prices based on supply and demand. As for the administrative model, it can be formed at the expense of goods prohibited for circulation. The command system independently forms prices.
Pros and Cons of a Command Economy
It is known that the command nature of the economy has not only disadvantages, but also advantages. Among the positive aspects of this type of economy is the possible creation of confidence in the future and the social security of the population. Among the shortcomings is low labor productivity, as a result of hindering the development of economic initiative.
Command economy - pluses
It is customary to highlight the following advantages of a command economy:
- Very convenient management - the possibility of total administrative control. This type of economy is impeccable from the point of view of power.
- The command economy creates illusions of stability and social security of the population, confidence in the future.
- A very high level of morality is brought up and maintained.
- Funds and resources are concentrated in the most significant areas.
- Guaranteed employment of the population - there is no need to worry about your future and the future of children.
Command economy - cons
This type of economy has many disadvantages. The following are the disadvantages of a command economy:
- The inflexibility of the command-administrative system - it can very slowly adapt to any changes, it is hardly able to respond to the peculiarities of local conditions. The result is the same type of template approaches to solving economic problems.
- Imperfect labor relations.
- Low labor productivity due to obstacles to the development of economic initiative and lack of productive labor.
- Constant shortage of food and consumer goods.
- The fall in the pace of economic development, the generation of stagnation in production and an acute political crisis. As a result, the existence of the state itself may be in jeopardy.
Method of pricing in a command economy
The method of pricing in this type of economy is the setting of prices for many goods in a centralized manner by state authorities. This is the essence of a command economy. One of its advantages of this method is the absence of crises and the stable development of the economy. The disadvantages of the command economy are the disinterest of producers in the efficiency of their work, the decrease in the manageability of the national economy. In addition, one of the disadvantages is the constant shortage of goods and immunity to scientific and technological progress.
The debate about which economic model is more profitable and efficient has been going on for decades. As objective data show, there is no ideal structure of the national economy. These models are nowhere reproduced in their pure form, but the desire to build them largely determines the policy of states. It is generally accepted throughout the civilized world that a mixed economy is the ideal option. The more its functions are at the mercy of civil society and private business, the better.
command economy- This is a type of economic system based on nationalization, the dominant role of the state. The needs of society are determined by the planning of production, which is not always objective. Prices for products are set by the state and, as a rule, do not depend on market conditions. Private property is kept to a minimum, while the priority is given to the state.
Market economy- This is a type of economic system in which the leading role is played by private business.
Difference between command and market economy
The role of the state is reduced to a minimum, it acts as a "night watchman", fighting only with the monopolization of the national economy, overproduction, dumping and other negative factors. The quantity of goods, prices, target groups are formed by the market. Both state and private property are on an equal footing, and all contradictions and disputes are resolved in a civil law manner.
Comparison
Command-administrative and market economies have their advantages and disadvantages. As practice shows, the first type gives rise to corruption, a shortage of products and kills freedom of choice, since decisions on the release of goods and their distribution are made by a narrow circle of people. However, the command economy does not allow for the social stratification of society, but this is “equality in poverty”.
The market economy gives a chance to become famous and earn a lot of money. Her motto - "Get rich or die trying" has become a kind of symbol of the new time. However, the market gives rise to social tension, overproduction, constant struggle between competitors, which often becomes uncivilized. At the moment, it is the market economy that has shown greater viability and a tendency to develop.
Conclusions TheDifference.ru
- Production. The market strives for stability through dialogue and consensus between all participants in the game, the administrative economy rigidly imposes its will and indicates when, how much and for whom to produce.
- Capital. In a market economy, fixed assets are in the hands of private business, in a command alternative, they are under the control of the state.
- Stimulus for development. The market generates competition, while the command-administrative system implements the political will of the ruling power.
- Making decisions. In a market economy, important steps are taken through a dialogue between society and government, the command system does not take into account the opinions of other political actors.
- Pricing and the black market. A free economy presupposes the free formation of prices based on supply and demand. The administrative model is formed only at the expense of goods prohibited for circulation (weapons, drugs, etc.). The command-administrative system, on the contrary, sets prices itself, which inevitably leads to the emergence of a “black market”, where goods are presented at their real cost.
command economy
C page 3
There are two polar mechanisms for the distribution of resources: a command (centrally planned) economy, when all decisions on the use of resources and the distribution of products are made by the will of a single central body, and a market economy, when the distribution of resources is carried out by independent decisions and actions of independent economic agents. In a command economy, what, how and for whom to produce is decided by the central government. How about a market economy? After all, economic agents, when making certain decisions, are guided only by their own interests. If these decisions are not coordinated by society, then how can society influence them. However, the attentive reader of the previous three parts has probably already guessed - through prices.
There are two polar mechanisms for the distribution of resources: a command (centrally planned) economy, when all decisions on the use of resources and the distribution of products are made by the will of a single central body, and a market economy, when the distribution of resources is carried out by independent decisions and actions of independent economic agents. In a command economy, what, how and for whom to produce is decided by the central government. But what about the market economy. After all, economic agents, when making certain decisions, are guided only by their own interests.
Task 7227 Both in the market and in the team
If these decisions are not coordinated by society, then how can society influence them. However, an attentive reader of the previous three issues of ES has probably already guessed - through prices.
Incentive motives for work act as the initial phase of labor processes. In the conditions of a command economy, the socially useful activity of members of society was based, on the one hand, on administrative coercion, and on the other hand, on the absence of real alternative sources of livelihood for the vast majority of citizens.
Similar problems are faced by a society that solves the problems of what - how - for whom to produce BY COMMAND, ORDER. In the conditions of the command economy in which we were and from which we are moving to the market, the state, represented by its administrative bodies (ministries, committees), made decisions on the production and distribution of any product.
Psychology Personality, the psychology of human behavior, sociology are needed by society to the extent that democracy is developed in it. The bureaucratic dictatorship of the command economy does not need them.
Markets play a role in allocating resources in any economy, but no economy relies solely on markets. For example, in a command economy, all decisions about production and consumption are made by the state, while in a free market economy, on the contrary, the state plays no role in the allocation of resources. A purely market or purely command economy exists, but only in the minds of ideologues or politicians. Any modern society is based on a mixed economy, combining market relations and public administration.
Which of the two economic systems can best serve the interests of the consumer. Whose interests are protected by the command economy in the first place: the state or the consumer.
The mechanisms of the command economy have been completely dismantled, the general shortage of goods and services has disappeared, and their range has been significantly expanded.
The experience of the USSR showed that the command economy, where the crime rate is the lowest, is effective only in years of severe trials.
The absence of a spontaneous market mechanism inevitably leads, they argue, to the emergence of an inflexible and bureaucratic system of management and planning, the purpose of which is production for the sake of production. By defining the economic system of socialism as a command economy, bourgeois economists falsify the goals of socialist production, distort the essence of centralized planning and economic management, and misinterpret the role of commodity-money relations under socialism. The non-class approach to the characterization of the state, characteristic of bourgeois political economy, manifests itself in ignoring the social nature of the socialist state as a state of the whole people. The command economy theory proceeds primarily from an unscientific interpretation of the centralization of economic life under socialism, considering it apart from social ownership of the means of production, which determines both a high level of centralization and its democratic character. The planned organization and management of the socialist economy is in fact based on the Leninist principles of democratic centralism in economic management, which is a combination of centralized leadership with the development of creative initiative and the energy of the broadest masses. Command economy theorists, denying the objective nature of the economic laws of socialism, identifying objectivity with spontaneity, ignore the fundamental differences between commodity-money relations under socialism and capitalist market relations.
It commands all economic resources and has sole power to decide what, how and for whom to produce. Therefore, such a system is often called a command economy.
This was due to the fact that in a command economy, inflation in the open form, manifested in the growth of the general price level, was small. However, latent inflation took place during the decades of the command economy and manifested itself in the presence of a shortage of goods and the existence of the so-called black market with prices higher than official ones.
This was due to the fact that in a command economy, inflation in the open form, manifested in the growth of the general price level, was small. However, latent inflation took place during the decades of the command economy and manifested itself in the presence of a shortage of goods and the existence of the so-called black market with prices higher than official ones.
Miss-Hayek were used by supporters of the theories of a centrally controlled economy and a command economy. The theory of a centrally controlled economy, put forward by V.
The low efficiency of administrative-command type IS was largely due to the fact that there was practically no transfer of knowledge and technologies through the knowledge carriers themselves, i.e. through people. This was due, in particular, to the fact that in the command economy there was extremely low both intersectoral and regional mobility of personnel.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Economic systems- this is a set of interrelated economic elements that form a certain integrity, the economic structure of society; the unity of relations that develop over the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of economic goods.
Economic systems
Modern economic systems
The use of resources to meet needs is subject to economic goals pursued by the subjects of economic relations in their economic activities.
Economic the purpose of the consumer is to maximize the satisfaction of all needs.
Economic purpose of the firm profit maximization or cost minimization.
The main economic goals of modern society are: economic growth, increased efficiency of production, full employment and socio-economic stability.
The fundamental questions of economics: What, how and for whom to produce, in order to achieve the above goals, are solved differently in different economic systems.
To distinguish these systems, two main criteria are used:
- form of ownership of the means of production (Means and objects of labor);
- the way of coordinating and managing economic activity;
With a high degree of conditionality, one can single out a model of a traditional, command-administrative (centralized) and market economy.
Traditional economic system
Traditional economy based on tradition transmitted from generation to generation. These traditions determine what goods and services are produced, for whom, and how. The list of benefits, production technology and distribution are based on the customs of a given country. The economic roles of members of society are determined by heredity and caste.
This type of economy has survived today in some underdeveloped countries, where technical progress penetrates with great difficulty, since it, as a rule, undermines the customs and traditions established in these countries.
Characteristic features of traditional economies:
- Weak development of engineering and production technologies;
- A large share of manual labor in all sectors of the economy;
- Insignificant role in the traditional economy of entrepreneurship, including small business with a constant increase in the scale of activities of large divisions;
- The predominance of traditions and customs in all aspects of the life of society.
Market economic system
The main features of the capitalist economy:
Market economy characterized by private property on resources and using the system of markets and prices to coordinate and manage economic activity. What, how and for whom to produce is determined by the market through the mechanism of supply and demand.
In the capitalist system, material resources are owned by private individuals. The right to enter into binding legal contracts allows individuals to dispose of their material resources as they wish.
The manufacturer seeks to produce ( WHAT?) those products that satisfy the needs of the buyer and bring him the greatest profit. The consumer himself decides what product to buy and how much money to pay for it.
Since, under conditions of free competition, the establishment of prices does not depend on the producer, then the question " AS?"to produce, the economic subject of the economy responds with the desire to produce products at lower costs than its competitor in order to sell more due to lower prices. The use of technological progress and various management methods contribute to the solution of this problem.
Question " FOR WHOM?" is decided in favor of consumers with the highest income.
In such an economic system, the government does not interfere in the economy. Its role is reduced to the protection of private property, the establishment of laws that facilitate the functioning of free markets.
Command economic system
A command or centralized economy is the opposite of a market economy. It is based on state ownership of all material resources.
Market and command economy in the firm and the state
Hence, all economic decisions are made by state bodies through centralized (directive planning).
For every enterprise the production plan provides for what and in what volume to produce, certain resources are allocated, thereby the state decides how to produce, not only suppliers, but also buyers are indicated, that is, the question is decided for whom to produce.
The means of production are distributed among branches on the basis of long-term priorities determined by the planner.
Mixed economic system
Today it is impossible to speak about the presence in this or that state in its pure form of one of the three models. In most modern developed countries, there is a mixed economy that combines elements of all three types.
A mixed economy involves the use of the regulatory role of the state and the economic freedom of producers. Entrepreneurs and workers move from industry to industry by their own decision, not by government directives. The state, in turn, implements antimonopoly, social, fiscal (tax) and other types of economic policy, which to some extent contributes to the economic growth of the country and an increase in the living standards of the population.
Major economic systems
Test #1: An increase in the scale of aggregate production and consumption in a country is called: economic growth
| Slice of knowledge for chapter number 3
Test #1:
3) supply is equal to demand; 4) the price of the goods is equal to its cost;
|
In both market and command economies
3) an increase in production; 4) decrease in the number of borrowers;
- In accordance with the legislation on the protection of consumer rights, a consumer is recognized:
- citizen; 2) legal entity;
3) state body; 4) body of local self-government;
- The content of the consumer's right to information does not include:
- information about the manufacturer and seller of the goods being sold;
- information about the goods themselves;
- about the mode of the seller;
- about wages;
1) consumption; 2) profit;
3) investment; 4) capital;
- Consumer spending on goods and services is called:
- consumption; 2) production; 3) taxation; 4) living wage;
Answer: ______________
- Find in the list the methods of direct state regulation of the economic sphere and circle the numbers under which they are indicated:
- monetary policy; 2) adoption of laws;
3) expansion of state orders; 4) budget policy;
5) development of the public sector; 6) taxation;
- The rate of interest at which the central bank lends to commercial banks is called _________________________ _______________________.
- Insert missing terms. “Signs of entrepreneurial activity include:
- it is an initiative and __________ activity,
- is an activity aimed at obtaining ___________,
- the entrepreneur himself, his _________ is responsible for the results of his activities,
- it's a risky activity."
Slice of knowledge for chapter number 3
Test #2:
- A company whose authorized capital is divided into a certain number of shares is called:
- fellowship of faith; 2) a joint-stock company;
3) a production cooperative; 4) a limited liability company;
- An issuance security that secures the rights of its owner to receive part of the profit of a legal entity in the form of dividends, to participate in the management of a legal entity and to part of the property remaining after its liquidation is called:
- bond; 2) a bill; 3) a share; 4) privatization check;
- Long-term investment in any enterprises:
- investment; 2) final product; 3) added value; 4) capitalization;
- The price cut is called:
- inflation; 2) deflation; 3) investment; 4) income;
- The gross market value of final goods and services produced during the year based on the application of national factors of production is called:
- gross national product; 2) gross domestic product;
3) national income; 4) aggregate demand;
- Organization issuing securities:
- Issue of securities:
1) issue; 2) commission; 3) offer; 4) acceptance;
- Buyer of securities:
1) investor; 2) issuer; 3) firm; 4) exchange;
- Non-profit organizations created to organize the trading of securities:
- stock exchanges; 2) commodity exchanges;
3) joint-stock companies; 4) funds;
- The rivalry between sellers and buyers for the right to make the best use of their economic resources is called:
- cooperation; 2) competition; 3) corporation; 4) monopoly;
4) increase in the number of borrowers;
- A decrease in the volume of required reserves placed with the central bank leads to:
- an increase in the money supply; 2) a decrease in money from banks for lending;
3) an increase in the cost of credit; 4) decrease in the number of borrowers;
- The state budget of the Russian Federation is adopted:
- the President of the Russian Federation; 2) the Government of the Russian Federation;
3) the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation; 4) the Ministry of Finance;
- Direct taxes do not include:
- personal income tax; 2) income tax;
3) property tax; 4) value added tax;
- Indirect taxes do not include (are):
- tax from the owner of vehicles; 2) turnover tax;
3) customs duties; 4) sales tax;
- The minimum means to support human life is called:
- per capita consumption;
- consumer basket;
- living wage;
- the minimum wage;
- The minimum set of food products, non-food products and services necessary to maintain human health and ensure its vital activity:
- consumer basket;
- living wage;
- the minimum wage;
- per capita consumption;
1) construction; 2) wholesale trade;
3) retail trade;
4) insurance activities;
5) agriculture;
6) mechanical engineering;
7) metallurgy;
8) consulting in the field of jurisprudence;
9) banking activities;
Answer: ____________
- Specify the conditions of the employment contract that are among the mandatory.
- consent to enter (take) a job;
- establishment of a probationary period;
- place of work;
- nature of work (qualification, specialty, position);
- working hours; 6) salary;
7) establishment of additional days for vacation;
Answer: ___________ Add a document to your blog or website
Firms are owned by shareholders
In a command economy, the question of what goods and services should be produced is decided by:
consumers;
state;
foreign investors;
no correct answers
What questions does the economic system solve?
what, where, for whom
when, why and who
what, how, for whom to produce
what are the causes of unemployment and inflation
The main questions of economics - what, how and for whom to produce are related:
Only to the administrative-command system;
Only to a market economy;
Only to the traditional economy;
to any economic system.
In a command economy, distribution is...
based on directive state planning
decentralized
centrally
based on the "invisible hand" mechanism
The market as an economic form of organization of social production does not allow ...
create savings
guarantee equal income for all producers
communicate with buyers and sellers
take advantage of the social division of labor
The criteria for distinguishing between types of economic systems are:
form of ownership of the factors of production;
government intervention;
the level of well-being of members of society;
the rate of inflation and unemployment.
The characteristic features of the American model of a mixed economy include ...
dominance of public property
government and private sector coordination
business promotion
strong social policy
The traditional economy is characterized by...
economic freedom, perfect competition
customary distribution of goods
dominance of state ownership, lack of competition
isolation, low productivity
When economic problems are solved partly through the market mechanism and partly through government intervention, such an economy is called:
traditional;
Command;
market;
Mixed.
"one. Introduction to Economic Theory: 1.6 Property: Forms and Ways of Their Transformation”
Property is:
a thing belonging to another person;
income received by the employee from all types of activities;
relations between people regarding the appropriation and use of the conditions and results of production;
this is the sum of the goods of life necessary for the reproduction of the labor force.
The rights of ____ are included in the triad of basic powers of ownership
governance, sovereignty and security
ownership, management and residual income
possession, use and management
use, management and sovereignty
The right to own, in contrast to the right to use in its classical economic content, expresses ...
Possibility of alienation of funds and results of production
Possibility of passing things by inheritance or by will
The process of applying things in accordance with their economic purpose
The process of applying things in accordance with their functional purpose
Economic relations of ownership are not characterized as ...
legislative regulation of property relations
having socio-economic content
relationships between people related to things
relationship of people to things
Property does not include disadvantages…
tendency towards bureaucracy
monopoly in the economy
concentration of resources and centralized control after the war
the impossibility of dividing the economy into politics
The winner of the competitive sale of state property is the one who offers ...
Investment project with minimal costs
The maximum price and will accept the set conditions
Highly profitable investment project
The maximum price without any conditions
What type of economic systems is characterized by a variety of forms of ownership:
mixed economy
command economy
market economy
traditional economy
The properties are…
Limited resources and benefits
Non-economic resources
free goods
private public good
A unitary enterprise is...
non-profit organization;
type of private enterprise;
a commercial organization, the company name of which can be arbitrary;
a commercial organization that is not endowed with the right of ownership of the property assigned to it
The state form of ownership in a market economy is not typical for enterprises ...
for providing heat supply
for the production of building materials
on power supply of the population
for the production of footwear and clothing
If a joint-stock company is declared bankrupt by an arbitration court, then the shareholders ...
Lost your funds
They have the right to demand compensation from the state for their losses.
The right to demand from the board of the company the reimbursement of funds spent on the acquisition of shares
At their meeting they can reorganize JSC
"2. Microeconomics: 2.7 Market"
According to the classification feature “object”, a market can be distinguished ...
work force
buyers
public institutions
sellers
Commodity markets do not include the market ...
energy resources
valuable papers
land and natural resources
means of production
The implementation of the interests of market entities and the combination of the interests of the seller and the buyer is ensured by the ___ function of the market
informational
sanitizing
stimulating
intermediary
If the functions of demand (Qd) and supply (Qs) are given as Р=8-Qd and Р=0.5 Qs+0.5, then the equilibrium sales volume is equal to..
If the demand function (Qd) and supply (Qs) are given as Qd=350-50Р and Qs=-250+50Р, then the equilibrium price is…
Determine when the supply curve shifts to the right?
when the price of this product decreases
when providing subsidies to manufacturing firms
an increase in the price of a substitute product
with an increase in the number of sellers of this product
in all cases except the first
What changes cause fluctuations in the market volume of demand for a particular product?
resource prices
consumer tastes and preferences
consumer income
all of the above factors
Which of the definitions of the market seems to you the most convincing:
The market is the place where buyers and sellers meet;
The market is a sphere of exchange within the country and between countries, connecting consumers and producers of products;
The market is a mechanism for the interaction of buyers and sellers;
The market is a self-regulating system of reproduction, all elements of which are under the influence of supply and demand.
An increase in the price of materials needed to produce good X will cause:
shift of the demand curve up and to the right;
shift of the supply curve up and to the left;
an upward shift in the demand curve and the supply curve;
shift of the supply curve down and to the right
If demand decreases and supply increases, then:
The equilibrium quantity will decrease;
The equilibrium price will decrease.
True a) and b);
a) and b) is wrong.
The equilibrium price of a good is:
the price is higher than that which creates excess demand
the price at which there is neither excess nor shortage of goods
all answers are correct
government price
The product is:
thing exchanged for another thing or money
thing that is not a product of labor, but useful to a person
thing that has a use value or utility
People enter into economic relations about appropriation ...
only consumer goods
natural resources
economic resources and benefits
only production resources
The introduction of a special tax on pollution by the state in the sulfuric acid market in order to mitigate the costs of overflow leads to …
Supply increase
Decrease in demand
Decreasing supply
Increase in demand
The system of markets does not include a market ...
spiritual blessings
R&D
consumer goods
Pure public goods
Markets classified by spatial dimension do not include:
Monopoly
Regional
Shadow
Local
The markets classified according to the economic purpose of the object of purchase and sale do not include:
Economic strategy defines all aspects of ownership of resources such as land, capital and labor. Throughout the history of civilization, there have been many types of economic systems that reflected natural conditions, national conditions, religious foundations, and others. Due to this diversity, the main types can be distinguished - the free market and command economy.
What is command economy, and how does it manifest itself? This term is understood as a form of economic organization in which all material resources are distributed by the government and are owned by the state. Government commitments, businesses and individuals need to act in accordance with economic central planning. That's why command economy can be characterized by the use of directive methods and a high level of centralization of functions.
Centralized or command economy considered the opposite For each enterprise, all destinations are provided - what to produce, how much to produce, how to produce and for whom to produce. Thus, the state itself decides the issue of suppliers and buyers. And some specific resources are allocated. Then, after the adoption of the plan, they can be distributed among the main industries on the basis of long-term priority relationships, which are determined by the planning authority.
Thus, the economic system, in our case - command economy, reflects that all decisions necessary for adoption and planning are made by public state activity. In this case, efficiency can arise only when there is a deep knowledge of economic laws, as well as if one follows the strict requirement and implementation of these laws. Also, the effectiveness of the command economy will only arise when improved forces under the influence of scientific and technical progress are introduced. Thus, knowledge and following the right tactics, allows you to achieve optimal operation of the command economy.
Command economy, like firm economics, involves the study of the processes of functioning of factors and various industries, modern approaches that will ensure effective work at the enterprise; management mechanisms that contribute to being a leading company in the market; management and organization and strategic prospects of the enterprise, as well as innovative actions of business entities.
Today, only a person is able to create and introduce various innovations into production. If artificial intelligence appears, then a post-economic era will appear, in which all the need for decision-making will disappear. And such a thing as post-industrial economy defines such relations that arise as a result of a post-industrial society.
What should be understood in the term post-industrial society? This is a society whose economy dominated the productive resource. Here, scientific developments become the main driving force for the economy. It is thanks to the post-industrial economy that the main qualities, and valuable ones, of an employee are professionalism, level of education, creativity and learning ability.
Thus, in the development of the economy, more practical definitions of the information, service, innovation economy, as well as the knowledge economy are used.
Introduction…………………………………………………………………….3
1. Command economy and its characteristic features……………………4
1.1 The beginning of the formation of an administrative-command economy ... 4
1.2 The essence of the command-administrative economy of the USSR………..6
1.3Positive and negative aspects of the administrative-command economy……………………………………………………………………...9
2. Reformation by the team of the economy in Russia………………….13
2.1 Beginning of command economy reform…………………….13
2.2 Consequences of reforming the command economy………………22
2.3 Perestroika and its results………………………………..……………….25
Conclusion………………………………………………………………...29
Bibliographic list……………………………………………..30
Introduction
The economic system is an ordered relationship between producers of material and non-material goods.
Every economic system has its own economic basis. Ownership of resources and results has its own organizational relations, its own way of regulating the economic activity of people, its own system of material and moral incentives for people, its own motivation for economic activity, its own laws and rules, its own traditions, experiences, customs. The classification of economic systems in different directions of economic thought has its own.
A special place in the classification of economic systems is occupied by a command-administrative economy or a totalitarian economic system.
With such a system of management in the sphere of production, there was a nationwide form of ownership. On the scale of the whole society, the guild organization was reproduced, i.e. everything was absolutely decided by the state: fixed volumes of production, a range of goods and services were established, constant prices were established, sales volumes were established, fixed wages were established. Such a system provided for the satisfaction of the minimum needs of people. In this system, the administrative apparatus collected in its hands all the functions of the employer. This system assumed a high degree of monopolization in the person of the ministry of department. Economic laws were weak in this system.
The command economy is dominated by state ownership of the means of production, collective economic decision-making, centralized management of the economy through state planning.
Let's consider this type of management system more widely. A striking example of this is the development of the command economy in the USSR.
Chapter I . Command economy and its characteristics.
1.1 The beginning of the formation of the administrative-command economy in the USSR.
The process of curtailing the NEP and the formation of a command and administrative system.
The process of curtailing the NEP began gradually. The economic development of the country in the economic year 1924-1925 did not yet feel a slowdown in growth rates. But by the mid-1920s, the proportions of exchange between the industrial and agricultural sectors of the economy began to noticeably break down. Industry did not supply the required quantity of its products to the countryside. Agriculture, in turn, supplied the cities with raw materials and foodstuffs intermittently, and also handed over an insufficient amount of grain for export to purchase the necessary industrial equipment abroad. Thus, the autumn crisis in grain procurements, which occurred in 1925, was not an accidental, but a natural phenomenon. The peasantry did not seek to expand their production, as manufactured goods became more expensive and there was a shortage of them.
In the second half of 1926, the government faced the question in which direction the country's economy would develop further. At the end of 1925, the XIV Congress of the RCP (b) was convened, where the "course of industrialization" was approved. In open speeches, Stalin demanded that the shaky mechanism of the market economy should be dismantled without hesitation, replacing it with command methods that fully corresponded to socialist ideals.
So, the procurement crises of 1926-1928 meant the complete curtailment of NEP, since it fit only into the situation of "civil peace". The command system, on the other hand, could exist only under conditions of extreme tension, through intimidation, terror, general obedience to orders, which contradicted the essence of the NEP.
Purposeful curtailment of the NEP in the country went in all directions. Already in 1927, a state production plan began to be established for industrial enterprises. At the end of 1929, the trusts lost their economic independence and gradually turned into an intermediary link in the management system. Syndicates, on the contrary, were given additional functions in the sphere of planned regulation of enterprises. The syndicates no longer engaged in wholesale trade, as it was replaced by centralized distribution to funds and orders.
In the early 1930s, there was an almost complete displacement of private capital from various sectors of the economy. During 1930-1932, market methods were actually done away with in the credit system. Credit has been replaced by centralized financing. Commercial credit between enterprises was banned, bill circulation was abolished.
The state tried to keep prices in wholesale and retail trade at a stable level, but this led to an acute shortage of goods, as a result of which a card distribution system was introduced in the second half of 1928.
So, starting from 1929, the administrative system of management was established in the economy, which actually returned the country to the policy of "war communism", but in new conditions. The directive planned distribution of resources and products finally supplanted market relations. By the end of the first five-year plan, a super-centralized economy was fully formed, which, with minor modifications, existed in the USSR until the end of the 1980s.
Soviet economy during the war.
The first six months of the war were the most difficult for the Soviet economy. Industrial production has more than halved, rolling of ferrous metals has fallen by three times, non-ferrous metals by 430 times, and so on.
In this difficult time, the over-centralized directive management system showed itself quite quickly and energetically. Under the extremely strict leadership of the State Defense Committee, established on June 30, 1941, plants and factories were evacuated and the civilian sector of the economy was transferred to a war footing.
In general, despite the great disparity in the economic potential of the USSR and Germany at the beginning of the war, the Soviet economy in this period turned out to be more efficient. For all the war years, the USSR produced almost twice as much military equipment and weapons. Every ton of metal, cement, coal, every kilowatt of electricity, every piece of equipment was better used in our country than in the German economy. Based on a thousand tons of smelted steel, Soviet industry produced five times more tanks and weapons than German industry.
As in the years of the first five-year plans, the main attention was paid to the development of heavy engineering, metallurgy, and the fuel and energy complex. During the years of the Fourth Five-Year Plan (1946-1950), 6,000 large industrial enterprises were restored and rebuilt. The light and food industries were financed, as before, on a residual basis, and their products did not satisfy even the minimum needs of the population.
Post-war economic growth in the USSR had several sources. First of all, the directive economy still retained the mobilization character that was inherent in it during the years of the first five-year plans and during the war years.
The further development of the USSR economy rested on its excessive centralization. All economic issues, large and small, were resolved only in the center, and local economic bodies were strictly limited in resolving any cases. The main material and financial resources needed to fulfill the planned targets were distributed through a large number of bureaucratic instances. Departmental disunity, mismanagement and confusion led to constant downtime in production, storming, huge material costs, absurd transportation from one end of the vast country.
A whole army of special commissioners, or "pushers" grew up, who were engaged in obtaining raw materials, scarce materials, equipment at factories, in ministries and departments. All reports of heads of enterprises, ministers, party organizations of various levels were overgrown with notes on the fulfillment and overfulfillment of plans, so official statistics should be taken very carefully because of their obvious unreliability.
1.2 The essence of the command - administrative system of the economy.
The polar alternative to pure capitalism is the command economy, the highest embodiment of which is communism. This system is characterized by public ownership of virtually all material resources and the collective adoption of economic decisions through centralized economic planning, monopolization and bureaucratization of the economy. All major decisions concerning the volume of resources used, the structure and distribution of products, the organization of production, are taken by the central planning authority. Enterprises are the property of the state and carry out production on the basis of state directives. In other words, the production plans are set by the planning authority for each enterprise, and the plan controls the amount of resources that must be allocated to each enterprise in order for it to meet its production targets. Workers are assigned to professions and even distributed according to the plan by geographical regions. The ratio of means of production and means of consumption in the national product is established centrally, and the distribution of consumer goods among the population is carried out in the same way. The means of production are distributed among industries on the basis of long-term priorities set by the central planning authority. The central planner is responsible for deciding what goods are to be produced, how they are to be produced, and for whom, thus answering the classic trinity of questions on its own. All his decisions are directive. Reliance solely on central planning is a characteristic feature of a command economy. In addition, the central planner must decide how consumer goods should be distributed among the people in the economy. Then he must determine exactly how to produce consumer goods and equipment. Labor must be concentrated in the appropriate enterprises, equipment must be in the right place. The central planner must devise methods for distributing production tasks among the various factories in each branch, and he must be sure that each factory has all the necessary factors of production to carry out the production tasks assigned to it. In practice, central planning is possible due to two factors. First, the problem must be solved every day anew. A functioning economy capable of producing certain goods, while labor and capital are already distributed in a certain way among enterprises and industries. Planners can start not from scratch, but from the already established situation, and decide in which direction to change the allocation of resources. It may turn out that the production of equipment should be increased. This means taking labor and some machines out of the production of consumer goods and moving them into the production of equipment. As a result, total current consumption must be reduced. This can be done by reducing the amount of consumer goods that each worker must have. Secondly, the plan should not be created entirely, immediately and forever. Maybe there is a so-called iterative (repetitive) process, in which the central planning authority sends plans to enterprises, and then refines them in accordance with the reaction of the latter. It is possible that the directors of enterprises will consider the plan for the production of a certain output to be insufficiently provided with the means of production. The planning body will try to assess the validity of this claim (although this depends on the ideology of the party behind the body) and possibly adjust the plan. Adjustments are possible even after the plan has gone into effect. For example, if equipment production is below the target, then more labor may be transferred from the consumer goods industry to the equipment industry. It is impossible to solve the problem of resource allocation only by command methods. In such a case, say the economists of the socialist countries, prices can be introduced to alleviate the problem of distribution.
The administrative-command economy dominated earlier in the USSR, in the countries of Eastern Europe and a number of Asian states.
The economic mechanism of the administrative-command system has a number of features. It assumes, firstly, the direct management of all enterprises from a single center - the highest echelons of state power, which nullifies the independence of economic entities. Secondly, the state completely controls the production and distribution of products, as a result of which free market relationships between individual enterprises are excluded. Thirdly, the state apparatus manages economic activity with the help of predominantly administrative-command (directive) methods, which undermines the material interest in the results of labor.
With excessive centralization of executive power, the bureaucratization of the economic mechanism and economic ties develops. By its nature, bureaucratic centralism is not capable of ensuring the growth of efficiency and economic activity. The point here is, first of all, that the complete nationalization of the economy causes a monopolization of production and marketing of products, unprecedented in its scale.
Giant monopolies, established in all areas of the national economy and supported by ministries and departments, in the absence of competition, do not care about the introduction of new equipment and technology. The scarce economy generated by monopoly is characterized by the absence of normal material and human reserves in case the balance of the national economy is disturbed.
In countries with an administrative-command system, the solution of key economic problems had its own specific features. In accordance with the prevailing ideological guidelines, the task of determining the volume and structure of products was considered too serious and responsible to transfer its solution to direct producers - industrial enterprises, collective farms and state farms. Therefore, the structure of social needs was determined by the central planning bodies. But since it is fundamentally impossible to detail and foresee changes in social needs on such a scale, these bodies were guided primarily by the task of satisfying the minimum needs.
The centralized distribution of material goods, labor and financial resources was carried out without the participation of direct producers and consumers. It took place in accordance with pre-selected as "Public" goals and criteria, on the basis of central planning. A significant part of the resources, in accordance with the prevailing ideological guidelines, was directed to the development of the military-industrial complex.
The distribution of created products among the participants in production was strictly regulated by the central authorities through the universally applied tariff system, as well as centrally approved standards for the wage fund. This led to the prevalence of an egalitarian approach to wages.
The inevitability of this system, its insensitivity to the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution and the inability to ensure the transition to an intensive type of economic development made fundamental socio-economic transformations inevitable in almost all socialist (communist) countries. The strategy of economic reforms in these countries is determined by the laws of the development of world civilization, as a result of which a modern market economy is being built there with greater or lesser speed.
1.3 Positive and negative aspects of the administrative-command economy.
Advantages of the command-administrative system.
A planned economy has a number of advantages. Thus, a centralized economy allows you to quickly concentrate all the resources of society on the "direction of the main blow." This is very important during wars, major natural disasters, and also allows you to move forward in the selected area. Therefore, for example, the Soviet Union during the years of the first five-year plans (in just 10 years, which is a very short period by historical standards) “turned from a peasant country into a powerful industrial power"" [Timoshina T.M. "Economic History of Russia" - M., 3rd ed., 1999, p.267], won the Great Patriotic War, was the first to implement a space exploration program, created an army capable of resisting the military machine of the United States. However, all this was done at the expense of other sectors - light industry and agriculture, from where funds were taken for the development of heavy industry and the military-industrial complex.
Another advantage of the command-administrative system is that it significantly reduces or completely lacks some types of transaction costs (at the same time, however, a new type of transaction costs appears in the planned economy - the costs of compiling and coordinating plan assignments between instances of various levels; about these costs will be discussed when considering the shortcomings of the hierarchical system) . So, in a centralized economy, there are no information search costs, since producers are attached to stores and resource providers in a directive way, and end consumers of goods do not have to make efforts to find the best conditions for buying and selling, since each type of product is produced by one manufacturer and its price and quality are the same everywhere (in Soviet times, the price was indicated directly on the product). The directive method of attaching manufacturers to stores allowed the centralized trade organization to be “the most economical in the world,” since it did not imply the existence of hundreds of thousands of trade organizations, each of which would have “its own accountants, supply and distribution agencies, helpers, storage facilities, settlement accounts in banks..." The ideal model of a command and control system also assumes that there are practically no costs of concluding a business contract, since resource providers, goods producers and stores are attached to each other in a directive way. However, this type of costs also includes the costs of direct purchase of goods by end users.
With a hierarchical system, significantly reduced costs measurements(costs associated with the assessment of the properties of goods by the consumer), since each type of product is produced by one manufacturer, and therefore the buyer does not need to spend time measuring and comparing the properties of goods from different companies and choosing the most preferred manufacturer for himself.
In a planned economy, there are also no costs associated with violation of the terms of the contract and control over its execution : no one can violate the planned task.
In addition to transaction costs, under the command-and-control system, there are also some types of production costs. First of all, these are the costs associated with the cost of advertising and marketing research. In addition, under a hierarchical system, there are much fewer professions that are not directly related to the production of material goods and the provision of services to end consumers. Another advantage of the command-and-control system is that it can eliminate cyclical fluctuations to a large extent, is able to ensure full employment and, very importantly, smooth out inequalities in income distribution.
The advantages of the command-administrative system can also be attributed to the fact that the planned output largely filters the range of goods and services produced, excluding from it those goods and services that adversely affect the physical and moral state of society, but are in demand in a market economy. .
In addition to the above advantages, the command-administrative system also has a number of serious shortcomings, due to which, many believe, the very idea of building a socialist state is utopian. So let's look at these shortcomings.
Disadvantages of command and control system.
As the main drawback of the command-administrative system, the impossibility of planning targets to objectively reflect the needs of society in certain goods is singled out. Indeed, in order to determine how many units of each product a society needs, the Center must have information about the needs of people, their tastes and preferences. . In a market economy, this information is reflected through the mechanism of price fluctuations (changes in relative prices and marginal substitution rates are the guideline that tells producers what to produce, and consumers what to buy), in a planned economy there is no such mechanism, which means that many , a planned economy, in principle, cannot determine exactly how many of which goods a society needs. There is, however, an opinion that progress in the field of computing technologies will make it possible to eliminate the limitations of the collection and processing of information by the planning authority, and therefore "with the development of information technology it will be possible to model the entire process of production and consumption for all mankind as a whole." But opponents of this opinion make the following argument : economic life is characterized by uncertainty, and therefore even the most powerful computer technology will not be able to plan with absolute accuracy the required volume and range of output, since it is not possible to foresee all changes in economic life.
As a shortcoming of the command-administrative system, many also point out that the Center, "trying to paint the range of products in kind right up to the nail, must maintain a huge bureaucracy that absorbs significant labor and material resources." It is impossible to name the exact size of the bureaucratic apparatus under the USSR, since the lists of the nomenklatura were secret and nothing was officially reported about it.
The disadvantages of the command-and-control system include the fact that manufacturers have no incentives to improve the quality of consumer goods and introduce more efficient production technologies. The reason for this is the lack of competition. After all, in the absence of an alternative, buyers have no choice but to buy goods from a single manufacturer. In addition, soft budget constraints allow the enterprise to operate inefficiently, since it cannot, in principle, go bankrupt. Of course, in an ideal model of a command-administrative system, the state itself (and not competition, as in a market economy) should control the efficiency of enterprises and strive to improve the quality of manufactured goods, but this was not always possible in Soviet times.
Among the important shortcomings of the socialist system, the absence of high incentives to work is also distinguished, since there is no motive for personal gain under it. So, the income of the producer in this economic system does not directly depend on how much and what kind of products he produced - it is fixed and determined solely by the position held. Many believe that the very nature of human nature is such that in the collective management of the economy, he will never work as conscientiously as if he worked for himself, and this property of human nature cannot be eradicated by anything. Of course, the centralized state has some tools with which it can induce people to work more productively - it can be the threat of punishment or the inculcation of enthusiasm based on the belief in a bright future (both methods were used in the Soviet Union). Many authors criticize socialism also for the concept of determining the share of each participant in the production process on the basis of labor costs. They argue that there is a different quality of work, different labor productivity and, most importantly, a lot of its varieties (from highly intellectual to purely physical), and therefore it is quite difficult to objectively assess its cost.
The socialist system is also actively criticized for the fact that it contributes to the concentration of great power in the hands of one person (group of persons), which can lead to the establishment of a totalitarian regime in the country and the state's aggressive foreign policy. Indeed, the era of "Stalinism", for example, was accompanied by mass repressions, and as for aggressive foreign policy, here, as an example, we can cite the USSR attack on Finland (1939), the entry of troops into Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), Afghanistan (1979). The large size of the shadow sector is also referred to the disadvantages of the command-administrative system. So, by the beginning of the 70s, 3-4% of the USSR GDP was produced in the shadow sector, and in the period from the beginning of the 60s to the end of the 80s, on average, the scale of the shadow sector increased 30 times (in construction - 60 times, in the field of transport and communications - 40 times, in agriculture and industry - 30 times). However, it should be noted that after the collapse of the USSR, the size of the shadow sector did not decrease.
Chapter II. Reforming the command economy in Russia.
2.1The beginning of the reform of the command economy.
The first attempt to reform the command-administrative system in the 1950s and 1960s is closely connected with the end of the Stalinist period in the history of the USSR in March 1953, when the country's administration was concentrated in the hands of three politicians: Chairman of the Council of Ministers G.M. Malenkov, Minister of Internal Affairs L.P. Beria and Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU N.S. Khrushchev. A struggle broke out between them for sole power, during which each of them counted on the support of the party-state nomenklatura. This new layer of Soviet society was ready to support one of these leaders of the country, provided that he was given greater independence in resolving local issues and, most importantly, guarantees of personal security, an end to political “purges” and repressions.
Subject to these conditions, the nomenklatura was ready to agree to reforms within certain limits, beyond which it could not and did not want to go. In the course of the reforms, it was necessary to reorganize or abolish the Gulag system, stimulate the development of the agricultural sector of the economy, carry out transformations in the social sector, reduce the tension of constant “mobilization” in solving economic problems and in search of internal and external enemies.
As a result of a difficult struggle on the political "Olympus", N.S., supported by the nomenklatura, came to power. Khrushchev, who quickly pushed his rivals aside. Khrushchev, being the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, in 1958 also became the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
Since the Soviet Union suffered huge casualties during the war, back in 1948 the Soviet leadership ordered the use of prisoners in the Gulag system more “economically”, that is, to prevent their mass death from malnutrition, overwork, lack of medical care. A small salary was established for "drummers", an increase in the norm of rations. But these measures did not give the expected results, and the government faced a dilemma: either to follow the path of improving the conditions of detention of prisoners, or to close all camps.
The increase in public spending made this system unprofitable, moreover, it could only function with constant replenishment of people who fell into the millstones of repression. But since the new leadership of the country was afraid of the resumption of new repressions, it took the second path. In 1953-1954, people began to return from prisons, exiles, camps.
Despite the disagreements and costs, this was the first step towards civil peace in society, towards fundamental reforms in all areas, and above all in the economy. The rehabilitation of the innocently convicted was not only a political, but also a purely economic growth factor, since millions of specialists left the camps, received their lost civil rights, and were able to apply their knowledge and experience in the national economy.
Political changes in the USSR needed to be supported by changes in the economy. Speaking in August 1953 at a session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, G.M. Malenkov clearly formulated the main directions of economic policy: a sharp rise in the production of consumer goods, large investments in the light industry. Such a radical turn, it would seem, should forever change the fundamental guidelines for the development of the Soviet economy, which had been established in previous decades.
The Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, which followed the session of the Supreme Soviet in September 1953, adopted a resolution on urgent measures to improve agriculture.
One of the first measures of the new leadership of the country was to reduce the agricultural tax, write off tax arrears for previous years, increase the size of personal subsidiary plots of collective farmers and household plots of workers and employees in cities and towns. production of collective farms and state farms, the possibilities for developing collective farm markets have been expanded. From the mid-1950s, agriculture became profitable for the first time. State appropriations for the development of the agrarian sector increased noticeably: in 1954-1955 they amounted to 34.4 billion rubles, which is 38% more than in the entire fourth five-year plan. The share of state budget expenditures on agriculture increased from 7.6% in 1950 to 18% in 1955.
At the September (1953) Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party, N. Khrushchev made a proposal to raise virgin and fallow lands, but it did not receive due support from other leaders of the party and the state. And only at the Plenum of the Central Committee in February - March 1954, this program was adopted, and in the same year the mass development of virgin lands began. However, this new grandiose undertaking in the very first years encountered the usual mismanagement and carelessness. No granaries or simple shelters for grain were built, and a huge amount of harvested grain lay on leks in the open, wet in the rain, blown by the wind. There were no railways, there were not enough cars to take grain to the elevators.
Every year, the eastern virgin regions had to transfer equipment and people for harvesting from the central and southern regions, where the crops ripened and were harvested earlier. All this required significant expenses, and the cost of grain in the virgin lands in 1954-1964 was 20% higher than in the main grain-growing regions.
Great changes took place not only in the agricultural sector, but also in other sectors of the economy. Considerable attention began to be paid to industry, especially its technical level. In 1955, at the Plenum of the Central Committee, it was emphasized that the most important thing for industry at the present time is "every possible increase in the technical level of production on the basis of electrification, comprehensive mechanization and automation." In the mid-1950s, it became obvious that without recognizing the priority development of new areas in science, it would be difficult for the Soviet Union to withstand not just economic, but, above all, military confrontation with the West. It was at the turn of the 1950s and 1960s that the famous slogan appeared: "Science must become the direct productive force of the socialist economy."
Huge financial, material and human resources were devoted to the development of certain areas of fundamental sciences and natural sciences, to the training of highly qualified scientific personnel, as a result of which a significant breakthrough in Soviet science and technology was achieved. In 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant was put into operation in Obninsk, Kaluga Region; in 1959, the first nuclear icebreaker "Lenin" was built; Gagarin on board.
In the same years, the energy base of the country was rapidly developing. A number of hydroelectric power plants were built on the Volga, Dnieper, Angara and other rivers. At the same time, a powerful impetus was given to the development of oil and gas production, primarily in Siberia. Oil production increased from 52.7 million tons in 1954 to 347.3 million tons in 1965. The chemical industry, metallurgy, coal mining, etc. have received a noticeable development.
Studying this period of economic history, we have to admit that the Soviet leadership, embarking on such large-scale reforms, did not have a comprehensive long-term program for the further development of the country. This explains the numerous, devoid of common sense, turns in economic policy, which depended on the impatience of the leaders, their desire to immediately correct all shortcomings. This led to haste both in determining the timing of achieving the goals and in choosing the methods for their implementation, which often devalued the positive effect of innovations.
As an example, Khrushchev's proposal in 1957 to catch up with the United States in the production of meat, butter, and milk within 3-4 years can be cited. The unreality of this desire was clear to specialists, since in 1956 the USA produced 16 million tons of meat, and the USSR - 7.5 million tons, and there were no real conditions for reducing this: mechanization, etc. But it was risky to argue with the leaders. The slogan "to catch up and overtake America in livestock production" soon hung in the air. In the first year of the Soviet-American "competition", meat production in the USSR increased by only 301 thousand tons, and in 1960 - by another 1007 thousand tons.
Khrushchev's desire to quickly catch up with America led to adventurism in the center and in the regions. The appearance of unprecedented successes was created everywhere, postscripts were widely practiced, "records" and "initiatives" were born that continued the traditions of the Stakhanov movement. In each region, territory, republic, “beacons” appeared: exemplary farms and individual workers, on which the rest should be equal. At the same time, everyone understood that special conditions were created for such “beacons”, that their achievements were nothing but window dressing.
Just as ill-conceived was Khrushchev's undertaking to force the introduction of crops of corn for grain throughout the country, regardless of the climatic conditions of various regions. Inspired by what he saw during his trips to the United States, Khrushchev became obsessed with the idea of organizing the widespread cultivation of corn for grain and livestock feed, not considering that this crop requires a hot climate, which is not found in the main grain-growing regions of the USSR, located much further north than in the United States. . Khrushchev traveled endlessly around the country and personally supervised the implementation of this program.
At the very peak of the corn campaign, no less than 37 million hectares were sown with this crop, and it could only mature on 7 million hectares. In many areas, corn crops died due to rain and cold, not having time to ripen during the short summer. Nevertheless, the leading party-state bodies everywhere demanded the expansion of sown areas occupied by corn, by reducing traditional crops. The production of corn for feed almost everywhere was much more expensive than the usual harvesting of familiar grasses. An attempt to bring this idea to life ended in 1964-1965, and since then the crops of this crop have remained only in the traditional southern regions of the country.
All these innovations did not lead to an improvement in the grain situation in the country, the average yield almost did not grow. Some growth in productivity even began to decline: in 1960 - 10.9, in 1962 - 10.9, in 1963 - 8.3 centners per hectare, and only in 1964 did it reach the level of 1958.
In 1958, it was decided to liquidate the MTS and sell the equipment to the collective farms. But since at the same time wholesale prices for equipment rose sharply, MTS began to sell it at increased prices. However, the collective farms did not have the funds to purchase this equipment. The debts of the collective farms of the banks for agricultural machinery in 1961 amounted to more than 2 billion rubles.
The state tried to help the collective farms by lowering the prices of motor vehicles, tractors, implements, spare parts, and gasoline. But due to the lack of funds from the collective farmers, the steady demand for agricultural engineering products, which previously existed on the part of the MTS, sharply decreased. Factories were overwhelmed with products and were forced to cut production. Already by 1959, many previously announced benefits were withdrawn.
In 1963, due to unfavorable weather conditions, a very low crop was harvested - only 107.5 million tons. The main granaries suffered from the drought: the North Caucasus, South Ukraine, etc. In many regions of the country, the problem with bread became more acute, queues began to line up in the cities, and the sale of bread per person became limited. For the first time in the history of the Soviet Union, mass purchases of grain abroad began at the expense of the available gold reserves in order to prevent a repetition of the terrible famine of past years.
The process of enlargement and merger of collective farms continued. If by 1955 their number was 87.5 thousand, then by 1964 it was reduced to 37.5 thousand. At the same time, a rather peculiar sector of the economy, which had remained since the time of the New Economic Policy, began to be eliminated - industrial cooperation, which in 1955 accounted for 8% of all industrial output. Promartels produced a variety of products of everyday life, performed various services. In 1956, the largest promartels were transferred to state ownership, and in 1960, fishing cooperation completely ceased to exist. At the beginning of 1962, the management of agriculture was reorganized. Collective farm and state farm administrations have been established at the district level, and collective farm and state farm committees have been established in the regions, territories and republics. The regional committees of the party were divided according to the production principle into industrial and agricultural.
It should be said that scientists, economists and practitioners tried to develop new approaches to the economic development of the country, especially in the field of long-term planning and forecasting, and the definition of strategic macroeconomic goals. But these developments were not designed for quick returns, so they were not given enough attention. The country's leadership needed real results at the present time, and in everything, all forces were directed to endless adjustments to current plans.
As a result of all the "experiments", the economic situation of the country at the turn of the 1050s-1960s remained quite tense. Inflation has become more noticeable. The government made an attempt to improve the situation at the expense of the workers. The first step in this direction was the monetary reform. From January 1, 1961, new banknotes were introduced into circulation. The exchange of old money was carried out in a ratio of 10:1, prices and wages changed in the same proportion. In fact, a denomination was carried out, that is, the consolidation of the country's monetary unit. But the purchasing power of the new money continued to decline. The next step can be considered the decision of the government on the general reduction of tariff rates in industry by about 30%. This was due to the fact that the dynamics of labor productivity growth in the country turned out to be lower than planned. The Party Central Committee decided to organize a campaign to reduce production costs, which meant a hidden reduction in the wages of workers. At the same time, a government decree was published to increase prices for meat and meat products by 30%, for butter - by 25%. These decisions aroused discontent and led to spontaneous protests by the workers. The largest of them was in Novocherkassk, where the authorities brought tanks against the workers and used weapons. Dozens of people died, nine people were sentenced to death, many people were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.
At the turn of the 1950s - 1960s, great changes took place in the Soviet Union in the social sphere and which affected, first of all, the urban population. In April 1956, the anti-labor law of 1940 was repealed on severe penalties for being late for work and absenteeism, and prohibitions on changing jobs. In September of the same year, a minimum wage was established, below which it was impossible to pay for work at enterprises. But chief among others was the pension law, introduced in July 1956, which affected the interests of millions of people. The amount of pensions depended on length of service and age. Men could retire at age 60 with 25 years of service, women at 55 with 20 years of service (this was well below the age limit set in most Western countries). The amount of the monthly pension ranged from 300 to 1200 rubles.
However, this law completely bypassed the issue of automatic retirement upon reaching the age limit. This, in turn, opened up great opportunities for high-ranking officials (for example, ministers) to hold their posts for life, although their physical and mental abilities by that time did not at all meet the increased requirements. In addition, the system of personal pensions, appointed "for special services to the state", has been significantly expanded. Their size was disproportionately higher than state pensions, they were associated with various privileges for paying for housing, free travel on public transport, receiving free trips to sanatoriums, etc. A special system of pensions was maintained for the military and state security officers.
Reform in 1965. The draft Directives for the eighth five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR (1966-1970) were developed with with great difficulty. Already in the midst of the work (1963-1964), it became clear that the figures laid down in the Party Program, including those for 1970, were hardly achievable. The idea arose to develop another seven-year plan for 1966-1972 in order to somehow disguise the impossibility of reaching the boundaries determined by XXII party congress, and that by 1972 at least slightly surpass the plan of 1970. But by the end of 1964, they nevertheless decided to abandon this and again returned to the eighth five-year plan, during which it was planned to increase labor productivity in industry by 33-35%, and more than double profits. It was also planned to ensure 80% of the increase in production by increasing labor productivity. The development of territorial production complexes was envisaged : West Siberian, Angaro-Yenisei, South Tajik, Timan-Pechersky, South Yakutsk, Orenburg, etc. It was supposed to give priority to the development of agriculture, the production of consumer goods, and the growth of real incomes of the population. However, it was impossible to implement the plan without cardinal changes in the economy, and therefore the problem of reforming it became acute. In September 1965, at the Plenum of the Central Committee, a resolution was adopted "On improving the management of industry, improving planning and strengthening economic incentives for industrial production", in accordance with which the country began new economic reform It was decided to abolish the economic councils and return to the sectoral principle of management. Union-republican and all-union ministries for branches of industry were newly formed.
The next important direction of this reform was the change in the entire system of planning and economic incentives. It was deemed necessary to eliminate excessive regulation of the economic activities of enterprises. To do this, we reduced the number of planned indicators set from above. Unlike the previous system, focused on the growth of gross output, now the main indicator was the growth in the volume of sold products of the enterprise. It was envisaged to evaluate the results of economic activity by the profit received and the fulfillment of tasks for the supply of the most important types of products.
Among the mandatory indicators, the following were also established: the main range of products, the wage fund, payments to the budget and appropriations from the budget, indicators on the volume of centralized capital investments and the commissioning of production capacities and fixed assets, tasks for the introduction of new equipment and material and technical supply. All other indicators of economic activity were to be established by enterprises and organizations on their own, without approval from ministries and departments.
In accordance with the resolution, it was decided to expand the economic rights of enterprises, to develop direct ties between producers and consumers on the principles of mutual liability and interest. It was proposed to put into practice relations based on business contracts between enterprises.
To increase the role of economic incentives, an attempt was made to improve the pricing system in favor of low-profit industries, since in the Soviet economy, along with highly profitable plants and factories, there were always many unprofitable enterprises. Often, some highly profitable enterprises had sites that produced products necessary for the population, but unprofitable. Therefore, the enterprises themselves did not want to produce these products and tried their best to get rid of them. In this regard, the value of such instruments as price, profit, premium, credit, which were returned to their original value, increased.
The economic reform began very actively. Already in January 1966, the first 43 enterprises in 17 industries were transferred to the new working conditions. In October 1965, the Regulations on the socialist state enterprise were approved, which fixed its rights in the field of production and economic activities, construction and overhaul, in the field of logistics, finance, labor and wages, as well as the terms of reference and degree of responsibility for their violations. Relations between the enterprise and the state have noticeably changed. Fees were introduced for production assets, for land and water resources. Significant changes also took place in the pricing system: wholesale prices began to more objectively reflect real production costs and enterprises could already make a profit from the sale of their products.
For enterprises transferred to the new management system, the State Quality Mark was established for the most important serial and mass products. This Sign confirmed the stability of the quality of this product, the high culture of production, etc.
In 1967, entire branches of industry began to be transferred to new economic conditions, and by the end of the year, 15% of enterprises, which accounted for 37% of industrial output, were already working in a new way.
Economic reform also affected agriculture . In March 1965, at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the task was set to eliminate the negative consequences of Khrushchev's "experiments" in the countryside. Mandatory widespread sowing of corn was canceled, more attention was paid to the Central Chernozem and Non-Chernozem regions of the country, household plots were restored, etc.
Financing of the agricultural sector has sharply increased. In 1966-1980, according to official data, 383 billion rubles were directed there, which accounted for 78% of all investment in agriculture during all the years of Soviet power. At the expense of these funds, the implementation of grandiose programs for complex mechanization, electrification of agriculture, melioration and chemicalization of soils began.
The results of the eighth five-year plan were quite encouraging. Good results were achieved in the first years. The growth rates of labor productivity and the average wages of workers employed in industry have converged. The share of intensive factors in the total growth of the country's national income increased noticeably from 34% in 1966 to 40% in 1970.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the positive potential of economic reform began to be exhausted, the national economy returned to traditional sources of economic growth through the fuel and energy and military-industrial complex. Attempts to introduce science-intensive technologies (radio electronics, computer science, computer technology, biotechnology, etc.) into mass production did not bring the expected results. The structure of the Soviet economy was becoming more and more irrational, one-sided, with a bias towards heavy industry and with minimal access to the immediate needs of the people.
By the beginning of the 1970s, when the impact of the 1965 reform was still felt in the economy, it became clear that it was gradually curtailing, although no one canceled economic methods of management, and party documents constantly emphasized the need to increase capital productivity, reduce production costs and capital intensity of production and etc.
By the end of 1970, out of 49,000 industrial enterprises, more than 41,000 were transferred to the new economic system, which accounted for 95% of the profits and 93% of the total industrial output. An attempt was even made to transfer the apparatus of the Ministry of Instrument Engineering, Automation and Control Systems to self-supporting principles.
The reform of A. N. Kosygin was doomed to failure from the very beginning, since it left the deep relations of production unchanged - property relations. The reform was based on incompatible principles: the expansion of the rights of enterprises and the strengthening of centralization. Although enterprises became formally more independent, they did not have the right to set the price for their products themselves. The same thing happened with the right of the enterprise to independently dispose of the labor force, hire the necessary workers, and fire unnecessary or poorly performing people. Here, the heads of enterprises encountered fierce resistance from the trade unions and the party apparatus, who were afraid to arouse the slightest manifestations of discontent among the workers.
So, the economic reform of 1965 marked the most ambitious attempt to improve the socialist economic system, but this attempt turned out to be half-hearted and did not give noticeable sustainable results. The party leadership of the country, having taken several steps forward towards the market, did not dare to further transform the economic system, since this would inevitably lead to the need for political liberalization.
And in the end, this reform, like all the previous ones, actually turned out to be aimed at prolonging the existence of the command-administrative system itself, since it did not reject its basic principles, without which attempts to reform the economy could not have the desired effect.
2.2 Consequences of reforming the command economy.
Gradually, the word “reform” itself began to disappear from the generally accepted lexicon, and the terms “improvement”, “perfection” appeared in its place. And although party congresses and plenums continued to repeat phrases about the need for “an organic combination of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with the advantages of the socialist economic system,” departmental monopoly inevitably rejected the ideas of scientific and technological progress, and the inertia and inertness of anti-reformist thinking gained more and more strength.
As a universal means of solving all socio-economic problems, an increase in the leading role of the Communist Party, the extension of party control to all spheres of society was proclaimed. In accordance with the decisions of the XXIV Congress of the CPSU (1971), the Charter of the Party included a provision that the right to control the activities of the administration was vested in party organizations not only in the sphere of production, but also in research institutes, educational institutions, cultural and educational institutions and etc. In order to achieve the fulfillment of plans, party workers performed the functions of dispatchers, suppliers, monitored, for example, the implementation of direct economic relations between enterprises, etc. At the same time, a unique position was preserved: the party leads and controls everywhere, and state bodies and heads of enterprises are responsible for failures.
The practice of organizing various "initiatives" aimed at achieving unprecedented economic results has spread throughout the country, for example: to hand over to the state "6 million tons of Uzbek cotton", "1 million tons of Kuban rice", "Kazakhstan billion poods of grain", etc., while direct losses associated with the incredible strain of human resources, with violation of the environment, were not calculated at all.
Great success has been achieved by the so-called "shadow economy", which flourished in full bloom in the field of total nationalization of economic structures and deft manipulation of the deficit. Particularly absurd was the intensification of general scarcity against the background of absolutely incredible surpluses of various types of raw materials and materials. And since the heads of enterprises could not manage unnecessary resources on their own, underground businessmen did it for them, who performed market functions and helped maintain the viability of the Soviet economy and satisfy its needs. "Shadow business", merging with representatives of the party-state apparatus in the center and in the field, controlled the turnover of billions of dollars of tax-free funds.
In the same years, the country's leadership tried to get away from the extensive development of the economy, but it became increasingly difficult to do so. And although it was officially stated that the country went through the stage of industrialization back in the 1930s, in reality the economy of the USSR in the 1960s-1970s was not distinguished by a high level of technical development. The process of transition from domestic labor methods to machine technology continued in all branches of material production, while the industrialized countries had already gone far ahead along the path of scientific and technological progress, mastering its new achievements. Thus, in the early 1980s, the share of those employed in heavy physical labor in the industry of the USSR was about 40%, in construction - 60%, in agriculture - about 70%, and the rate of its displacement decreased every year.
Catching up with the Western countries, the Soviet Union "catch up" this gap by the same extensive methods: by involving in the production of additional material and human resources, so the backlog of many industries was growing, acquiring stagnant features. For the growth of each additional percentage of gross domestic product, more and more funds had to be spent. So, if in the years of the fourth five-year plan a little more than a third of all budget allocations were directed to the needs of the national economy, then in the eleventh five-year plan - already 56%. Appropriations for social and cultural programs were gradually reduced: from 37.4% in 1970 to 32.5% in 1985. The economy with human resources was under great stress. Due to the constant decline in the birth rate, the proportion of young people entering social production for the first time decreased noticeably: from 12 million people in 1971-1975 to 3 million people in 1981-1985. The mass migration of people from the countryside to the city intensified in the country. If in 1959 the population of cities was 47.9%, then in 1981 it was already 63.4%.
And although the tenth five-year plan (1976-1980) was proclaimed the "five-year period of efficiency and quality", the results of the work were very modest. As before, the structure of the economy remained the same as it was in the 1930s-1950s, that is, with the predominance of heavy, capital-intensive industry. The extraction of natural resources moved to the harsh and hard-to-reach regions of the North and Siberia.
In the early 1970s, as a result of the global raw materials and energy crisis, energy prices in Western markets rose sharply. Therefore, it was decided to speed up the supply of oil and gas to the West. During the period from 1960 to 1985, the share of fuel and raw materials in Soviet exports rose from 16.2% to 54.4%, while the share of machinery and sophisticated equipment fell from 20.7% to 12.5%. The foreign trade of the USSR began to increasingly acquire a pronounced "colonial" character. Revenues from the sale of oil and oil products in 1974-1984, according to the most conservative estimates, amounted to 176 billion foreign currency rubles, a stream of "petrodollars" literally poured into the country. But it should be noted that these funds had a very modest impact on the development of the country's economy, the Cost Mechanism grinded this money, which was invested in the implementation of expensive, unpromising and environmentally harmful long-term construction (Astrakhan gas condensate plant, Tengizpolimer gas chemical complex, Volga-Chogray canal in Kalmykia and etc.). Petrodollars were frozen for decades in unfinished construction, spent on the purchase of imported equipment, which then settled in warehouses, or even simply ended up in the open.
By the mid-1980s, oil revenues began to decline, as many industrialized countries managed to shift their economies to energy-saving technologies, as a result of which the demand for oil fell, world market prices began to fall, which immediately negatively affected the development of the Soviet economy. economy.
In 1979, another attempt was made by the government of A.N. Kosygin to give a second wind to the reform of the economy, to put an end to the notorious gross indicators. To do this, an indicator of standard-net production was established, according to which enterprises had to take into account only the newly created value without the cost of raw materials, materials, etc. It was assumed that this innovation would stimulate the introduction of new technology, improve product quality, and force them to abandon the division of products into profitable and unprofitable. This did not imply a radical reform of the command-administrative system, but was aimed only at its next modernization.
In November 1982, after the death of L.I. Brezhnev Yu.V. became the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Andropov, whose activity was marked by the mass replacement of ministers, secretaries of regional committees and the Central Committee of the Union republics with new faces and the all-round strengthening of discipline. Negative processes continued to grow in the economy. Industrial enterprises worked in conditions of constant irregularity in the supply of raw materials and materials.
In 1982, at the initiative of the Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee for Agriculture M.S. Gorbachev, another ambitious and unrealistic "Food Program" was adopted, the implementation of which was proclaimed a national cause, but its fate was the same as that of many other previously adopted programs. It was planned that the average annual grain harvest would increase in 1981-1985 to 238-243 million tons, but in reality it amounted to only 180 million tons, which turned out to be 25% lower than the average for the years of the tenth five-year plan.
The country has become the world's largest grain importer. Grain was purchased in the USA, Canada, Australia, Argentina and other countries. In 1972, the USSR bought 18 million tons of grain from the USA, and in 1979 - 25 million tons of grain. According to the previously concluded agreement, the USSR could continue to purchase 15 million tons annually for five years without special permission from the American government, which meant the recognition of the collapse of the Soviet agrarian policy.
The inability of agriculture to feed the population of their country pointed not only to the internal vices of the Soviet system, but also to the general socio-economic backwardness. Thus, in the 1970s, 2.5-3% of the working population was employed in agriculture in the United States, and 25% in the USSR. In 1970, one Soviet agricultural worker produced 4.5 tons of grain, 320 kg of meat and 2.8 tons of milk per year, while one American worker produced 54.7 tons of grain, 4570 kg of meat, 11.8 tons of milk. in year. Labor productivity in US agriculture in the mid-1970s was four to five times higher than in the USSR.
By the early 1980s, the state of the Soviet economy continued to deteriorate. Thus, the annual increase in the national income of the country decreased from 9% in 1965 to 2.6% in 1982, and industrial production - from 7.3 to 2.8%.
The Soviet economy as a whole lagged noticeably behind the industrialized countries. In the structure of the national economy, the predominant role belonged to the mining and fuel industries, these industries accounted for up to 40% of all production assets and the country's labor force. Labor productivity in the mid-1970s in Soviet industry was half that in the United States. The economy of the USSR as a whole produced in 1979 no more than 60% of American products.
2.3 Perestroika and its results.
In March 1985, after the death of K.U. Chernenko, M.S. was elected General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Gorbachev, and N.I. became the Chairman of the Council of Ministers. Ryzhkov. A new and last stage in the history of the USSR began, which soon received the name « perestroika ».
The new leadership of the country faced the need to stop the collapse of the system of "state socialism" and protect the interests of the ruling nomenklatura. To this end, cautious reforms of all social structures, including the economy, began to be carried out, since a deep crisis had already managed to cover the main links of the system.
In mid-1988, laws were passed that allowed private enterprises to open in more than 30 types of industrial activities. In accordance with these laws, a large sector of the “shadow economy” was actually legalized, where, according to the most conservative estimates, up to 90 billion rubles were “scrolled”. (on the scale of prices of that time), inherited by their owners in a variety of ways, including criminally punishable.
On the general wave of the revival of democratic ideas, workers' self-management spread throughout the country. Enterprise Councils began to be created, elected at general meetings of labor collectives, which had fairly large powers, for example, the right to elect and dismiss directors. But in the late 1980s, the so-called self-government came to naught, and power again passed into the hands of the directors, who later, in the 1990s, began to represent a major economic and political force in the country.
A characteristic phenomenon of the late Soviet period was the development of rental relations, on which party and state leaders placed great hopes in the hope of increasing the interest of workers in the results of labor. In accordance with the Lease Law, the labor collective could lease its enterprise from the state in order to further privatize it by buying it out at purely symbolic prices. The rental sector began to grow very dynamically, and by the end of February 1992, more than 9.4 thousand Russian enterprises were leased out, the number of employees in which amounted to 8% of all workers in the country. The Russian government decided to put this process on hold and in 1992 stopped entering into new lease agreements.
In 1989-1991, new forms of production associations became widespread - concerns, corporations, which were created as follows: a group of state enterprises and departments of sectoral ministries formed an association. By the end of 1991, there were approximately 3076 associations, 227 concerns and 123 consortiums in Russia. It was very difficult to calculate their number more accurately due to the endless cross-ownership.
In June 1990, a resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR « On the concept of transition to a regulated market economy » and a number of other documents that provided for the gradual demonopolization, decentralization and denationalization of property, the creation of joint-stock companies, the reform of credit and pricing policies, the system of wholesale trade in equipment and raw materials, electricity, the development of private entrepreneurship, etc. True, the implementation of these legislative acts was postponed for a year, because the government was afraid of their impact on the deterioration of the situation in the country.
In some republics, the development of their own economic programs began, which were an alternative to the programs of the union government. So, in Russia in 1990 appeared « 500 days program », developed by a team of economists led by Academician S. Shatalin and approved by the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR.
In 1988, it became clear that things in the economy were not improving, and the price of reforms was growing noticeably. Moreover, for the first time, the thesis was voiced about the inevitability of the painful nature of economic reforms, about the impossibility of carrying out reforms in such a way that everyone would benefit from them. At the first Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR (May-June 1989), N.P. Shmelev called for a more resolute liberalization of the economy, to form on this basis a competitive environment for domestic producers, and for this to use gold and foreign exchange reserves, foreign capital, etc. But N. Ryzhkov's government categorically refused these proposals, hiding behind, mainly, ideological reasons.
In 1988, the decline in production in agriculture became more noticeable, and in 1990 - in industry. The financial system continued to collapse. In 1989, the budget deficit amounted to 11% of GNP, and in 1991 - already 16%. External debt by the end of 1991 exceeded 60 billion dollars. Inflation rose sharply: if in 1990 inflation was 10%, then at the end of 1991 it reached 25% per week, which led to the flourishing of the "black" market and the general deficit. The gold reserves in 1985-1991 decreased by 10 times and amounted to only 240 tons at the end of 1991. Oil production decreased from 560 million tons in 1989 to 461 million tons. in 1991.
One of the important factors that influenced the deterioration of the economic situation was the exorbitant military spending of the USSR. At the end of 1990, there were 4.5-4.7 million people in the country's Armed Forces. While seeking military parity with the United States, the USSR nevertheless produced in the late 1980s several times more tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery pieces, bombers, submarines, short and medium-range missiles, etc. Millions of tons of diesel fuel were sent to the needs of the army, while it was sorely lacking in agriculture.
The food problem in the country was getting worse. Since 1989, the deficit for the most necessary foodstuffs has been growing. Various regulations were introduced for the sale of not only food, but also many other goods. In 1990, cards, coupons, coupons, business cards appeared throughout the country, including Moscow, which regulated the distribution of meat, butter, sugar, tobacco, flour, various cereals, baby food, wine and vodka products, etc. And in 1991, the country began to receive humanitarian aid from different countries and international organizations. Thus, the implementation of the Food Program ended. A similar fate befell other "perestroika" programs: housing (each family - an apartment or a house by 2000), "Comprehensive Program for the Development of the Production of Consumer Goods and the Services Sector for 1986-2000". But the housing problem only worsened, and the store shelves were empty.
In connection with the growing difficulties in the economy, the country's leadership decided to reform the political system of the USSR, since it increasingly began to manifest itself as a factor in the "braking mechanism" of reforms. In order to neutralize the influence of the conservative majority in the top party leadership, M. Gorbachev initiated the processes of democratization of society in the form of the so-called "glasnost". Beginning around mid-1987, a top-controlled relaxation of media censorship began. The publication of previously banned books began, the demonstration of films put “on the shelf”, etc.
In the autumn of 1991, the situation in the Soviet economy was deteriorating right before our eyes and approaching catastrophic. The consumer market was practically non-existent, the shops in the cities were empty, the trade was carried out on coupons and business cards, which were not universally provided with resources.
The budget deficit was 20% of GDP and practically out of control. Foreign loans were completely exhausted, and no one in the world wanted to provide them anymore, since in December 1991 the country could not pay the interest on them. Gold and foreign exchange reserves were exhausted and reached an all-time low - only 289.6 tons, which was simply incomparable with the urgent financial obligations and needs of the country. On the eve of winter, cities experienced major problems with energy and heat supply due to irregular fuel supplies 2 .
In these extreme circumstances, which required extremely quick and decisive measures, in November-December 1991, the Russian government, headed by President B.N., assumed responsibility for the fate of the country. Yeltsin, who had two options for further action.
In accordance with first from them, it was necessary first to stabilize the economic situation with the help of traditional Soviet methods: tightening the supply and marketing system, balancing prices by their next rise, expanding the sphere of card distribution of consumer goods.
The government of the USSR tried break the crisis tion in the economy. At the end of 1990, the new head of government was V.S. Pavlov, who represented the interests of conservative economic kikh and political circles and the military-industrial complex. To stop the centrifugal tendencies, a course was taken to tighten economic measures. Nika There were no more talks about privatization and liberalization.
In the summer of 1991, V. Pavlov demanded that the Supreme Council give the government emergency powers to pursue a stabilization course in the economy in order to concentrate all power in the hands of the executive bodies (as opposed to the legislative branch). The Supreme Soviet of the USSR did not support this demand. Moreover, the legislators have accelerated the development of a number of legal acts fixing the process of creation and functioning of a market economy (bills on privatization, on entrepreneurship, etc.).
Very unsuccessful attempts at conservative stabilization led some of the leaders of the Soviet Union to create the State Committee for the State of Emergency (GKChP) on August 19, 1991, which was, in essence, an attempted coup d'état. The leaders of the State Emergency Committee came up with a very populist and practically impossible program for the country's exit from the crisis. On August 21, 1991, the putsch failed, and with it all M. Gorbachev's hopes for signing a new Union Treaty (the Novo-Ogarevsky process) collapsed, the purpose of which was to reform the Soviet Union on other principles.
It was from this moment that the process began. actual decay the USSR as a single state, liquidation of the allied authorities. The Union government was replaced by the Interstate Economic Committee (IEC), which had practically no authority to manage the economy. Basically, all the functions of the IEC were related to the division of the legacy of the USSR and attempts to develop and sign an economic agreement between the union republics. But since the republics began to make mutual claims to each other, the signing of this agreement turned out to be unrealistic.
The collapse of the USSR has entered a decisive stage. In August 1991, the Baltic republics announced their withdrawal from it. On December 1, a referendum was held in Ukraine, in which the population of the republic spoke out about its full independence.
On December 8, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (co-founders of the USSR) B. Yeltsin, L. Kravchuk and S. Shushkevich signed the so-called "Belovezhskaya agreement" on the denunciation of the Union Treaty of 1922 and announced the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). On December 21, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan joined the CIS in Alma-Ata. Thus, the fact of the collapse of the Soviet Union as a single state was confirmed. December 25, 1991 M.S. Gorbachev resigned from the post of President of the USSR in connection with the disappearance of this state,
Thus ended the almost seventy-year period of the existence of the USSR, and most of it passed under the sign of the development and strengthening of the command-administrative system, which by that time had actually outlived itself.
Conclusion
In my term paper, I pursued the goal of finding out what factors influenced the transition from a command economy to a market economy. These main factors are: an extremely high degree of nationalization of the economy, the almost complete absence of a legal private sector at that time, with a steadily expanding "shadow economy"; the long existence of a fundamentally non-market economy, which weakened the economic initiative of the majority of the population and gave rise to an exaggerated idea of the social role of the state; an extremely distorted structure of the national economy, where the military-industrial complex played a leading role, and the role of industries focused on the consumer market was downplayed; non-competitiveness of the predominant part of industries and agriculture.
All this was exacerbated by the lack of consensus in society about the transition to a market system itself, which led to an almost continuous socio-political crisis.
The strategic goal of the transition period in Russia is the formation of an efficient market economy with a strong social orientation. The conditions for creating such an economy are: the predominance of private property; creation of a competitive environment; an effective state that provides reliable protection of property rights and creates conditions for economic growth; an effective system of social protection; open competitive economy in the world market.
The formation of a modern market economy in Russia takes place in conditions of intertwining and mutually aggravating economic, political and social crises, which delays the transition to a market system for decades and increases the pain of the transition processes themselves.
I can conclude that the prevailing in the first half of the 90s. The Russian market economy model includes a number of features inherited from the historical past. The state, even after the privatization of a large part of the property, still has a powerful public sector in the most important sectors of the economy. There is a close relationship between political power and property.
At the same time, the state, having lost in the course of privatization a considerable part of its former sources of income, retained an unbearable amount of financial obligations for it, which causes a protracted crisis in the state budget.
Bibliographic list
1. Iokhin V.Ya. Economic theory M.; UNITI 2004. 253p.
2. Menshikov S. Economy of Russia: practical and theoretical issues of transition to the market M.: International relations 1996. 157p.
3. Abalkin N. I. The course of the transitional economy. M.: Finstatinform, 1997. 416p.
4. Gruzinov V.P. Enterprise economics: a textbook for universities. M.: UNITI, 1998. 535 p.
5. Korchagin M.N. The modern economy of Russia. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2007. 210s.
6. Microeconomics. Theory and Russian practice: textbook / coll. M 59 auth.; ed. prof. A. G. Gryaznova and prof. A. Yu. Yudanova. Financial Academy under the Government of the Russian Federation-7th ed., Sr. - M.: KNORUS, 2007.-624 p.
7. Timoshina T.M. Economic history of Russia. Proc. allowance./ Ed. prof. M. N. Chepurina - M .: Information and Publishing House "Filin", Legal House "Justitsinform", 1998.-432 p.
8. Ulanov V.S. Economic systems. Moscow: Phoenix, 2001. 318 p.
9. Shelyatenko VV Alternative systems of capitalism.//World economy and international relations. 2003.No. 3.S. 3-12.
10. Shishkin A.F. Economic theory: textbook. allowance for universities. 2nd edition.: In 2 books. Book 1.-M.: VLADOS Humanitarian Publishing Center, 1996. 656 pp.: ill.
11. Economic theory: textbook. allowance. P-1: Introduction to the course. General foundations of economic theory. / Under the general editorship. V. A. Sheshina. - Barnaul: Ed. AGAU, 2002. 112p.
12. Yushin N.K. Economy of the USSR. M.: Filin, 2002. 284 p.
